If you want to see some of the kick-ass hardware that's perfectly legal for civilians to own, I recommend checking out FPSRussia's channel on youtube. That guy gets ahold of some seriously awesome toys.
My personal favorite is probably the 40mm Bofors anti-aircraft rifle. That bad-boy looks like fun>/i>
Well, everybody who is against some basic gun control, like proper background check and mandatory training is a gun lunatic in my book.
Good for you.
IMO, everybody who makes broad, baseless generalizations about other people, despite a complete lack of evidence to back their claims, is a jackass in the book of any person capable of rational thought. So, tit-for-tat and all that jazz.
As much as I would like to criticize you for not understanding how the Constitutional Amendment process can be used by the states to effectively nullify federal laws, I find myself unable to, and instead would like to commend you for the fact that, unlike most, you seem to actually know the real reasons the Civil War was fought.
What I, and most other gun owners, have a problem with is this person who is so heavily protected by guns (paid for by our taxes) telling us that we have no right to protect ourselves with guns.
You are a fucking moron. You know why you are a moron? Because he never said that. And no, gun control is not the same as no guns for anyone. Quite frankly, your insistence on this strawman is really disturbing.
You do realize that prefacing your comment with an abject, childish insult does not encourage anyone to take you seriously, right?
Well, anyone more mature than a 6th grader, anyway.
I own a blendtec. Wife loves it. My OCD and I hate it.
you can put anything into it and be 100% assured that 3-4 tablespoons of any liquid you put into that blender will end up in the cavity of the lid. the lid seems purposely designed to accept these liquids as if you wanted to save them for later or as a place to hold samples. not only that, but the lid is designed in such a way as most of the liquid that is collected in the lid and will never make it back into the container where it originated. the mitigate these problems they engineered the lid to be easily broken down and cleaned. this happens no matter what speed you use and despite what kind of liquid you use - and yes ice is counted as a liquid in this sense.
In light of complaints about the design of the BlendTec lid, are there any plans to incorporate customer suggestions and introduce a new, improved model?
I just wanted to point out some really obvious things
There is an wide chasm between "Non compos mentis" and "mental health issues". Note that the 2nd term isn't "mental health disorder" it's "mental health issues".
How will "mental health issue" be defined for this purpose? Is a prescription for antidepressants sufficient for gun confiscation, or does it require a diagnosis of an actual disorder.
Great question.
As an example, my wife takes Trazadone, an anti-depressant, as a sleep aid. Would she (and myself, since we co-habitate) be barred from owning a gun because she's "on an anti-depressant," even though mental health isn't the reason she takes it?
"Gun control debate in Three...Two...O.......BLAM!"
+1 Funny.
At least the gun control debate on/. retains some semblance of reasonable discussion. Try some of the other forums. I had to stop reading HuffPo and Politico because of the worthless ranting and raving, stereotyping, name calling, half truths and blatant lies. Twenty minutes over there will make you really appreciate the message boards here.
My wife reads a lot of Yahoo News, because it's what shows up when she logs in to her work computer.
I always like to rib her by saying the only time I ever go to Yahoo News is when I'm looking to lose faith in humanity.
The problem is that people can be arbitrarily added to these lists and there is no legal process by which to remove yourself. A law abiding citizen with no history of crime or mental illness could just be added to the list for whatever reason. That's BS. If we're going to prohibit people from purchasing or owning firearms, it should be done only through due process of law, not by some obscure and arbitrary bureaucratic decision making.
Exactly.
Anyone who doesn't believe that this will inevitably be used to effectively criminalize firearm ownership has obviously failed to learn from history.
Better weapons technology today does not change the Constitution.
This is why I can't help but laugh openly at the gun-grabbers who actually try and argue that the 2nd Amendment was meant to only apply to muskets.
What's really funny is watching how they react when you ask them if they also think the 1st Amendment only applies to documents written on parchment with quill pens, or if the 4th only applies to horse-drawn carriages.
So, there's nothing, legally speaking, that prevents Ms. O'Donnell's guards from carrying the exact same armaments as the President's SS detail, especially considering that if anyone can afford a shitload of automatic weapons, it's an overpaid Hollywood celebrity.
Last I checked, the president's armed guards (or Rosie O'Donnell's, or anyone else for that matter) aren't carrying military style assault rifles or hand guns with extended clips.
Then obviously you never actually checked, and are talking purely from your anus.
Here's a short list of some of the weapons that are commonly carried by Secret Service agents:
FN P90 - fully automatic 5.7x28mm submachine gun (aka machine pistol); 50-rnd magazine standard, 900 RPM firing rate; this gun is the replacement for the old standard-issue SMG -
The Uzi - carried by SS agents from 1960 to the mid 1990's; fully automatic, 9mm or.45 caliber SMG; 16-50 rnd standard magazines, 600 RPM firing rate.
Then there's the ubiquitious H&K MP5 - 9mm or.40 caliber SMG, 15-100 rnd capacity, 800 RPM.
And of course, the Presidential SUV has a M134 minicannon in the back - 7.62mm, 2000-6000 RPM, belt-fed, capacity limited by storage space for ammo.
What the fuck is wrong with you people? You really, really can't see the issue with not providing the president of the United States of America - YOUR president - with more security than Joe Schmoe down the street? Has ideology really clouded your mind so much that you can't the basic reality of who wants to kill the president, and who wants to kill Joe Schmoe?
That's not it at all - I don't have a problem with the President being surrounded by heavily armed guards 24/7.
What I, and most other gun owners, have a problem with is this person who is so heavily protected by guns (paid for by our taxes) telling us that we have no right to protect ourselves with guns.
Wow, I see fox news gun nut crowd is moderating today! You go guys!
Wow, I see the completely unreasonable, unable-to-make-a-valid-argument-so-they-immediately-fall-back-to-lowest-common-denominator-ad-hominem-personal-attacks crowd has nothing better to do than harass everyone that doesn't agree with him!
Having licensed, well trained, professional armed guards means more security. Having more lunatics with guns means less security.
Failing to see the difference?
You do realize that by choosing to marginalize opposition, rather than provide a rational argument, you're doing more harm than good to your own position, don't you?
FYI, every time you use a term like "gun nut" or "lunatics with guns" when referring to your fellow citizens, you lose credibility with everyone who isn't a fringe, gun-grabbing sociopath.
"Is that what you think this is? It seemed to me that it was a solution waiting for a sufficiently heart-wrenching problem, like how they doubtless have all the "Cyber-Patriot Act" stuff just waiting for an opportunity (Rahm Emanuel crisis style)."
Exactly. Not to mention that we have the Constitutional question to deal with.
What good is it to make it easier for states to share information, if the states don't want to do it? Several states now have exercised their ability to legislatively "nullify" unconstitutional Federal gun laws. More will follow, the higher-handed the Feds get.
I know this is hard to swallow, but the founders of the U.S. did not give the Federal government -- including the Supreme Court, which is part of the Federal government -- the power to decide what its own powers are. As James Madison laid out very clearly in 1800, even the Supreme Court is not immune to power-grabbing, and trying to give the Feds more power than explicitly spelled out in the Constitution. Therefore (according to Madison and other founders), the ultimate authority to decide when the Federal government is exceeding its power lies with the States. The States created the Federal government, therefore the States are the masters of their creation... not the other way around.
Lots of people seem to forget that the Supremacy Clause only refers to laws passed "in pursuance of" the other powers enumerated in the Constitution. Federal laws passed that are not in pursuance of those powers are (Thomas Jefferson's words): "of no force, null and void". Not actually law, at all.
Not to mention that executive orders are merely instructions for Federal employees, also not law, in the sense that they have no power to tell common citizens what to do.
Sorry, but states do not have the ability to nullify Federal laws, unconstitutional or not. Only the judiciary can do that.
Apparently my 9 year old is able to wrap his head around these simple concepts far better than politicians.
After listening to Sen. McCain's 10 minute, kindergarten-esque rant at the Hagel confirmation hearings, regarding something Chuck said about Israel some 14 years ago, I'm shamefully unsurprised.
I've met toddlers with more maturity and sense than the geriatric lunatics running this asylum.
Congress (legislative) is a check to the President's power, as are the courts (judicial).
2nd grade civics....
The President has the authority to veto. But that need not be the final outcome. If Congress so chooses they can (and have) override the Presidential veto by establishing a 2/3rd's majority vote in both houses of Congress, which passes the bill to law with or without the President's blessing.
4th grade civics....
Of course, if the President doesn't veto, and instead signs the bill into law, Congress never has to worry about reconsidering the proposal.
The push to ban guns has nothing to do with safety and crime. It's all about clearing out any ability to resist sweeping governmental changes that would be met with armed resistance from gun owners and sane people who love freedom.
Slashdot Mirror
From Summary:
..."opt-in"...
You keep using that phrase, but I do not think it means what you think it means...
My personal favorite is probably the 40mm Bofors anti-aircraft rifle. That bad-boy looks like fun>/i>
Wait, I take that back - the Bofors is my second favorite, after this 2500 meter beast.
.338 Lapua, FTW!
Well, what can I say... Holy shit!
Lol, not the reaction I expected...
If you want to see some of the kick-ass hardware that's perfectly legal for civilians to own, I recommend checking out FPSRussia's channel on youtube. That guy gets ahold of some seriously awesome toys.
My personal favorite is probably the 40mm Bofors anti-aircraft rifle. That bad-boy looks like fun>/i>
Well, everybody who is against some basic gun control, like proper background check and mandatory training is a gun lunatic in my book.
Good for you.
IMO, everybody who makes broad, baseless generalizations about other people, despite a complete lack of evidence to back their claims, is a jackass in the book of any person capable of rational thought. So, tit-for-tat and all that jazz.
As much as I would like to criticize you for not understanding how the Constitutional Amendment process can be used by the states to effectively nullify federal laws, I find myself unable to, and instead would like to commend you for the fact that, unlike most, you seem to actually know the real reasons the Civil War was fought.
Kudos, man.
What I, and most other gun owners, have a problem with is this person who is so heavily protected by guns (paid for by our taxes) telling us that we have no right to protect ourselves with guns.
You are a fucking moron. You know why you are a moron? Because he never said that. And no, gun control is not the same as no guns for anyone. Quite frankly, your insistence on this strawman is really disturbing.
You do realize that prefacing your comment with an abject, childish insult does not encourage anyone to take you seriously, right?
Well, anyone more mature than a 6th grader, anyway.
Have you ever considered spoofing yourself, and/or a product you're blending?
I'm thinking of something along the lines of you sticking a copy of Windows 8 in the BlendTec, and having the camera go all BSOD.
How awesome is your job? As in, other than obliterating random household goods with a blender, what else does your position entail?
I own a blendtec. Wife loves it. My OCD and I hate it.
you can put anything into it and be 100% assured that 3-4 tablespoons of any liquid you put into that blender will end up in the cavity of the lid. the lid seems purposely designed to accept these liquids as if you wanted to save them for later or as a place to hold samples. not only that, but the lid is designed in such a way as most of the liquid that is collected in the lid and will never make it back into the container where it originated. the mitigate these problems they engineered the lid to be easily broken down and cleaned. this happens no matter what speed you use and despite what kind of liquid you use - and yes ice is counted as a liquid in this sense.
In light of complaints about the design of the BlendTec lid, are there any plans to incorporate customer suggestions and introduce a new, improved model?
I just wanted to point out some really obvious things
There is an wide chasm between "Non compos mentis" and "mental health issues". Note that the 2nd term isn't "mental health disorder" it's "mental health issues".
How will "mental health issue" be defined for this purpose? Is a prescription for antidepressants sufficient for gun confiscation, or does it require a diagnosis of an actual disorder.
Great question.
As an example, my wife takes Trazadone, an anti-depressant, as a sleep aid. Would she (and myself, since we co-habitate) be barred from owning a gun because she's "on an anti-depressant," even though mental health isn't the reason she takes it?
The slope is slippery indeed.
"Gun control debate in Three...Two...O.......BLAM!"
+1 Funny.
At least the gun control debate on /. retains some semblance of reasonable discussion. Try some of the other forums. I had to stop reading HuffPo and Politico because of the worthless ranting and raving, stereotyping, name calling, half truths and blatant lies. Twenty minutes over there will make you really appreciate the message boards here.
My wife reads a lot of Yahoo News, because it's what shows up when she logs in to her work computer.
I always like to rib her by saying the only time I ever go to Yahoo News is when I'm looking to lose faith in humanity.
The problem is that people can be arbitrarily added to these lists and there is no legal process by which to remove yourself. A law abiding citizen with no history of crime or mental illness could just be added to the list for whatever reason. That's BS. If we're going to prohibit people from purchasing or owning firearms, it should be done only through due process of law, not by some obscure and arbitrary bureaucratic decision making.
Exactly.
Anyone who doesn't believe that this will inevitably be used to effectively criminalize firearm ownership has obviously failed to learn from history.
Better weapons technology today does not change the Constitution.
This is why I can't help but laugh openly at the gun-grabbers who actually try and argue that the 2nd Amendment was meant to only apply to muskets.
What's really funny is watching how they react when you ask them if they also think the 1st Amendment only applies to documents written on parchment with quill pens, or if the 4th only applies to horse-drawn carriages.
I don't know about the president's security, I agree that this is irrelevant.
However, I'm pretty sure that the average private guarding company uses only legal weapons.
Contrary to popular misconception, machine guns are not illegal.
So, there's nothing, legally speaking, that prevents Ms. O'Donnell's guards from carrying the exact same armaments as the President's SS detail, especially considering that if anyone can afford a shitload of automatic weapons, it's an overpaid Hollywood celebrity.
Last I checked, the president's armed guards (or Rosie O'Donnell's, or anyone else for that matter) aren't carrying military style assault rifles or hand guns with extended clips.
Then obviously you never actually checked, and are talking purely from your anus.
Here's a short list of some of the weapons that are commonly carried by Secret Service agents:
FN P90 - fully automatic 5.7x28mm submachine gun (aka machine pistol); 50-rnd magazine standard, 900 RPM firing rate; this gun is the replacement for the old standard-issue SMG -
The Uzi - carried by SS agents from 1960 to the mid 1990's; fully automatic, 9mm or .45 caliber SMG; 16-50 rnd standard magazines, 600 RPM firing rate.
Then there's the ubiquitious H&K MP5 - 9mm or .40 caliber SMG, 15-100 rnd capacity, 800 RPM.
And of course, the Presidential SUV has a M134 minicannon in the back - 7.62mm, 2000-6000 RPM, belt-fed, capacity limited by storage space for ammo.
In other words, you're full of shit, and demonstrably so.
stop spouting off about things you don't know enough about.
Yea, you do that.
What the fuck is wrong with you people? You really, really can't see the issue with not providing the president of the United States of America - YOUR president - with more security than Joe Schmoe down the street? Has ideology really clouded your mind so much that you can't the basic reality of who wants to kill the president, and who wants to kill Joe Schmoe?
That's not it at all - I don't have a problem with the President being surrounded by heavily armed guards 24/7.
What I, and most other gun owners, have a problem with is this person who is so heavily protected by guns (paid for by our taxes) telling us that we have no right to protect ourselves with guns.
Wow, I see fox news gun nut crowd is moderating today! You go guys!
Wow, I see the completely unreasonable, unable-to-make-a-valid-argument-so-they-immediately-fall-back-to-lowest-common-denominator-ad-hominem-personal-attacks crowd has nothing better to do than harass everyone that doesn't agree with him!
You go, guy! Preferably somewhere far, far away.
Having licensed, well trained, professional armed guards means more security. Having more lunatics with guns means less security.
Failing to see the difference?
You do realize that by choosing to marginalize opposition, rather than provide a rational argument, you're doing more harm than good to your own position, don't you?
FYI, every time you use a term like "gun nut" or "lunatics with guns" when referring to your fellow citizens, you lose credibility with everyone who isn't a fringe, gun-grabbing sociopath.
"Is that what you think this is? It seemed to me that it was a solution waiting for a sufficiently heart-wrenching problem, like how they doubtless have all the "Cyber-Patriot Act" stuff just waiting for an opportunity (Rahm Emanuel crisis style)."
Exactly. Not to mention that we have the Constitutional question to deal with.
What good is it to make it easier for states to share information, if the states don't want to do it? Several states now have exercised their ability to legislatively "nullify" unconstitutional Federal gun laws. More will follow, the higher-handed the Feds get.
I know this is hard to swallow, but the founders of the U.S. did not give the Federal government -- including the Supreme Court, which is part of the Federal government -- the power to decide what its own powers are. As James Madison laid out very clearly in 1800, even the Supreme Court is not immune to power-grabbing, and trying to give the Feds more power than explicitly spelled out in the Constitution. Therefore (according to Madison and other founders), the ultimate authority to decide when the Federal government is exceeding its power lies with the States. The States created the Federal government, therefore the States are the masters of their creation... not the other way around.
Lots of people seem to forget that the Supremacy Clause only refers to laws passed "in pursuance of" the other powers enumerated in the Constitution. Federal laws passed that are not in pursuance of those powers are (Thomas Jefferson's words): "of no force, null and void". Not actually law, at all.
Not to mention that executive orders are merely instructions for Federal employees, also not law, in the sense that they have no power to tell common citizens what to do.
Sorry, but states do not have the ability to nullify Federal laws, unconstitutional or not. Only the judiciary can do that.
Failed 9th grade Civics, didn't we?
Apparently my 9 year old is able to wrap his head around these simple concepts far better than politicians.
After listening to Sen. McCain's 10 minute, kindergarten-esque rant at the Hagel confirmation hearings, regarding something Chuck said about Israel some 14 years ago, I'm shamefully unsurprised.
I've met toddlers with more maturity and sense than the geriatric lunatics running this asylum.
Congress (legislative) is a check to the President's power, as are the courts (judicial).
2nd grade civics....
The President has the authority to veto. But that need not be the final outcome. If Congress so chooses they can (and have) override the Presidential veto by establishing a 2/3rd's majority vote in both houses of Congress, which passes the bill to law with or without the President's blessing.
4th grade civics....
Of course, if the President doesn't veto, and instead signs the bill into law, Congress never has to worry about reconsidering the proposal.
There are no clean hands in D.C.
Sputtering is experimental? News to me.
A statement pretty much everyone who ever owned a Chevy Corvair would be hard pressed to disagree with.
To paraphrase Emperor Palpatine, I find your lack of humor disturbing.
Is it a good idea to fly around an active volcanoe with the helicopter door open? Aren't there generally toxic gases about?
Well, it is Russia.
They're probably safer having the window open; those potato-and-vodka farts can be pretty damn toxic themselves.
The push to ban guns has nothing to do with safety and crime. It's all about clearing out any ability to resist sweeping governmental changes that would be met with armed resistance from gun owners and sane people who love freedom.
Not for the chickenshits. They just want to feel that warm, fuzzy "safe" feeling they get from things like watching kids get molested by perverts at the airport or having them arrested for talking about Hello Kitty toys.