call me stupid, but what is the point of a silencer other than to commit crimes? Well i suppose there is hunting but unless your poaching your not going to be hunting on public land anyway
Poaching was in fact the primary argument used in favor of federally regulating silencers back in 1934--right in the middle of the great depression, I might add. I guess the feds didn't want people to feed themselves, you know, after they allowed the banks to fuck the entire world over.
Here's my two arguments in favor of silencers:
1) Shooting ranges close to residential property. In many European states which allow firearms, it's considered unsportsmanlike like to not use a silencer. It disturbs the neighbors. To enjoy two of my favorite pastimes, racing and shooting, you have to travel far outside the suburbs--to facilities which despite their remoteness will be in danger of closing as urban sprawl continues to spread. I can't tell you the number of places where I used to be able to go shoot that have been closed just for noise reasons.
Now, there's a few indoor ranges, with POOR ventilation. I swear I feel my lead levels rise every time I step in one (which I won't do any more). Or, I have to drive a hundred miles to find a spot in the forest to plink. Deregulating silencers would mean that people could practice at outdoor ranges closer to home.
2) Basic hearing protection: Most handguns produce sound levels in excess of 150dB. Rifles are much louder... Usually approaching 160dB (increase of 3dB is double power, remember). Since we know extended exposure to sound levels exceeding 85dB results in hearing loss, you need at least 65dB of hearing protection to not receive permanent damage.
The rub: even the best muffs will not be able to deliver more than 35dB of attenuation. Fancy electronic muffs usually do a bit less. Earplugs rarely attenuate more than 15dB (for a good molded pair). Even with GOOD, doubled up hearing protection (attenuating 50dB of broadband noise) a shooter can lose hearing. Most practiced right handed shooters have slightly worse hearing in the right ear for this reason--even if they took good precaution.
Silencers do not make a gun silent. A good small bore silencer can deliver 30-45dB attenuation on its own, bringing the sound to a safe level when used with muffs. A silenced 9mm or.22 can be potentially hearing safe on its own (with the addition of water), but you still get the sound of the cycling slide. It's not what they like to call "movie quiet", but you could probably practice outdoors if your neighbors weren't too close.
Plainly, the use of a silencer makes shooting safer, and more friendly a sport. Furthermore, in an indoor (home) defense scenario, the unprotected shooting of a pistol can have instantaneously debilitating concussion effects to those not acclimated, putting the defender at risk. A silencer can remove a lot of that effect.
If the silencer was the tool of choice for the professional hitman, I think we'd see a lot more of them used. It's not like an assassin cares about federal laws. But the fact is, they're not all that effective for their purposes. There are quieter ways of doing business.
They're present alright, but even discounting the whole continent of Africa, there's almost cerianly enough to keep the rest of the free world humping along, elsewhere. Oil or copper will be much more immediately contentious of a resource, all other things considered.
When or if it becomes more economically viable (profitable), Ti mines will certainly start up.
How much titanium is there, laying around, if the demand would suddenly start to rise?
How much of that titanium is locked up by China, who has seen for some time that strategic metals will become a growth limiter in the not-so-distant future?
A lot. It's pretty abundant, actually. It's just that with current processes, it's goddamn expensive to produce, uses large amounts of chlorine and energy, etc... That's the only practical reason for its rarity as a structural material.
AFAIK, China doesn't produce a significant amount of the requisite ores, or finished metal product for that matter. Most of the ore, by the way, gets processed into titanium dioxide, a very common white pigment which is used in Everything.
It may be bunk, but I dont think obama said it in an anti-gun way.
Hahaha. Oh, you! You should be a comedian!
The fact is, Obama and his pet Eric Holder were at first all too happy to use the current events in Mexico to try and push another "assault weapons" ban through (although "permanent" this time around)--and even though it has been shown the last one had no measurable effect.
I'm convinced the only reason it hasn't happened yet is because many Democratic congress critters learned a valuable lesson last time--namely, that they're easily replaced with Republicans. They've said they won't have any of it, simply because they'll be ejected next election cycle.
As much as I hate to admit, an article from Fox News had the correct view on the scoop Basically, the ATF said 90% of the guns traced by the ATF came from the US, because the rest obviously originated elsewhere and were not submitted. The rest of the news agencies misreported, because 90% is more sensational than 17%, and they're all liberals from big cities who want to see guns outlawed. I wonder just how many of the 83% of guns were engraved "propiedad del gobierno mexicano"
I think that 17% figure is argument enough to close the border to all vehicles not being individually searched and X-Rayed, borrow some of the Predator UAVs destined to the middle east (to fly over and observe the open areas of the border), and instead of putting up a big and expensive AND easily defeated fence, we should install a big and expensive, but much harder to defeat mine field.
I'm not trying to hate on the Mexicans who just want to have a better life and live within the law... But so many are just tax consuming leaches--it's not right. Legal immigration should be fine, but document them, make sure they speak the language and can get along (just like every other immigrant) and let them pay income tax as well. The drug smugglers would make good vulture food.
Many states are "open carry" states. Many more, while being more restrictive about public open carry have laws which make it legal for one to open carry on his own property. Exercise that right, while you're around your house at the very least, and problems go away. Personally, I usually strap one of my SBR AR-15s to my chest when I answer the door--unless I'm expecting someone, that is.
I've found no better deterrent for salesmen or those darn Jehovah's Witnesses, and lo and behold, I could never be lawfully accused of brandishing. If one of those crummy bill collectors showed up for any reason, I might just flick off the safety.
Yeah, you should have told everyone diesel was significantly cheaper than gas last November/December. You might have got a black eye from one of the guys who actually needs to drive his diesel truck/van to make a living.
Diesel was touching $5.00 a gallon, and gas was hovering around $3.00. It would cost me nearly $60 to fill up my Jetta TDI. By the way, the first fill up in 2002 cost me $16.53.
Patently bullshit. I can walk up to you with a concealed gun and shoot you in the head much more easily than with a concealed car.
In fact, the entire rest of your post is so idiotic that it's not worth dissecting. The self-evident facts are: - Guns are specifically desinged to kill things. All except some rifles are specifically designed to kill people.
Anyone could drive a car or truck up onto a busy urban sidewalk and maim/kill dozens of people in seconds, and the barrier to drive such a weapon is absolutely non-existent. Look at the douche who murdered five and wounded thirteen, during the Dutch queen's day. That was with a stupid go-nowhere subcompact. Imagine what could have happened if he had a full size sedan, or even worse, a 4x4 or commercial van!
Your points are likewise silly. Guns are tools, and nothing more. They aren't specifically designed to kill any more than a standard item in a carpenter's tool box, the lowly framing hammer. Hurting people is likewise not a natural consequence of their usage, or our tens of millions of these objects would kill millions per year. Speaking of hammers, there was a point in time where the were the most effective infantry weapon--capable of damaging both armored (knights) and unarmored enemies. The modern carpenter's framing hammer is essentially the same thing, except with a slightly shorter handle, and a claw for removing nails which is directly analogous to the bill on old war hammers--used to penetrate armor.
Yet a motivated person could just as easily sneak up on someone in a crowd with a concealed hammer, silently bash 'em on the head or base of the spine and return the weapon to concealment before anyone glimpses it. I guarantee most of the people there won't associate the guy with his brains leaking onto the sidewalk with an act of murder for a good minute or more, even though they were right there when it happened. Not so with a pistol. Most people will instantly recognize that sound, and the flock will panic.
Any tool useful to a task has positive and negative uses. There's no escaping it. For example, medieval engineers used their saws, hammers and other tools to build engines of destruction, instead of hovels. The minivan can ferry the kids to soccer practice, or it could be used to a destructive end. And finally, a bunch of physicists used more intellectual tools to create the most shocking tool of all--the bomb. A handgun can be used to murder someone, or it can be used to protect someone, just the same. The common thread is, none of these items can do anything until someone puts it to work.
- Guns _are_ the most efficient and easiest way to kill someone. Or do you think the army should use hit-and-runs or throw knives at the Taliban in Afghanistan?
No way. The easiest, most cost effective, most efficient, safest, and most thorough way to kill people is to use any number of poisonous gasses. Most have simple chemistry, are made from non-exotic components, and are trivial to weaponize. The runner up is probably massed artillery. Furthermore, your targets won't have even the most basic level of protection against gasses. If simply killing people was the goal of allied forces, hiking around a bunch of mountains with a rifle strapped to one's chest wouldn't be a very good choice. As it is, so-called assault weapons are most often used by a soldier to defend his, and his buddies' lives, not to storm positions.
I'll sum my feeling up thus: liberty is dangerous, but it's the best thing we've got.
Re: registered ammo: 1) You'd better be damned careful of where your empties go when you're practicing. An 'errant' case could place you at the scene of a crime. 2) all reloading equipment would have to be banned. 3) if you want to murder someone, it's all together too easy to cast up a chunk of lead or other material, roll up a few one-off cases (even if it requires making powder, primers) and use a revolver (they keep depleted cases in the cylinder until they're manually ejected), or modified semi-auto (without the microstamp on the firing pin)
Not to mention that it will be extraordinary expensive to make and track all of that ammo, and most importantly... It's freedom limiting to non-criminals. Feasible? Yeah, probably.
The answer is: Allowing men to be free may have its costs, but they are lesser than the costs of non-freedom.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" isn't in there because they wanted to practice their penmanship. So we have to determine why it's there. You could say that they were explaining why they included this right--which is certainly possible-- but that would make it the only one I can think of that they felt the need to justify. The only other possibility I can see is that it was intended to place some sort of restriction on the second part. But any limitation would be to be a direct contradiction of "shall not be infringed". Basically, it's a lesson about the importance of good writing skills.
1) It's an introductory phrase/clause, and a commonly used tool in English. There are many similar examples in the Constitution and bill of rights. We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union...
2) Many of the framers were not fond of large standing armies (for obvious reasons to them), and were non-trusting of a federal government that would raise them. Because of this, they believed the whole of the people should be the militia, and indeed a later amendment said (paraphrasing) the militia of the United States consists of all able bodied males age 17-45 who are citizens, or have made a declaration of intention to become a citizen. In other words, if you're healthy and in the bracket, and are a citizen, you're a militiaman.
Y'know, I wouldn't take that bet. Crazy people are considered crazy in no small part because they use skewed logic, or no logic at all. And "taking away our rights" doesn't really top the agenda of people who need bodyguards. Nor, I expect, the rationale for most assaults upon people who feel a need for bodyguards.
Well, the way I see it, being a celebrity is already the first opening for insane and possibly dangerous people enter your life, as has been the case with a number of celebrities--some stories didn't turn out so well... So, being a highly visible, highly vocal anti-gun celebrity, say Michael Moore, or Rosie O'Donnell for example, gives those with skewed logic and guns a reason to enter your life. I won't say that I agree with Moore or Rosies' motives, but sending death threats isn't right and doesn't solve anything... However, wouldn't you agree, the threat of violence is the primary reason why these folks have hired armed guards?
Now, I doubt that death threats against pro-gun actors and celebrities are so numerous (if there were a way to measure it). Did Selvester, Tom Selleck, Ah-nold, Kurt Russel, Ted Nugent, Heston, ever get so much hate mail? Probably not--but most of them are much more passive in their beliefs than the two above counter examples.
These folks have the right to speak their minds, and the celebrity status influences people to listen. However "taking away our right" is ostensibly their goal, and there's gonna be a few people who are drawn to them like moths to a flame, because of it.
I find it peculiar that they were willing to participate in criminal activity but could not bring themselves to spell the word "FUCKING".
And what part of his post indicated he was willing to participate in a criminal activity? 'Cause I must be either fucking stupid or blind, but the jist of the post was: his friend's dad witnessed a crime, was targeted and harassed by said criminals, wanted to get a carry permit to protect his life, but was denied.
If they weren't out there publicly trying to get our rights taken away, they wouldn't attract crazy people, therefore they wouldn't need the armed security.
Until then keep your deadly weapons and wild west "justice" out of my community.
So, move to LA, San Francisco, New York City, Chicago, etc. and the terrible worry about peacefully minded citizens taking legal means to protect themselves from assault, rape, robbery, etc. will never again burden you.
A good deal of that ammo IS steel tipped. The steel jacket alloy on soviet ammo isn't appreciably harder than copper--it pretty much has to be, otherwise barrels would wear out much sooner than need be. It wouldn't effect a metal backstop more than copper for that reason--except it'll spark and cause potential fire issues at the ranges which don't clean as often as they should.
No... Most indoor ranges I've been to had holes shot into their armor plate with steel core ammo. Now, most make it a point to use a magnet to check the bullets if it's suspect, and they weed out the steel jacket the same way.
Level III (not flexible, usually 1/2 inch of ceramic, in addition to typical fiber components) will stop up to non steel core 7.62x51 (nothing to sneeze at), but most officers will wear at best Level IIIA with the addition of a trauma plate over the sternum (some vests allow for the level 4 insert)... Most rifle rounds, of course, will sail right through that armor.
Also, the GP you refer to is quite right. A 12 gauge slug or heavy & fast.45 bullet (most gang bangers will never see a 10 gauge, however) might not knock you over, but even with the blunt trauma plates you're gonna get the wind knocked out of you, and you might also have some broken ribs. It's gonna reduce your fighting capacity, bottom line.
9mm loads developed specifically for SMGs use do exist (with pressures higher than 9mm NATO specs, approaching "proof" loads), but reality is they're pretty rare. Even SWAT and military teams who use 9mm SMGs (MP5s) aren't likely to ever see special SMG ammo. You'll see 9mm +P, and 9mm NATO (pressures are similar in both), but both are also capable of being used in service pistols, but beyond that.... No.
The Nazis had some pretty high pressure stuff for their MP40s, which might destroy their Lugers, but they were the last major users of such ammo. The truth is, there isn't that much benefit to it, simply because the volume of gases capable of being generated by the small powder capacity of 9x19 doesn't scale well for long arms. To get a marginal increase in velocity you must use powders which burn faster, giving the bullet higher initial velocity, but they also push the pressure levels up. The only reason anyone uses 9mm SMGs is they provide superior firepower and accuracy compared to pistols.
The Russians are re-inventing Nazi bullets designs, however. They use really light jacketed bullets, with iron or tungsten cores together with high pressure loads to get velocities needed to defeat body armor. I'd say the chances of gangs possessing these arms negligible at best, however.
What we need is this: a law which establishes the requirement of a multiple choice test, drafted from the text of any bill to be voted upon by our representatives. Measures will be taken so that they cannot cheat, etc. and that there are no cliffs notes of "House Bill XXYY"
Very simply, if the representative gets a 90% or greater score, he gets to vote yes on the bill, otherwise his vote, by law, is NO.
This would do three big things: 1) it's going to keep most stupid jerks and career douchebags out of office. 2) it will drastically narrow the focus of each bill (gonna make it harder to put special interest crap into bills) 3) allow The People to see the traitorous bastards for who they are (i.e. they fully understood the text of a bad law (Patriot Act, for example), but chose to vote for it anyway), they're a no good rat bastard, and the 2A comes into play.)
I am partial to the classic solution: Microfilm in a hollow tooth
Classic? That's some newfangled spy tech there, boy. Why, back in my day we scratched micro-cuneiform onto clay suppositories with spider hairs. Of course, anyone known to carry raw clay and spider hairs was shot on sight, so we had to mine the clay, build a kiln, and catch the spiders behind enemy lines, uphill both ways in the snow--and we liked it that way. Poor Johnson, couldn't find any fuel for his kiln. Yeah, the boys back at HQ never let that one go!
There's a few possible candidate thresholds but, when it comes to destruction, the ones that make the most sense are:
1. "self-sustaining" viability outside the womb (currently around 22 weeks gestation) or
2. significant nervous system complexity (somewhere between 9 to 20 weeks).
Mine is thus: If the subject were to be removed from the womb at its current stage of development, would an average human be repulsed/made extremely uncomfortable if he/she were forced to touch and hold it? Supposing it it were given a superficial cleaning, would an average human still have the same reservations? If the answer is yes to both accounts, it's not discernibly human.
The way I see it, humans (especially males) have to have a very sophisticated set of instincts which prevent them from willfully harming their offspring. Let's face it: in the animal kingdom, human infants reign supreme in the obnoxious department. At a fundamental level, we have to think they're cute, or our prehistoric ancestors would have bashed them all against rocks, and that would have been the end of our species.
The vast majority of people have this instinct in place--but it fails in a few of us occasionally, the screaming overwhelms, and you get shaken babies, babies in dumpsters, that kind of thing.
If an embryo, whatever can't pass the cute test, it's not a human.
punishment Function: noun 1 : the act of punishing 2 : a penalty (as a fine or imprisonment) inflicted on an offender through the judicial and esp. criminal process
He's not going to prison because he's currently a danger to anyone. He's going to prison because The People decided he should be punished for his misdeeds. The People have decided that probation is just not enough punishment for destroying the pensions of thousands--maybe tens or hundreds of thousands of victims. Maybe he didn't physically assault these people--but he didn't just rob them of money, he robbed many of these people of YEARS of their hard work... Remember, some people have to get along by trading their, blood, sweat and tears; ultimately trading time for currency. When you annihilate someone's retirement account, I think an argument could be made that you're literally stealing time from their lives. Isn't that what murderers do, if more suddenly or brutally?
And before you try to use a reasoning of "setting an example" that is not justice.
The way I see it, prisons have two primary services to society: Deterrence before the act, and reformation after sentencing. You're welcome to argue their effectiveness in either of these roles (rather dismal, IMO)--but that's not the point. The point is, laws are useless unless they're backed by a set of mean and nasty, pointy teeth when it's appropriate. So what if it is "setting an example"? Maybe the prior examples just weren't harsh enough to dissuade ol' Bernie? Perhaps this might deter the next douche who starts on the path of stealing 65-70 billion, and contributing in no small part to a globally upset economy?
You know you've got it bad when they call it HMS Gigantic (which is not to be confused with HMS Inflexible, an altogether seperate disorder), and it compliments hundreds of seamen.
Slashdot Mirror
call me stupid, but what is the point of a silencer other than to commit crimes? Well i suppose there is hunting but unless your poaching your not going to be hunting on public land anyway
Poaching was in fact the primary argument used in favor of federally regulating silencers back in 1934--right in the middle of the great depression, I might add. I guess the feds didn't want people to feed themselves, you know, after they allowed the banks to fuck the entire world over.
Here's my two arguments in favor of silencers:
1) Shooting ranges close to residential property. In many European states which allow firearms, it's considered unsportsmanlike like to not use a silencer. It disturbs the neighbors. To enjoy two of my favorite pastimes, racing and shooting, you have to travel far outside the suburbs--to facilities which despite their remoteness will be in danger of closing as urban sprawl continues to spread. I can't tell you the number of places where I used to be able to go shoot that have been closed just for noise reasons.
Now, there's a few indoor ranges, with POOR ventilation. I swear I feel my lead levels rise every time I step in one (which I won't do any more). Or, I have to drive a hundred miles to find a spot in the forest to plink. Deregulating silencers would mean that people could practice at outdoor ranges closer to home.
2) Basic hearing protection: Most handguns produce sound levels in excess of 150dB. Rifles are much louder... Usually approaching 160dB (increase of 3dB is double power, remember). Since we know extended exposure to sound levels exceeding 85dB results in hearing loss, you need at least 65dB of hearing protection to not receive permanent damage.
The rub: even the best muffs will not be able to deliver more than 35dB of attenuation. Fancy electronic muffs usually do a bit less. Earplugs rarely attenuate more than 15dB (for a good molded pair). Even with GOOD, doubled up hearing protection (attenuating 50dB of broadband noise) a shooter can lose hearing. Most practiced right handed shooters have slightly worse hearing in the right ear for this reason--even if they took good precaution.
Silencers do not make a gun silent. A good small bore silencer can deliver 30-45dB attenuation on its own, bringing the sound to a safe level when used with muffs. A silenced 9mm or .22 can be potentially hearing safe on its own (with the addition of water), but you still get the sound of the cycling slide. It's not what they like to call "movie quiet", but you could probably practice outdoors if your neighbors weren't too close.
Plainly, the use of a silencer makes shooting safer, and more friendly a sport. Furthermore, in an indoor (home) defense scenario, the unprotected shooting of a pistol can have instantaneously debilitating concussion effects to those not acclimated, putting the defender at risk. A silencer can remove a lot of that effect.
If the silencer was the tool of choice for the professional hitman, I think we'd see a lot more of them used. It's not like an assassin cares about federal laws. But the fact is, they're not all that effective for their purposes. There are quieter ways of doing business.
They're present alright, but even discounting the whole continent of Africa, there's almost cerianly enough to keep the rest of the free world humping along, elsewhere. Oil or copper will be much more immediately contentious of a resource, all other things considered.
When or if it becomes more economically viable (profitable), Ti mines will certainly start up.
How much titanium is there, laying around, if the demand would suddenly start to rise?
How much of that titanium is locked up by China, who has seen for some time that strategic metals will become a growth limiter in the not-so-distant future?
A lot. It's pretty abundant, actually. It's just that with current processes, it's goddamn expensive to produce, uses large amounts of chlorine and energy, etc... That's the only practical reason for its rarity as a structural material.
AFAIK, China doesn't produce a significant amount of the requisite ores, or finished metal product for that matter. Most of the ore, by the way, gets processed into titanium dioxide, a very common white pigment which is used in Everything.
It may be bunk, but I dont think obama said it in an anti-gun way.
Hahaha. Oh, you! You should be a comedian!
The fact is, Obama and his pet Eric Holder were at first all too happy to use the current events in Mexico to try and push another "assault weapons" ban through (although "permanent" this time around)--and even though it has been shown the last one had no measurable effect.
I'm convinced the only reason it hasn't happened yet is because many Democratic congress critters learned a valuable lesson last time--namely, that they're easily replaced with Republicans. They've said they won't have any of it, simply because they'll be ejected next election cycle.
As much as I hate to admit, an article from Fox News had the correct view on the scoop Basically, the ATF said 90% of the guns traced by the ATF came from the US, because the rest obviously originated elsewhere and were not submitted. The rest of the news agencies misreported, because 90% is more sensational than 17%, and they're all liberals from big cities who want to see guns outlawed. I wonder just how many of the 83% of guns were engraved "propiedad del gobierno mexicano"
I think that 17% figure is argument enough to close the border to all vehicles not being individually searched and X-Rayed, borrow some of the Predator UAVs destined to the middle east (to fly over and observe the open areas of the border), and instead of putting up a big and expensive AND easily defeated fence, we should install a big and expensive, but much harder to defeat mine field.
I'm not trying to hate on the Mexicans who just want to have a better life and live within the law... But so many are just tax consuming leaches--it's not right. Legal immigration should be fine, but document them, make sure they speak the language and can get along (just like every other immigrant) and let them pay income tax as well. The drug smugglers would make good vulture food.
Many states are "open carry" states. Many more, while being more restrictive about public open carry have laws which make it legal for one to open carry on his own property. Exercise that right, while you're around your house at the very least, and problems go away. Personally, I usually strap one of my SBR AR-15s to my chest when I answer the door--unless I'm expecting someone, that is.
I've found no better deterrent for salesmen or those darn Jehovah's Witnesses, and lo and behold, I could never be lawfully accused of brandishing. If one of those crummy bill collectors showed up for any reason, I might just flick off the safety.
Yeah, you should have told everyone diesel was significantly cheaper than gas last November/December. You might have got a black eye from one of the guys who actually needs to drive his diesel truck/van to make a living.
Diesel was touching $5.00 a gallon, and gas was hovering around $3.00. It would cost me nearly $60 to fill up my Jetta TDI. By the way, the first fill up in 2002 cost me $16.53.
Yeah, not the best example of passiveness. Still he's more sane about it than many antis--and certainly a lot less obnoxious.
Patently bullshit. I can walk up to you with a concealed gun and shoot you in the head much more easily than with a concealed car.
In fact, the entire rest of your post is so idiotic that it's not worth dissecting. The self-evident facts are:
- Guns are specifically desinged to kill things. All except some rifles are specifically designed to kill people.
Anyone could drive a car or truck up onto a busy urban sidewalk and maim/kill dozens of people in seconds, and the barrier to drive such a weapon is absolutely non-existent. Look at the douche who murdered five and wounded thirteen, during the Dutch queen's day. That was with a stupid go-nowhere subcompact. Imagine what could have happened if he had a full size sedan, or even worse, a 4x4 or commercial van!
Your points are likewise silly. Guns are tools, and nothing more. They aren't specifically designed to kill any more than a standard item in a carpenter's tool box, the lowly framing hammer. Hurting people is likewise not a natural consequence of their usage, or our tens of millions of these objects would kill millions per year. Speaking of hammers, there was a point in time where the were the most effective infantry weapon--capable of damaging both armored (knights) and unarmored enemies. The modern carpenter's framing hammer is essentially the same thing, except with a slightly shorter handle, and a claw for removing nails which is directly analogous to the bill on old war hammers--used to penetrate armor.
Yet a motivated person could just as easily sneak up on someone in a crowd with a concealed hammer, silently bash 'em on the head or base of the spine and return the weapon to concealment before anyone glimpses it. I guarantee most of the people there won't associate the guy with his brains leaking onto the sidewalk with an act of murder for a good minute or more, even though they were right there when it happened. Not so with a pistol. Most people will instantly recognize that sound, and the flock will panic.
Any tool useful to a task has positive and negative uses. There's no escaping it. For example, medieval engineers used their saws, hammers and other tools to build engines of destruction, instead of hovels. The minivan can ferry the kids to soccer practice, or it could be used to a destructive end. And finally, a bunch of physicists used more intellectual tools to create the most shocking tool of all--the bomb. A handgun can be used to murder someone, or it can be used to protect someone, just the same. The common thread is, none of these items can do anything until someone puts it to work.
- Guns _are_ the most efficient and easiest way to kill someone. Or do you think the army should use hit-and-runs or throw knives at the Taliban in Afghanistan?
No way. The easiest, most cost effective, most efficient, safest, and most thorough way to kill people is to use any number of poisonous gasses. Most have simple chemistry, are made from non-exotic components, and are trivial to weaponize. The runner up is probably massed artillery. Furthermore, your targets won't have even the most basic level of protection against gasses. If simply killing people was the goal of allied forces, hiking around a bunch of mountains with a rifle strapped to one's chest wouldn't be a very good choice. As it is, so-called assault weapons are most often used by a soldier to defend his, and his buddies' lives, not to storm positions.
I'll sum my feeling up thus: liberty is dangerous, but it's the best thing we've got.
Re: registered ammo: 1) You'd better be damned careful of where your empties go when you're practicing. An 'errant' case could place you at the scene of a crime. 2) all reloading equipment would have to be banned. 3) if you want to murder someone, it's all together too easy to cast up a chunk of lead or other material, roll up a few one-off cases (even if it requires making powder, primers) and use a revolver (they keep depleted cases in the cylinder until they're manually ejected), or modified semi-auto (without the microstamp on the firing pin)
Not to mention that it will be extraordinary expensive to make and track all of that ammo, and most importantly... It's freedom limiting to non-criminals. Feasible? Yeah, probably.
The answer is: Allowing men to be free may have its costs, but they are lesser than the costs of non-freedom.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" isn't in there because they wanted to practice their penmanship. So we have to determine why it's there. You could say that they were explaining why they included this right--which is certainly possible-- but that would make it the only one I can think of that they felt the need to justify. The only other possibility I can see is that it was intended to place some sort of restriction on the second part. But any limitation would be to be a direct contradiction of "shall not be infringed". Basically, it's a lesson about the importance of good writing skills.
1) It's an introductory phrase/clause, and a commonly used tool in English. There are many similar examples in the Constitution and bill of rights. We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union...
2) Many of the framers were not fond of large standing armies (for obvious reasons to them), and were non-trusting of a federal government that would raise them. Because of this, they believed the whole of the people should be the militia, and indeed a later amendment said (paraphrasing) the militia of the United States consists of all able bodied males age 17-45 who are citizens, or have made a declaration of intention to become a citizen. In other words, if you're healthy and in the bracket, and are a citizen, you're a militiaman.
Y'know, I wouldn't take that bet. Crazy people are considered crazy in no small part because they use skewed logic, or no logic at all. And "taking away our rights" doesn't really top the agenda of people who need bodyguards. Nor, I expect, the rationale for most assaults upon people who feel a need for bodyguards.
Well, the way I see it, being a celebrity is already the first opening for insane and possibly dangerous people enter your life, as has been the case with a number of celebrities--some stories didn't turn out so well... So, being a highly visible, highly vocal anti-gun celebrity, say Michael Moore, or Rosie O'Donnell for example, gives those with skewed logic and guns a reason to enter your life. I won't say that I agree with Moore or Rosies' motives, but sending death threats isn't right and doesn't solve anything... However, wouldn't you agree, the threat of violence is the primary reason why these folks have hired armed guards?
Now, I doubt that death threats against pro-gun actors and celebrities are so numerous (if there were a way to measure it). Did Selvester, Tom Selleck, Ah-nold, Kurt Russel, Ted Nugent, Heston, ever get so much hate mail? Probably not--but most of them are much more passive in their beliefs than the two above counter examples.
These folks have the right to speak their minds, and the celebrity status influences people to listen. However "taking away our right" is ostensibly their goal, and there's gonna be a few people who are drawn to them like moths to a flame, because of it.
I find it peculiar that they were willing to participate in criminal activity but could not bring themselves to spell the word "FUCKING".
And what part of his post indicated he was willing to participate in a criminal activity? 'Cause I must be either fucking stupid or blind, but the jist of the post was: his friend's dad witnessed a crime, was targeted and harassed by said criminals, wanted to get a carry permit to protect his life, but was denied.
If they weren't out there publicly trying to get our rights taken away, they wouldn't attract crazy people, therefore they wouldn't need the armed security.
Until then keep your deadly weapons and wild west "justice" out of my community.
So, move to LA, San Francisco, New York City, Chicago, etc. and the terrible worry about peacefully minded citizens taking legal means to protect themselves from assault, rape, robbery, etc. will never again burden you.
A good deal of that ammo IS steel tipped. The steel jacket alloy on soviet ammo isn't appreciably harder than copper--it pretty much has to be, otherwise barrels would wear out much sooner than need be. It wouldn't effect a metal backstop more than copper for that reason--except it'll spark and cause potential fire issues at the ranges which don't clean as often as they should.
No... Most indoor ranges I've been to had holes shot into their armor plate with steel core ammo. Now, most make it a point to use a magnet to check the bullets if it's suspect, and they weed out the steel jacket the same way.
Level III (not flexible, usually 1/2 inch of ceramic, in addition to typical fiber components) will stop up to non steel core 7.62x51 (nothing to sneeze at), but most officers will wear at best Level IIIA with the addition of a trauma plate over the sternum (some vests allow for the level 4 insert)... Most rifle rounds, of course, will sail right through that armor.
Also, the GP you refer to is quite right. A 12 gauge slug or heavy & fast .45 bullet (most gang bangers will never see a 10 gauge, however) might not knock you over, but even with the blunt trauma plates you're gonna get the wind knocked out of you, and you might also have some broken ribs. It's gonna reduce your fighting capacity, bottom line.
9mm loads developed specifically for SMGs use do exist (with pressures higher than 9mm NATO specs, approaching "proof" loads), but reality is they're pretty rare. Even SWAT and military teams who use 9mm SMGs (MP5s) aren't likely to ever see special SMG ammo. You'll see 9mm +P, and 9mm NATO (pressures are similar in both), but both are also capable of being used in service pistols, but beyond that.... No.
The Nazis had some pretty high pressure stuff for their MP40s, which might destroy their Lugers, but they were the last major users of such ammo. The truth is, there isn't that much benefit to it, simply because the volume of gases capable of being generated by the small powder capacity of 9x19 doesn't scale well for long arms. To get a marginal increase in velocity you must use powders which burn faster, giving the bullet higher initial velocity, but they also push the pressure levels up. The only reason anyone uses 9mm SMGs is they provide superior firepower and accuracy compared to pistols.
The Russians are re-inventing Nazi bullets designs, however. They use really light jacketed bullets, with iron or tungsten cores together with high pressure loads to get velocities needed to defeat body armor. I'd say the chances of gangs possessing these arms negligible at best, however.
What we need is this: a law which establishes the requirement of a multiple choice test, drafted from the text of any bill to be voted upon by our representatives. Measures will be taken so that they cannot cheat, etc. and that there are no cliffs notes of "House Bill XXYY"
Very simply, if the representative gets a 90% or greater score, he gets to vote yes on the bill, otherwise his vote, by law, is NO.
This would do three big things: 1) it's going to keep most stupid jerks and career douchebags out of office. 2) it will drastically narrow the focus of each bill (gonna make it harder to put special interest crap into bills) 3) allow The People to see the traitorous bastards for who they are (i.e. they fully understood the text of a bad law (Patriot Act, for example), but chose to vote for it anyway), they're a no good rat bastard, and the 2A comes into play.)
Add in a placebo of a "WiFi blocker" in pill form and see if it helps him.
Yeah, we call that lithium.
Most women who've slept with computer scientists would agree that they are pretty fast ;)
On the plus side, they know how to press the right buttons. Or, so I'm told.
I am partial to the classic solution: Microfilm in a hollow tooth
Classic? That's some newfangled spy tech there, boy. Why, back in my day we scratched micro-cuneiform onto clay suppositories with spider hairs. Of course, anyone known to carry raw clay and spider hairs was shot on sight, so we had to mine the clay, build a kiln, and catch the spiders behind enemy lines, uphill both ways in the snow--and we liked it that way. Poor Johnson, couldn't find any fuel for his kiln. Yeah, the boys back at HQ never let that one go!
There's a few possible candidate thresholds but, when it comes to destruction, the ones that make the most sense are:
1. "self-sustaining" viability outside the womb (currently around 22 weeks gestation) or
2. significant nervous system complexity (somewhere between 9 to 20 weeks).
Mine is thus: If the subject were to be removed from the womb at its current stage of development, would an average human be repulsed/made extremely uncomfortable if he/she were forced to touch and hold it? Supposing it it were given a superficial cleaning, would an average human still have the same reservations? If the answer is yes to both accounts, it's not discernibly human.
The way I see it, humans (especially males) have to have a very sophisticated set of instincts which prevent them from willfully harming their offspring. Let's face it: in the animal kingdom, human infants reign supreme in the obnoxious department. At a fundamental level, we have to think they're cute, or our prehistoric ancestors would have bashed them all against rocks, and that would have been the end of our species.
The vast majority of people have this instinct in place--but it fails in a few of us occasionally, the screaming overwhelms, and you get shaken babies, babies in dumpsters, that kind of thing.
If an embryo, whatever can't pass the cute test, it's not a human.
Chalk up another reason to to hire those Indian support techs.
punishment
Function: noun
1 : the act of punishing
2 : a penalty (as a fine or imprisonment) inflicted on an
offender through the judicial and esp. criminal process
He's not going to prison because he's currently a danger to anyone. He's going to prison because The People decided he should be punished for his misdeeds. The People have decided that probation is just not enough punishment for destroying the pensions of thousands--maybe tens or hundreds of thousands of victims. Maybe he didn't physically assault these people--but he didn't just rob them of money, he robbed many of these people of YEARS of their hard work... Remember, some people have to get along by trading their, blood, sweat and tears; ultimately trading time for currency. When you annihilate someone's retirement account, I think an argument could be made that you're literally stealing time from their lives. Isn't that what murderers do, if more suddenly or brutally?
And before you try to use a reasoning of "setting an example" that is not justice.
The way I see it, prisons have two primary services to society: Deterrence before the act, and reformation after sentencing. You're welcome to argue their effectiveness in either of these roles (rather dismal, IMO)--but that's not the point. The point is, laws are useless unless they're backed by a set of mean and nasty, pointy teeth when it's appropriate. So what if it is "setting an example"? Maybe the prior examples just weren't harsh enough to dissuade ol' Bernie? Perhaps this might deter the next douche who starts on the path of stealing 65-70 billion, and contributing in no small part to a globally upset economy?
You know you've got it bad when they call it HMS Gigantic (which is not to be confused with HMS Inflexible, an altogether seperate disorder), and it compliments hundreds of seamen.