Your unsubstantiated claim may conceivably be true...
Go look up the FBI crime stats. I'll wait. Hell, I'll even be the nice guy and provide you with the link!.... See? Told ya so.
but how about, you know, HANDGUNS ?
You're missing the point by obsessing over the subject. The point being, as stated by OP, that "[people] can kill without a gun."
If you aren't a lawyer, then you really missed your calling.
You're not the first person to tell me that; unfortunately, today's legal system is less about forming intelligent, well-evidenced arguments, and more about who gets the fattest paycheck.
this kind of criminal behavior from our gov makes us look like fools. how can we bomb the shit out of people around the world to bring them freedom when we don't even have it at home?
Hey, here's an idea: how about Texas and California fire up a trade agreement: CA can sell electric cars in TX, so long as TX can sell semi-automatic firearms and high-capacity magazines in CA.
Sounds fair - do you think either legislature would go for it? Why/why not?
I would be willing to bet you that a majority of the populace in CA wouldn't like that agreement, while a majority of the people in TX would like it just fine.
Teslas used properly don't kill people. Assault firearms used properly DO kill people, that's what they're made for.
Let me guess: you're one of those people who have been convinced that "semi-automatic," "military-style," and "assault weapon" all mean the same thing, aren't you?
Yea, they aren't.
For the record, I have several firearms, some of the "assault" variety (in that they are semi-auto and have scary black synthetic stocks), firearms which I use properly on a regular basis, and yet not a single one of them have ever so much as grazed another human being.
Besides, if "assault weapons" were designed specifically for killing humans, than they obviously are not used properly, since less humans are killed with "assault weapons" than fists. Even more humans are killed by cars, and since a Tesla is a car... you get where I'm going with this.
But I digress; the point isn't the intended use of the product, the point is commercial reciprocity: if you're going to make a fuss about TX laws regarding the sale of Tesla cars, you'd be a hypocrite to not make a similar fuss about CA's laws regarding the sale of certain firearms.
Funny, I feel the same way about products from California, due to their unreasonable hatred for the Constitutional right to self-protection.
Yes because there is absolutely no private gun ownership in California. Handguns and AK-47s are nowhere to be seen here, yep! Hunters beware because you won't get to shoot your precious game in the Golden State, no siree.</sarcasm>
Go buy a brand new AR-15 with detachable 15-round magazine, then. Oh, wait, you can't, because both have been banned. According to CNN, you can't even buy magazine rebuild kits anymore.
Are you completely stupid?
Obviously not - are you completely incapable of having a disagreement with someone without resorting to personal attacks? Only time can tell.
So... if I start calling myself a Commander-in-Chief, will all the 4-star generals follow my orders?
If I were to refer to myself as an OTR trucker, does that automatically mean I have the necessary knowledge and licensure to operate a big rig on public streets?
What if I started calling myself God? Would the courts recognize that to mean that I am omnipotent and omniscient?
Here's a good one: If I start referring to myself as The Honorable CanHasDIY, does that mean I have the expertise necessary to rule on matters of law?
Someone needs to inform this judge that self-proclamations do not create defacto expertise.
I totally get your point, but I can kill without a gun. They have a *device* to kill people with. I can kill people too, using my kitchen knife or a bat.
To further illustrate that point, more people in the US are beaten to death with fists and feet than killed with rifles or shotguns.
The constitution specifically says congress has the right to regulate. It's IN the fucking amendment.
This argument will, of course, go nowhere because we both have a preferred interpretation of the 2nd amendment, but I at least have both grammar and history on my side. But the "fucking amendment"only refers to a "well regulated militia", not "a well-regulated firearm". More importantly, you have chosen the wrong definition of "regulated" to make that phrase better fit your worldview. Hint: Think "oil", not "laws".
Indeed, I'm beginning to think it's a moot point to tell people that 'regulated' didn't necessarily mean the same thing 260 years ago that it does today; they're going to believe what they want to believe, and no amount of fact or cited references will change that.
It's like tryin' to talk sense to a friggin' creationist...
Except that's not accurate. They released a report and the report sys that, I could find an instance of either the names of the alleged senators, not any effort to make 1st amendment a privilege.
Should've maybe taken 5 seconds to actually read the article I linked to:
The report, “Cyberbullying: A Report on Bullying in a Digital Age” was published in September by the Independent Democratic Conference. This group includes Democratic NY State Senators David Valesky, David Carlucci, Diane Savino, and Jeff Klein.
Sounds like a battered housewife, explaining how the fact that her abusive husband only blacked one eye in his latest drunken rage means he really does love her. -- An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, wrapped in bacon and cheese
As I skimmed down the page rapidly, all I saw was "Sounds like a battered housewife, wrapped in bacon and cheese"... I guess there is such a thing as bacon addiction
Surely there's a dungeon club somewhere that will indulge you in your "housewives, battered, and wrapped in bacon and cheese" fetish.
Pretty much, though the balance between 'more freedom for the powerful to exercise their freedom on others' and 'protect the weak from the powerfull's freedom' varies from state to state. For better or worse, a big part of Texas's ethics revolve around the idea that the best way for people to accumulate wealth is to not protect them, thus encouraging them to get stronger.
That's not exclusive to Texas, though - California, Texas' polar opposite, is very, very similar in this regard. Just look at the way their politicians deny citizens the right to self protection as guaranteed by the Constitution, while themselves never stepping foot in public without a cadre of bodyguards packing automatic weapons.
Obamacare exchanges promote direct, immediate competitive substitutability, at least in insurance plans. In states which didn't try to sabotage the law, the premiums come in somewhat lower than originally projected.
Yes, but unfortunately deductibles are much, much higher than originally expected.
An $85/mo premium isn't really helpful when you've still got to drop $12,000/yr before insurance picks up the tab.
this kind of criminal behavior from our gov makes us look like fools. how can we bomb the shit out of people around the world to bring them freedom when we don't even have it at home?
Hey, here's an idea: how about Texas and California fire up a trade agreement: CA can sell electric cars in TX, so long as TX can sell semi-automatic firearms and high-capacity magazines in CA.
Sounds fair - do you think either legislature would go for it? Why/why not?
In other news; We should start putting warning labels on everything that comes from Texas, including the people: "Warning: This product is known to cause stupidity in every other state but Texas."
Funny, I feel the same way about products from California, due to their unreasonable hatred for the Constitutional right to self-protection.
What gives Texas the authority to prevent any manufacturer -- of cars or otherwise -- from selling their products in the state? Couldn't this be construed as an illegal restraint of trade against the State of California?
That... doesn't seem right.
By the same logic, California has an illegal restraint of trade against any state that manufactures certain firearms and firearm accessories, and most states would have an illegal restraint of trade against Colorado by not allowing CO pot growers to sell there.
Bad example. If you're thinking of the New York City soft drink size limit, that would have applied to soft drinks with caloric sweeteners, not diet soft drinks.
Indeed; if OP really wanted to point out an example of how New York State can be just as draconian and anti-freedom as the Texas example above, he'd have been better off to cite the 4 NY Senators who, back in 2011, insisted that the First Amendment be relegated from a right to a privilege.
Yeah, the hard part is making the infrastructure port extremely cheap and robust (if there is to be one retrofitted in every parking spot)
Of course, since any mechanical part is prone to failure. This is the point at which the engineers who frequent Slashdot should say, "ooh, hey, that is a good idea, and here's how it should be done!"
Anything that requires lining things up to within a couple inches will require either a mechanical means (like driving into tracks) or precise maneuvering. If self-driving cars catch on, then precise maneuvering becomes an option.
Since they have self-parking mechanisms on many non-automated vehicles already, I don't think we have to wait for Google cars for the concept to be feasible; although, regardless of implementation it would require some sort of consensus and work-together spirit on the part of auto makers. That seems like the logistical challenge to me - convincing a bunch of capitalists in the same industry to work together towards a common goal.
Slashdot Mirror
Your unsubstantiated claim may conceivably be true...
Go look up the FBI crime stats. I'll wait. Hell, I'll even be the nice guy and provide you with the link! .... See? Told ya so.
but how about, you know, HANDGUNS ?
You're missing the point by obsessing over the subject. The point being, as stated by OP, that "[people] can kill without a gun."
If you aren't a lawyer, then you really missed your calling.
You're not the first person to tell me that; unfortunately, today's legal system is less about forming intelligent, well-evidenced arguments, and more about who gets the fattest paycheck.
Surely there's a dungeon club somewhere that will indulge you in your "housewives, battered, and wrapped in bacon and cheese" fetish.
Alas, most dungeons have insufficient exits to get a permit for a fryer.
I'm not sure I want to find out how you know that...
this kind of criminal behavior from our gov makes us look like fools.
how can we bomb the shit out of people around the world to bring them freedom when we don't even have it at home?
Hey, here's an idea: how about Texas and California fire up a trade agreement: CA can sell electric cars in TX, so long as TX can sell semi-automatic firearms and high-capacity magazines in CA.
Sounds fair - do you think either legislature would go for it? Why/why not?
I would be willing to bet you that a majority of the populace in CA wouldn't like that agreement, while a majority of the people in TX would like it just fine.
Teslas used properly don't kill people. Assault firearms used properly DO kill people, that's what they're made for.
Let me guess: you're one of those people who have been convinced that "semi-automatic," "military-style," and "assault weapon" all mean the same thing, aren't you?
Yea, they aren't.
For the record, I have several firearms, some of the "assault" variety (in that they are semi-auto and have scary black synthetic stocks), firearms which I use properly on a regular basis, and yet not a single one of them have ever so much as grazed another human being.
Besides, if "assault weapons" were designed specifically for killing humans, than they obviously are not used properly, since less humans are killed with "assault weapons" than fists. Even more humans are killed by cars, and since a Tesla is a car... you get where I'm going with this.
But I digress; the point isn't the intended use of the product, the point is commercial reciprocity: if you're going to make a fuss about TX laws regarding the sale of Tesla cars, you'd be a hypocrite to not make a similar fuss about CA's laws regarding the sale of certain firearms.
Funny, I feel the same way about products from California, due to their unreasonable hatred for the Constitutional right to self-protection.
Yes because there is absolutely no private gun ownership in California. Handguns and AK-47s are nowhere to be seen here, yep! Hunters beware because you won't get to shoot your precious game in the Golden State, no siree.</sarcasm>
Go buy a brand new AR-15 with detachable 15-round magazine, then. Oh, wait, you can't, because both have been banned. According to CNN, you can't even buy magazine rebuild kits anymore.
Are you completely stupid?
Obviously not - are you completely incapable of having a disagreement with someone without resorting to personal attacks? Only time can tell.
So... if I start calling myself a Commander-in-Chief, will all the 4-star generals follow my orders?
If I were to refer to myself as an OTR trucker, does that automatically mean I have the necessary knowledge and licensure to operate a big rig on public streets?
What if I started calling myself God? Would the courts recognize that to mean that I am omnipotent and omniscient?
Here's a good one: If I start referring to myself as The Honorable CanHasDIY, does that mean I have the expertise necessary to rule on matters of law?
Someone needs to inform this judge that self-proclamations do not create defacto expertise.
So... if I call myself a particle physicist, the fellas at CERN will let me play with the LHC?
That would be a really, really stupid thing for them to do.
The question you need to ask yourself... are you worth the ~$80,000 to blow you to hell?
You sure you want an answer to that? We're talking about a group of people who regularly piss away billions as if it ain't nothin' but a thang.
$80,000 is hardly even walking-around-money to these assholes.
I totally get your point, but I can kill without a gun. They have a *device* to kill people with. I can kill people too, using my kitchen knife or a bat.
To further illustrate that point, more people in the US are beaten to death with fists and feet than killed with rifles or shotguns.
Scare quotes?what the hell is a Scare quote?
I was curious myself, so I did what you should have instead of asking a stupid question: I Googled it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scare_quotes
The constitution specifically says congress has the right to regulate. It's IN the fucking amendment.
This argument will, of course, go nowhere because we both have a preferred interpretation of the 2nd amendment, but I at least have both grammar and history on my side. But the "fucking amendment"only refers to a "well regulated militia", not "a well-regulated firearm". More importantly, you have chosen the wrong definition of "regulated" to make that phrase better fit your worldview. Hint: Think "oil", not "laws".
Indeed, I'm beginning to think it's a moot point to tell people that 'regulated' didn't necessarily mean the same thing 260 years ago that it does today; they're going to believe what they want to believe, and no amount of fact or cited references will change that.
It's like tryin' to talk sense to a friggin' creationist...
I like how you don't have an actual argument so you use Ad Hom to spread FUD. The PR company that runs the NRA must be proud of you.
Stopped taking your Thorazine again, I see...
BTW, the ironic juxtaposition of your first sentence against your second is blisteringly hilarious.
By privatizing it, right? From what I read around here, the free market does everything better!
If such a thing as a free market ever existed, that is possible; however, since it hasn't, and probably never will exist, we can only speculate.
Except that's not accurate. They released a report and the report sys that, I could find an instance of either the names of the alleged senators, not any effort to make 1st amendment a privilege.
Should've maybe taken 5 seconds to actually read the article I linked to:
The report, “Cyberbullying: A Report on Bullying in a Digital Age” was published in September by the Independent Democratic Conference. This group includes Democratic NY State Senators David Valesky, David Carlucci, Diane Savino, and Jeff Klein.
Sounds like a battered housewife, explaining how the fact that her abusive husband only blacked one eye in his latest drunken rage means he really does love her.
--
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, wrapped in bacon and cheese
As I skimmed down the page rapidly, all I saw was "Sounds like a battered housewife, wrapped in bacon and cheese" ... I guess there is such a thing as bacon addiction
Surely there's a dungeon club somewhere that will indulge you in your "housewives, battered, and wrapped in bacon and cheese" fetish.
Pretty much, though the balance between 'more freedom for the powerful to exercise their freedom on others' and 'protect the weak from the powerfull's freedom' varies from state to state. For better or worse, a big part of Texas's ethics revolve around the idea that the best way for people to accumulate wealth is to not protect them, thus encouraging them to get stronger.
That's not exclusive to Texas, though - California, Texas' polar opposite, is very, very similar in this regard. Just look at the way their politicians deny citizens the right to self protection as guaranteed by the Constitution, while themselves never stepping foot in public without a cadre of bodyguards packing automatic weapons.
No free pass.
Obamacare exchanges promote direct, immediate competitive substitutability, at least in insurance plans. In states which didn't try to sabotage the law, the premiums come in somewhat lower than originally projected.
Yes, but unfortunately deductibles are much, much higher than originally expected.
An $85/mo premium isn't really helpful when you've still got to drop $12,000/yr before insurance picks up the tab.
this kind of criminal behavior from our gov makes us look like fools.
how can we bomb the shit out of people around the world to bring them freedom when we don't even have it at home?
Hey, here's an idea: how about Texas and California fire up a trade agreement: CA can sell electric cars in TX, so long as TX can sell semi-automatic firearms and high-capacity magazines in CA.
Sounds fair - do you think either legislature would go for it? Why/why not?
... the country that legalized bribery.
Most American law is based on English common law, so... not so much.
The Brits came up with the concept, we just streamlined the process :)
Recalibrate your sarcasm detector, bro.
In other news; We should start putting warning labels on everything that comes from Texas, including the people: "Warning: This product is known to cause stupidity in every other state but Texas."
Funny, I feel the same way about products from California, due to their unreasonable hatred for the Constitutional right to self-protection.
Aye, the street! She runs both ways!
What gives Texas the authority to prevent any manufacturer -- of cars or otherwise -- from selling their products in the state? Couldn't this be construed as an illegal restraint of trade against the State of California?
That... doesn't seem right.
By the same logic, California has an illegal restraint of trade against any state that manufactures certain firearms and firearm accessories, and most states would have an illegal restraint of trade against Colorado by not allowing CO pot growers to sell there.
ya. It is really cute when the article flat out states that things wont change for Tesla until they buy more politicians.
OK, so just sell off a couple of the CA politicians already in the stable, and use the money from that to purchase a TX Senator or two.
Well, these dealers have more money, so they get more freedom.
Oh, so in other words, exactly the same as every other state government in the nation, as well as the national government itself.
Bad example. If you're thinking of the New York City soft drink size limit, that would have applied to soft drinks with caloric sweeteners, not diet soft drinks.
Indeed; if OP really wanted to point out an example of how New York State can be just as draconian and anti-freedom as the Texas example above, he'd have been better off to cite the 4 NY Senators who, back in 2011, insisted that the First Amendment be relegated from a right to a privilege.
Yeah, the hard part is making the infrastructure port extremely cheap and robust (if there is to be one retrofitted in every parking spot)
Of course, since any mechanical part is prone to failure. This is the point at which the engineers who frequent Slashdot should say, "ooh, hey, that is a good idea, and here's how it should be done!"
Anything that requires lining things up to within a couple inches will require either a mechanical means (like driving into tracks) or precise maneuvering. If self-driving cars catch on, then precise maneuvering becomes an option.
Since they have self-parking mechanisms on many non-automated vehicles already, I don't think we have to wait for Google cars for the concept to be feasible; although, regardless of implementation it would require some sort of consensus and work-together spirit on the part of auto makers. That seems like the logistical challenge to me - convincing a bunch of capitalists in the same industry to work together towards a common goal.