Oh, I've seen all that before, and worse. My house was actually built in 1919 (it was a very fancy house for the age), and although it was planned infinitely better than most 50's houses I have worked on, the electrical is basically completely backwards. Every switch was switching the neutral. Every polarized outlet was wired opposite the way it should be done. I've yet to figure out how this one three-way circuit actually managed to work (4 pole switches?!).
The main (well, only) branch circuit looked like they tried to wire it in parallel between two 15A fuses. I guess, to do an even better job of protecting the 14 gauge wiring (lol). Proof that they really had no devices capable of producing even a modest load... Otherwise the house would have probably burned to the ground long ago!
Have you ever seen a typical home that hasn't been touched since the late 40's-50's? It had a refrigerator, a radio everyone huddled around, a single light bulb and one outlet in each room (there being very few rooms to begin with), if you were fortunate--two outlets if you're very lucky. They didn't have central air, or big screens TVs and computers humming along all day, burning through thousands upon thousands of kWh.
I see that 10% number float around from time to time. Don't know where it comes from, or if it's remotely accurate at all--but if I had to guess: should we undertake *ALL* of that energy research and weapon building today, it would be dwarfed compared to the country's power bill for A/C alone.
So, if you accidentally get too close to a boom, beach or oiled up critter, you're in the same category as someone who encourages minors to engage in obscene sexual acts? Just the same as said perv, you may be labeled a felon, and you could also stand to lose rights such as the ones below?
Voting rights? (Haha. No more of that for you. Sucker.)
Your right to own firearms? *
Want to run for office in order to change this lunacy? Not any more.
It all seems a bit excessive to me. If people really are out there being mischievous and endangering the safety of vessels and workers, fine. But, the government doesn't really need new rules to lay the smackdown on random troublesome assholes, do they? There are already laws which could be applied, so, one really can take this as a limitation specifically designed for journalists.
* Well, I could see how going through a felony conviction like this, for something so innocent, would make you want to shoot the SOB(s) who thought this was a good idea.
Yeah... That came out of left field or something. I'm not even sure what that has to do with anything. As if this hypothetical couldn't happen under a management with less potential scrutiny... Which is all the GP's idea would provide. If you're alone in a desert, you ideally don't do anything to make the vultures get excited at the prospect of a meal. If you shoot yourself in the foot, you've had it, right? That's the idea. Potential of punishment for politicians who make grossly terrible decisions simply brings vultures into the equation.
The founding fathers of the U.S. put in safeguards to protect their own interests (*representative* democracy instead of direct, the electoral college, etc.)
You're kidding, right? The electoral college, and Representative Democracy (which we call a Republic) is a practical solution to a problem which was a big deal back then. When our country first formed from the 13 colonies, it was bigger in land mass than a few of the largest European countries put together--and the people were much more spread out.
A direct democracy over such distances and comprising such a vast number of people is simply impractical, if not impossible. This is compounded by the growth and formation of new states, and an ever westward moving frontier.
On the other hand, the inventors of democracy struggle to make it work on a consistent basis, no less on an country the size of New York state. Having a representative democracy helps to protect the minority from the majority--and it also keeps the undereducated peons from simply voting in more and more socialist benefits for themselves.
Simply put: Our country would be royally fucked if we had direct democracy.
Hell, they were so unorganized they lost munitions to the French underground... Weapons which were then used to knock-off various officers.
The OSS even had this great plan of air-dropping hundreds of thousands of el-cheapo.45 caliber pistols in time for D-Day, so that Frenchmen could cause problems behind the front. It wasn't even necessary, because they were already armed much better. When bands of Frenchmen give you problems, you know you're in it deep when Ivan comes knocking.
(no insult to the French Resistance intended, they really did a hell of a job at slowing and disorganizing the German war-machine)
people who hold onto the hope that the American military is in fact capable of bringing about more freedom and democracy in the world
I'm not one of them, and I still support developing cool new weapons... Not so that we can bring freedom to foreign peoples, but so we can pulverize them into a fine pink mist, if they ever fuck with us. The last time that our military helped deliver freedom was during WWII--arguably the last war worth fighting. Even so, the other wars could have been successful, if we kept the politicians out of making battlefield decisions.
My consideration is this: the freedom American people enjoy has done more to promote freedom across the world than any war we've fought. Our culture is for better or worse, contagious. Dictators and other high-level malefactors the world over do everything possible to keep that influence OUT. Our military is no threat to them and their power (until they fuck with us, of course)---but our culture is!
Fortunately, most people don't have depth perception-deficient Kuato-like mutants living in their abdomen... I suppose you technically could include pregnant women, but that's another thing all together, right?
Do you really want to see how cutthroat politics can be when losing an election as an incumbent means you face jail time?
Absolutely. If their freedom was at stake, it would mean that every bill is analyzed to the 9th degree, and that would make sure bad decisions were virtually nonexistent--because any decision at all would be a rare creature. It would slow government action down to a snail's pace--and that alone would be the best possible thing to ever happen to individual freedom.
And I'd take facing someone with a knife over a gun any day.
As others have pointed out, though less bluntly, you're a fool. I can say that as someone who has seen his share of both types of wounds.
If you're hit in a vital spot with either a knife or a gun, you're in trouble. The difference is, criminals tend to carry concealable, small caliber handguns, with store bought FMJ ammo--which basically pushes a nice straight hole through the body. A lot of people live though this sort of shooting.
But a guy with a sharp knife can make you look like something a great white shark spat out, in about two seconds flat. God forbid he knows a thing or two about anatomy, and has a basic amount of experience.
1) The offending legislation was the Hughes amendment to the 1986 Firearms Owners Protection Act. It was an 11:30th hour amendment to that bill, that was somehow included very sneakily or fraudulently by NY and NJ representatives--after the HoR denied to include it by vote. The bill including the amendment was passed to Senate, and they in turn passed it to Regan to sign, which he did. It wasn't an executive order--and I don't think a president could get away with something like that.
It's a wonder it hasn't been challenged. That's the NRA for ya though, and the anti-gunners think they're a big, powerful and competent lobby group. LOL.
2) You need to get a Type 1 FFL, there is no such animal as a "Class 3" FFL. Class 3 refers to the Special Occupational Tax. It's commonly misapplied to Title II weapons.
3) Special Occupational Tax: "SOT" as the industry calls it a $500/year tax which enables your FFL to transfer and deal Title II weapons (Short Barrel Rifle , SB Shotguns, AOWs, MGs and suppressors) without any other tax requirements. It gets you around paying the standard taxes required for receiving these weapons. Alcohol and Tobacco (sound familiar) retailers and distributors also pay a Special Occupational Tax to do the analogous activity without paying the tax federal tax--which is what the consumer does. It's not strictly required to deal or receive these items--it's just that the tax adds up very quickly.
4) Even after you become a dealer and all of that you still generally need a demo letter from a police agency BEFORE you can receive a post 86 machine gun--the ATF won't approve the transfer otherwise. ATF Form 3 is the Application to transfer a Title II weapon tax-free. Even for a FFL/Dealer, you have to APPLY to transfer the above items--for everything except machine guns, it's basically a given. Ostensibly, this is so they can track the movement of EVERY item.
So, you'll have to become buddies with the local PD Chief/Sheriff who understands the process--generally they have to be interested in purchasing weapons at the very least.. Once you have it you can keep it indefinitely, though.
5) If you don't want to go the demo letter route, you can get one of the various eligible manufacturer FFLs, pay the yearly Department of State ITAR registration, pay the SOT, and make your machine gun out of a semi-auto (whatever), and register it (ATF form 2) with the ATF yourself.
Don't they ban fully automatic rifles for civilian use in the USA?
The short answer is no.
The long answer is: Not insofar as an outright ban. They're legal in the vast majority of states, but are regulated at the federal level. The 1934 NFA bill required the federal registration of machine guns, and taxed machine guns (and other title 2 weapon) transfers at a rate of $200 each--for perspective: at that time if you had a little bit over a hundred bucks more you could buy a brand new Ford sedan.
The authors/supporters thought an outright ban wouldn't pass muster at the supreme court as they successfully recognized it would be a violation of the 2nd Amendment. So, they decided the next best thing would be a tax so steep that it would be tantamount to a ban, effectively pricing out all but the very wealthy... Which hurt especially during the great depression.
Again in 1986, newly manufactured machine guns were made unavailable to citizens, which drove the prices of previously registered machine guns through the roof. With some patience and a wad of cash, you can get pretty much anything you could want--unless it was developed after 1986.
What good does it do? I dunno. I guess it can get you off if you're into watt-range lasers.. This laser doesn't really change anything, since comparable devices have been available for years--but what it does is make it easier to access. I say: If/when drive-by laserings become a problem (which was practically never the case with legal machine guns), THEN do something about it. That's how our system is *supposed* to work
Until then the simple answer is: If someone uses it to assault someone, come down on them like a ton of bricks--just like what happens when some jackass shines a *much* less powerful laser into an aircraft cockpit.
they're all evil until YOU need one to help you navigate the law
Of course--after all, their kind created the sort of law which needs the assistance of a lawyer, in order to avoid becoming a criminal--even for the most mundane of transgressions. If you ask me, *that* is where the evil lies. It's basically the case of the fox guarding the hen house.
"The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws." - Ayn Rand
Unfortunately Mrs. Rand left out the part where the lawyers get to extort these myriad victims of the law. The law as it stands today is little more than a professionalized protection racket. The only thing the lawyers have over the mobsters is they're in a position to make it legal.
Hate to break it to you: Federal Air Marshals, they already have the guns on planes. It would be better, more effective for the UK to develop and/or expand on that idea.
That's enough to make a guy go killdozer on city hall. I think it's unwise for these public representatives to go around doing stuff like that--you never know what kind of psycho you're going to stir up. Checks and balances, you know.
Yeah, we have them too. There's an intersection near my home where occasionally (and by that, I mean woefully often), some clueless bastard makes an improvised right turn lane where one aught not to be--an area about the width of a car which is not covered by the hall effect sensors. All it takes is another clueless bastard to get in line behind him, and voila--instant traffic jam.
It got to the point when I see this happening, I just pass them all, and park right on the sensor. One time, it was about a quarter mile of cars just sitting there.
I wonder if it's possible to patent some kind of a firework launching system which is activated by stupid drivers, to wake them up/and or humiliate them... Because that could make billions.
Accidents are rarely accidents, someone fucked up.
I agree. Maybe we should start calling these events "neglidents" (I say, it's a joke, son!)... Let's use the obligatory/. car analogy:
Having a heart attack and driving into a bunny orphanage: Accident. Texting and driving into a driving into a bunny orphanage: Neglident. An elephant jumps out from behind a truck, you swerve only to crash into a bunny orphanage: Accident. Going too fast poor weather, you lose control and crash into a bunny orphanage: Neglident.
Accident should only apply to specific events where the cause and outcome would be unforeseen prior to the time of the event. For everything else there's Neglidents®.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, I've seen all that before, and worse. My house was actually built in 1919 (it was a very fancy house for the age), and although it was planned infinitely better than most 50's houses I have worked on, the electrical is basically completely backwards. Every switch was switching the neutral. Every polarized outlet was wired opposite the way it should be done. I've yet to figure out how this one three-way circuit actually managed to work (4 pole switches?!).
The main (well, only) branch circuit looked like they tried to wire it in parallel between two 15A fuses. I guess, to do an even better job of protecting the 14 gauge wiring (lol). Proof that they really had no devices capable of producing even a modest load... Otherwise the house would have probably burned to the ground long ago!
That in itself doesn't say very much, does it?
Have you ever seen a typical home that hasn't been touched since the late 40's-50's? It had a refrigerator, a radio everyone huddled around, a single light bulb and one outlet in each room (there being very few rooms to begin with), if you were fortunate--two outlets if you're very lucky. They didn't have central air, or big screens TVs and computers humming along all day, burning through thousands upon thousands of kWh.
I see that 10% number float around from time to time. Don't know where it comes from, or if it's remotely accurate at all--but if I had to guess: should we undertake *ALL* of that energy research and weapon building today, it would be dwarfed compared to the country's power bill for A/C alone.
So, if you accidentally get too close to a boom, beach or oiled up critter, you're in the same category as someone who encourages minors to engage in obscene sexual acts? Just the same as said perv, you may be labeled a felon, and you could also stand to lose rights such as the ones below?
It all seems a bit excessive to me. If people really are out there being mischievous and endangering the safety of vessels and workers, fine. But, the government doesn't really need new rules to lay the smackdown on random troublesome assholes, do they? There are already laws which could be applied, so, one really can take this as a limitation specifically designed for journalists.
* Well, I could see how going through a felony conviction like this, for something so innocent, would make you want to shoot the SOB(s) who thought this was a good idea.
Sounds dandy to me. That's the way it should have worked, from the beginning.
It's just like how many buildings skip from floor 12 to 14.
Aye, but they don't really skip that floor. That's where all the leprechauns stay, afterall.
Used to do something similar with hydrogen, oxygen and balloons--then eventually a 50 gallon trash bag or two...
It's impressive what a near stoichiometric ratio of hydrogen and oxygen can do.
Fight organized crime! Re-elect nobody!
Yeah... That came out of left field or something. I'm not even sure what that has to do with anything. As if this hypothetical couldn't happen under a management with less potential scrutiny... Which is all the GP's idea would provide. If you're alone in a desert, you ideally don't do anything to make the vultures get excited at the prospect of a meal. If you shoot yourself in the foot, you've had it, right? That's the idea. Potential of punishment for politicians who make grossly terrible decisions simply brings vultures into the equation.
The founding fathers of the U.S. put in safeguards to protect their own interests (*representative* democracy instead of direct, the electoral college, etc.)
You're kidding, right? The electoral college, and Representative Democracy (which we call a Republic) is a practical solution to a problem which was a big deal back then. When our country first formed from the 13 colonies, it was bigger in land mass than a few of the largest European countries put together--and the people were much more spread out.
A direct democracy over such distances and comprising such a vast number of people is simply impractical, if not impossible. This is compounded by the growth and formation of new states, and an ever westward moving frontier.
On the other hand, the inventors of democracy struggle to make it work on a consistent basis, no less on an country the size of New York state. Having a representative democracy helps to protect the minority from the majority--and it also keeps the undereducated peons from simply voting in more and more socialist benefits for themselves.
Simply put: Our country would be royally fucked if we had direct democracy.
Hell, they were so unorganized they lost munitions to the French underground... Weapons which were then used to knock-off various officers.
The OSS even had this great plan of air-dropping hundreds of thousands of el-cheapo .45 caliber pistols in time for D-Day, so that Frenchmen could cause problems behind the front. It wasn't even necessary, because they were already armed much better. When bands of Frenchmen give you problems, you know you're in it deep when Ivan comes knocking.
(no insult to the French Resistance intended, they really did a hell of a job at slowing and disorganizing the German war-machine)
people who hold onto the hope that the American military is in fact capable of bringing about more freedom and democracy in the world
I'm not one of them, and I still support developing cool new weapons... Not so that we can bring freedom to foreign peoples, but so we can pulverize them into a fine pink mist, if they ever fuck with us. The last time that our military helped deliver freedom was during WWII--arguably the last war worth fighting. Even so, the other wars could have been successful, if we kept the politicians out of making battlefield decisions.
My consideration is this: the freedom American people enjoy has done more to promote freedom across the world than any war we've fought. Our culture is for better or worse, contagious. Dictators and other high-level malefactors the world over do everything possible to keep that influence OUT. Our military is no threat to them and their power (until they fuck with us, of course)---but our culture is!
Yeah, 3 people in 2 get these headaches.
Fortunately, most people don't have depth perception-deficient Kuato-like mutants living in their abdomen... I suppose you technically could include pregnant women, but that's another thing all together, right?
Do you really want to see how cutthroat politics can be when losing an election as an incumbent means you face jail time?
Absolutely. If their freedom was at stake, it would mean that every bill is analyzed to the 9th degree, and that would make sure bad decisions were virtually nonexistent--because any decision at all would be a rare creature. It would slow government action down to a snail's pace--and that alone would be the best possible thing to ever happen to individual freedom.
And I'd take facing someone with a knife over a gun any day.
As others have pointed out, though less bluntly, you're a fool. I can say that as someone who has seen his share of both types of wounds.
If you're hit in a vital spot with either a knife or a gun, you're in trouble. The difference is, criminals tend to carry concealable, small caliber handguns, with store bought FMJ ammo--which basically pushes a nice straight hole through the body. A lot of people live though this sort of shooting.
But a guy with a sharp knife can make you look like something a great white shark spat out, in about two seconds flat. God forbid he knows a thing or two about anatomy, and has a basic amount of experience.
Still not quite right.
1) The offending legislation was the Hughes amendment to the 1986 Firearms Owners Protection Act. It was an 11:30th hour amendment to that bill, that was somehow included very sneakily or fraudulently by NY and NJ representatives--after the HoR denied to include it by vote. The bill including the amendment was passed to Senate, and they in turn passed it to Regan to sign, which he did. It wasn't an executive order--and I don't think a president could get away with something like that.
It's a wonder it hasn't been challenged. That's the NRA for ya though, and the anti-gunners think they're a big, powerful and competent lobby group. LOL.
2) You need to get a Type 1 FFL, there is no such animal as a "Class 3" FFL. Class 3 refers to the Special Occupational Tax. It's commonly misapplied to Title II weapons.
3) Special Occupational Tax: "SOT" as the industry calls it a $500/year tax which enables your FFL to transfer and deal Title II weapons (Short Barrel Rifle , SB Shotguns, AOWs, MGs and suppressors) without any other tax requirements. It gets you around paying the standard taxes required for receiving these weapons. Alcohol and Tobacco (sound familiar) retailers and distributors also pay a Special Occupational Tax to do the analogous activity without paying the tax federal tax--which is what the consumer does. It's not strictly required to deal or receive these items--it's just that the tax adds up very quickly.
4) Even after you become a dealer and all of that you still generally need a demo letter from a police agency BEFORE you can receive a post 86 machine gun--the ATF won't approve the transfer otherwise. ATF Form 3 is the Application to transfer a Title II weapon tax-free. Even for a FFL/Dealer, you have to APPLY to transfer the above items--for everything except machine guns, it's basically a given. Ostensibly, this is so they can track the movement of EVERY item.
So, you'll have to become buddies with the local PD Chief/Sheriff who understands the process--generally they have to be interested in purchasing weapons at the very least.. Once you have it you can keep it indefinitely, though.
5) If you don't want to go the demo letter route, you can get one of the various eligible manufacturer FFLs, pay the yearly Department of State ITAR registration, pay the SOT, and make your machine gun out of a semi-auto (whatever), and register it (ATF form 2) with the ATF yourself.
Well, I thought the idea was basically implicit :) But you're exactly right.
You don't need an FFL--you don't even need an FFL/dealer to transfer it to you, unless it's coming from out of state. You just need the tax stamp.
Don't they ban fully automatic rifles for civilian use in the USA?
The short answer is no.
The long answer is: Not insofar as an outright ban. They're legal in the vast majority of states, but are regulated at the federal level. The 1934 NFA bill required the federal registration of machine guns, and taxed machine guns (and other title 2 weapon) transfers at a rate of $200 each--for perspective: at that time if you had a little bit over a hundred bucks more you could buy a brand new Ford sedan.
The authors/supporters thought an outright ban wouldn't pass muster at the supreme court as they successfully recognized it would be a violation of the 2nd Amendment. So, they decided the next best thing would be a tax so steep that it would be tantamount to a ban, effectively pricing out all but the very wealthy... Which hurt especially during the great depression.
Again in 1986, newly manufactured machine guns were made unavailable to citizens, which drove the prices of previously registered machine guns through the roof. With some patience and a wad of cash, you can get pretty much anything you could want--unless it was developed after 1986.
What good does it do? I dunno. I guess it can get you off if you're into watt-range lasers.. This laser doesn't really change anything, since comparable devices have been available for years--but what it does is make it easier to access. I say: If/when drive-by laserings become a problem (which was practically never the case with legal machine guns), THEN do something about it. That's how our system is *supposed* to work
Until then the simple answer is: If someone uses it to assault someone, come down on them like a ton of bricks--just like what happens when some jackass shines a *much* less powerful laser into an aircraft cockpit.
they're all evil until YOU need one to help you navigate the law
Of course--after all, their kind created the sort of law which needs the assistance of a lawyer, in order to avoid becoming a criminal--even for the most mundane of transgressions. If you ask me, *that* is where the evil lies. It's basically the case of the fox guarding the hen house.
"The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws." - Ayn Rand
Unfortunately Mrs. Rand left out the part where the lawyers get to extort these myriad victims of the law. The law as it stands today is little more than a professionalized protection racket. The only thing the lawyers have over the mobsters is they're in a position to make it legal.
Hate to break it to you: Federal Air Marshals, they already have the guns on planes. It would be better, more effective for the UK to develop and/or expand on that idea.
That's enough to make a guy go killdozer on city hall. I think it's unwise for these public representatives to go around doing stuff like that--you never know what kind of psycho you're going to stir up. Checks and balances, you know.
Yeah, we have them too. There's an intersection near my home where occasionally (and by that, I mean woefully often), some clueless bastard makes an improvised right turn lane where one aught not to be--an area about the width of a car which is not covered by the hall effect sensors. All it takes is another clueless bastard to get in line behind him, and voila--instant traffic jam.
It got to the point when I see this happening, I just pass them all, and park right on the sensor. One time, it was about a quarter mile of cars just sitting there.
I wonder if it's possible to patent some kind of a firework launching system which is activated by stupid drivers, to wake them up/and or humiliate them... Because that could make billions.
Accidents are rarely accidents, someone fucked up.
I agree. Maybe we should start calling these events "neglidents" (I say, it's a joke, son!)... Let's use the obligatory /. car analogy:
Having a heart attack and driving into a bunny orphanage: Accident.
Texting and driving into a driving into a bunny orphanage: Neglident.
An elephant jumps out from behind a truck, you swerve only to crash into a bunny orphanage: Accident.
Going too fast poor weather, you lose control and crash into a bunny orphanage: Neglident.
Accident should only apply to specific events where the cause and outcome would be unforeseen prior to the time of the event. For everything else there's Neglidents®.
On a related note, check out this guy.
Come to think of it, last I heard only Hawaii had a safe storage law.