The risks you mention are implausible--security in the White House certainly does not rely on metal detectors, for example--what you are really worried about is too much freedom. While random pat-downs are normal, and body scanners have a promising future, your best hope of security is getting surveillance cameras installed in every registered living area. Not only would contraband be detectable, but women and children would be protected, since 99% of domestic violence and sexual abuse happens behind closed doors. Telescreens are a common sense modern technology: 9 out of 10 Americans surveyed agree.
What, European governments can declare certain parties to be illegal. It's a controlled environment where the kids are allowed to goof around, but the controls are absolute.
More common, but also expensive. Thieves didn't attack people for their Livestrong bracelets or Crocs. Smart Phones and Air Jordans are high-value items to carry around
No doubt you are correct that the establishment of totalitarian states in many countries works quite well. Slavery sounds quite burdensome, but it's actually the easiest thing in the world.
I think you had the Cold War and 9/11 making people willing to give up rights to protect their government from attack, and plastic guns aren't something that even most gun enthusiasts relate to. Now the government is trying to take away the guns people own and prevent them from buying them as part of the Democrat road map to a total prohibition, and it's now or never for the frog to jump out of the boiling pot.
As for airplanes, I think most people recognize them as a private vehicles, rather than public places, and thus not free zones. There is more cognitive dissonance with the "guns are bad" people on this issue, since they love seeing men with "military grade" assault weapons at airports, and enthusiastically support air marshals armed with "automatic pistols" with "high-capacity" magazines
there is plenty of petty theft and the like here, and the cameras help a lot in catching the perpetrators
That's what they tell you, but is it true? Seems to be a little contradictory to use all the crime you have to justify the need for cameras, as well as demonstrate their effectiveness.
Buckyballs could be banned because they were new , just like "assault weapons" could be banned. Trying to prohibit swimming pools or shotguns would be a different story even though they are actually more hazardous. So there is a consistency even though it's not logical.
I think the idea is to make the income appear to have come from legal sources, which might indeed incur the taxes you mention. But of course the government invents the crime of "laundering" so that it can grab all of it
The coverage also obscures the details, namely that the FBI fucked up massively once again. If an unemployed radical Muslim Chechen didn't stand out, the last thing the government needs is more private details on millions of boring people
Are there? "Public" is 99.99% of our world. And government doesn't actually recognize that.01%, as their warrantless surveillance programs and door-to-door searches show. It's also far from clear that public cameras are of much use, while cameras inside Tsarnaevs house were exactly what was needed...
Fine, "5th largest storm", but 1st most heavy-handed government response. Or did I miss the reports of white walkers ? And threatening imprisonment is pretty close to actually doing it. Obviously it is for the guy in jail, but for the rest of us his example is the threat.
Since when is "ruinously expensive" an obstacle for the government? A couple of months ago Massachusetts locked down the roads of the entire state, threatening drivers with arrest, for a fairly typical winter storm. This kind of thing is already becoming the new normal, just like it's become normal for police to be indistinguishable from combat soldiers.
If we used the NRA method of justice, Salah Eddin Barhoum would have been dead before the FBI even published the photos of the actual bombers.
FUD, unless you are confessing to string of secret vigilante killings. Now if you are arguing that the cops should be disarmed, you might be justified, since they gun down hundreds of innocent people.
Differences in brain size and structure, not to mention reproductive strategy, isn't a "credible biological" cause? Let's assume they don't effect performance or motivation in any way, but why more women in STEM? Is there a shortage of manpower? Or are the men going to be reassigned as homemakers? Where is the payoff for anyone except in fulfilling some abstract concept?
Slashdot Mirror
any idiot...can print off their own gun
The risks you mention are implausible--security in the White House certainly does not rely on metal detectors, for example--what you are really worried about is too much freedom. While random pat-downs are normal, and body scanners have a promising future, your best hope of security is getting surveillance cameras installed in every registered living area. Not only would contraband be detectable, but women and children would be protected, since 99% of domestic violence and sexual abuse happens behind closed doors. Telescreens are a common sense modern technology: 9 out of 10 Americans surveyed agree.
When will you be taking orders for the underwater-shoulder-fired missiles?
What, European governments can declare certain parties to be illegal. It's a controlled environment where the kids are allowed to goof around, but the controls are absolute.
They'd rather have a regressive tax on their customers than pay more tax on their large incomes and land holdings
Money is money. People who reason to support one tax will therefore support any and all of them.
Before the terrorists and pedophiles use it to hide their crimes.
More common, but also expensive. Thieves didn't attack people for their Livestrong bracelets or Crocs. Smart Phones and Air Jordans are high-value items to carry around
No doubt you are correct that the establishment of totalitarian states in many countries works quite well. Slavery sounds quite burdensome, but it's actually the easiest thing in the world.
If everything sent on the internet is public then I am owed a lot of porn.
Abortion is a socialist policy. QED
I think you had the Cold War and 9/11 making people willing to give up rights to protect their government from attack, and plastic guns aren't something that even most gun enthusiasts relate to. Now the government is trying to take away the guns people own and prevent them from buying them as part of the Democrat road map to a total prohibition, and it's now or never for the frog to jump out of the boiling pot.
As for airplanes, I think most people recognize them as a private vehicles, rather than public places, and thus not free zones. There is more cognitive dissonance with the "guns are bad" people on this issue, since they love seeing men with "military grade" assault weapons at airports, and enthusiastically support air marshals armed with "automatic pistols" with "high-capacity" magazines
there is plenty of petty theft and the like here, and the cameras help a lot in catching the perpetrators
That's what they tell you, but is it true? Seems to be a little contradictory to use all the crime you have to justify the need for cameras, as well as demonstrate their effectiveness.
We feel the same way about your relationship to monarchy.
Not a bad idea, since tomb stone retailers price gouge so much
Some states already ban firecrackers to protect the children. It's just common sense, and the rest of country will have to advance.
Buckyballs could be banned because they were new , just like "assault weapons" could be banned. Trying to prohibit swimming pools or shotguns would be a different story even though they are actually more hazardous. So there is a consistency even though it's not logical.
I think the idea is to make the income appear to have come from legal sources, which might indeed incur the taxes you mention. But of course the government invents the crime of "laundering" so that it can grab all of it
It would be soooooo cute if a cat did it. The real problem is that people hate each other.
The coverage also obscures the details, namely that the FBI fucked up massively once again. If an unemployed radical Muslim Chechen didn't stand out, the last thing the government needs is more private details on millions of boring people
There are plenty of places more suitable
Are there? "Public" is 99.99% of our world. And government doesn't actually recognize that .01%, as their warrantless surveillance programs and door-to-door searches show. It's also far from clear that public cameras are of much use, while cameras inside Tsarnaevs house were exactly what was needed...
Fine, "5th largest storm", but 1st most heavy-handed government response. Or did I miss the reports of white walkers ? And threatening imprisonment is pretty close to actually doing it. Obviously it is for the guy in jail, but for the rest of us his example is the threat.
Since when is "ruinously expensive" an obstacle for the government? A couple of months ago Massachusetts locked down the roads of the entire state, threatening drivers with arrest, for a fairly typical winter storm. This kind of thing is already becoming the new normal, just like it's become normal for police to be indistinguishable from combat soldiers.
If we used the NRA method of justice, Salah Eddin Barhoum would have been dead before the FBI even published the photos of the actual bombers.
FUD, unless you are confessing to string of secret vigilante killings. Now if you are arguing that the cops should be disarmed, you might be justified, since they gun down hundreds of innocent people.
Differences in brain size and structure, not to mention reproductive strategy, isn't a "credible biological" cause? Let's assume they don't effect performance or motivation in any way, but why more women in STEM? Is there a shortage of manpower? Or are the men going to be reassigned as homemakers? Where is the payoff for anyone except in fulfilling some abstract concept?
That assumes there is a lunatic willing to lend you money at such a low rate.