I ran across a link in one of the user posts yesterday that led me to a web site that actually sells serial console cards for PCs.
The setup is, this is an 8-bit ISA card that responds to the system like an MDA card. I'm guessing it intercepts writes into the text buffer of the MDA and outputs VT100 escape sequences or something. At least, that's what I'd do if I were them.
Unfortunately, I don't have the URL handy, but I emailed the company (whose email is apparently different from the URL at which these cards reside, and I'm too friggin' lazy to go knocking about trying to root this out right now), and asked them to post in this thread so they may be roundly slashdotted.
I'm going to pick up at least a couple of these things. Neat hack.
I agree with the point about the guaranteed R&D spending drawing folks to RedHat. It would draw me back to them, for sure (for Linsux). Right now I'm trying to install Debian and, for lack of a better phrase, its installer SUCKS! At least RedHat got that right (God, it's sooo braindead-easy to install RedHat...).
Even OpenBSD is easier (by *FAR*) to install than Debian.
Actually, he probably got this idea from reading the works of Richard C. Hoagland, who was the first to come forth with credible evidence of liquid water beneath the surface of Europa.
The heat that could keep the system going would, indeed, be caused by vulcanism. However, it is doubtful that that volcanic activity will ever cease. Consider that Europa is probably about the same age as the Earth, and is at least hypothetically volcanically active. This volcanic activity would be caused by the gravitational forces of Jupiter and the other moons, and isn't likely to change (unless something rather drastic happens in the vicinity of Jupiter).
Io, another of Jupiter's moons, is visibly volcanically active (probably the most active body in the whole solar system). It is and will remain very hot because of the gravitation of Jupiter.
So, if Europa is currently volcanically active (a likely hypothesis, given the gravitational oomph of Jupiter), and has a big bunch of water ice (we believe we've observed this), and has liquid water beneath an icy crust (another likely hypothesis, given the heat that must be at the core of that little moon), then assuming that some kind of life could have organized itself there, and could have evolved to the point where it can survive in the water (which must be quite toxic, at least by our standards, by now, though what is garbage to us might well be rich nutrition to some little beasties on Europa), then it's a good possibility that life exists there to this day.
Can I be pissed off that they didn't code up an X screensaver module with all the pretty eye-candy? I don't care how fast the blasted thing churns out keys (4 proc Alpha), I want a neat-o graphics hack on my root window, dammit!
Back in the day (remember the 50+ free floppies IBM would give out if you'd beta test OS/2 2.1?), I saw a 386/16 MCA-bus IBM machine with 12M RAM that would SMOKE my 486/33 with 16 running OS/2.
The MCA bus kicked ass back then, and we'd all be running a variant of it now (maybe some whiz-bang 100MHz 64bit MCA-3 or something) if it hadn't been for IBM's proclivity to proprietize EVERYTHING.
They saw that open architectures meant they'd not have a total lock on a market, and instead of making a new, better standard for everyone to use, driving forward the technology, they only gave out programming specs on the hardware to a few business partners.
EVERYONE, especially IBM, lost.
That's the reason I can't understand folks like NVidia today. They could be THE STANDARD by which all others are judged (they are now, sort of, but I digress), but instead they err on the side of propriety.
I will set up an escrow account for Slashdotters who would like to funnel money my way. Maybe if everyone who reads Slashdot donated $5, we could get the statue erected and add prestige to this forum.:)
Or, maybe, it would be better if Rob or Hemos would do so. At any rate, email me if you're interested. I think it'd be a hoot.:)
So, the crime rate in England is lower than that of, say, Switzerland? Hahahah.
I can refute your argument by pointing out two or three cases of the opposite.
It is your assertion that no civilized country which allows firearm ownership by the populace, including handguns (France, as you say, allows the private ownership of hunting rifles... as I have no knowledge of this, I will give you this point), is "safe".
Would your idea of civilized countries include such countries as Switzerland, New Zealand, and Israel? These are all "western" countries, and as such are "civilized" by your criteria from what I can see.
All of these countries allow, and in the case of Switzerland and Israel (not sure about NZ), PROMOTE the keeping of arms by the citizenry. The difference: they TRAIN and EDUCATE their citizens on the proper use of these arms.
I would venture a guess that Switzerland and New Zealand are among the safest nations in the world. Now, where was your argument?
Also, there have been reports of "civilization" in the far East. One little nation there, called Taiwan, strictly forbids the ownership of firearms. That little nation sports one of the highest incidents of violent crime in the world. So, where was that argument again?
In a situation where I would leave my wife for another woman (which is unthinkable, since I don't have a wife... but if I did, she would not have to worry about such a thing anyway... but I digress), and she was pointing a gun at my head, I would certainly be scared shitless. However, thoughts about her right to bear arms would never even enter my mind. I would still, at that point, support her right to bear arms if I were even able to think.
I can see the rationality in an armed citizenry. I _think_ about these things from time to time. Can you say the same?
Your blatant appeal to emotion, "How many kids have to die...", is indicative of your inability to rationally discuss such an issue.
Indeed, I do think very highly of my argument, Slick. I actually have _thought_ about my argument. I doubt that you can say the same.
I guess you missed the sarcasm in those statements. Yes, I know the state of Hawaii is home to Pearl Harbor. I was thinking of a young man who, when I said I lived in St. Louis, asked me what state that was in. He was a recent high school graduate from Philadelphia (PA - in case you're wondering).
Verily, I know that our isolationist tendencies ended with the bombing of Pearl Harbor. That was the reason we got into the war. It was only after WWII, though, that our "maritime" policies tended away from isolationism.
This text is a summation of a study done by an anti-gun guy in Chicago who embarked on this mission to prove that guns kill people.
His conclusion? That in states where concealed-carry was allowed, violent crime declined dramatically.
So what if it's from some NRA text? The point is, indeed, valid. Not only that, but the fact that the man who did the study was an avid anti-gun guy (who quite properly revealed the results of his study, though they contradicted his hoped-for result, in the best scientific tradition) lends credence to the text cited above.
Where in the above text, which includes bibliographic annotations, and into which vastly more study has gone than your considered opinion that it is invalid, is there an inaccuracy?
I will attempt to dissect your appeal to emotion point by point, in hopes that it will show you the logic errors in your rant, and increase your awareness on topics of public policy.
> AFTER 20 INNOCENT CHILDREN WERE KILLED IN COLORADO YOU HAVE ENOUGH BALLS TO BREAG ABOUT > OWNING SEMI AUTOMATIC GUNS!
If I owned semi-automatic guns, I would likely not brag about them... oh, wait, I _do_. Now, have I gone out and shot anyone? No.
The fact is, the wackos in Colorado used _shotguns_ to perpetrate their crime. Not semi-automatic weapons (the likes of which technically include all hand guns, including revolvers, semi-automatic hunting rifles, even my.22 ca Marlin squirrel gun, and the much-hyped "assault weapons" which are used in far less than 1% of crimes committed with guns in the U.S. - even _BEFORE_ the ban). So, what was this statement about?
> THese werent people who were killed. They were children.
And since when have children not been people? If you're a radical leftist, that may be the case (pulling up the abortion issue, just to incite your ire).
> ITs because of liberal gun laws made by NRA extremist who only make up 3% of > America's population.
No, it's not. The fact is, in places where the gun laws are the most strict you'll find the highest incidents of violent crimes commited with firearms.
"When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns."
It's not just a quaint saying, but the stone truth.
> ITs embarasing calling myself an American while all the Canadians and Europeans scratch their > heads at us.
Renounce your citizenship. Move to Canada or Europe. No? Why not? Perhaps you are not that embarrassed after all? Why are you embarrassed calling yourself an American (at least, over this issue... there are a number of other issues wherein I will agree with you)?
What you fail to realize is that the first two amendments go hand-in-hand, and the first would not be secure without the second. Nor would any of the others. That little piece of paper in the hermetically sealed cabinet in the museum in Washington, D.C. isn't just a novelty. It's a living, breathing document and a shining beacon of reason in an otherwise hostile world. The Kosovar Albanians didn't have guns, nor do the people of Iraq. We do, and because of that, we will never be as bad off as they. If the government gets too nasty here, assuming the people don't act like sheep and foolishly give up their rights to bear arms, we can overthrow it. That idea is not a tinker-toy, either. It's a moral imperative.
"The tree of liberty is fertilized by the blood of patriots."
> THe constitution says that in case the government becaomes a tryant and abasues its > pwoer then we as the people must bear arms agaisnt the power. NOT OWN GUNS! Read it yourslef.
The logical fallibility of that statement should be clear even to you, but if it is not, I will point it out.
How can We, The People, bear arms THAT WE DO NOT OWN against the power of a tyrannical government? Do you think such a government will supply us with arms as a gesture of good will? No, We The People _MUST_ be able to own arms. Note that the Constitution (the paper in the sealed box in D.C.) does not mandate that people own and carry guns, but SECURES THAT RIGHT via the Second Amendment. If you value the other amendments in the Bill Of Rights, then you must value the second. It is there for a reason, and is the underpinning of the guarantee that the others will remain secure for us.
> THE NRA missinterprets the constititon for their own greedy agenda.
That agenda being... ? The death of more Americans, or maybe the wanton destruction and blight caused by crime? I don't think so.
> WHy would the framers of the constitution and the bill of rights mention personal firing arms > when discusing how to build a governemnt.
Because they were Very Wise Men [tm] who had just fought a war for their independence from a tyrannical government, and did not want their progeny (us) to face the same threat from their own government. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed means exactly that, and for the reason given, the necessity of such for the security of a free (speech, assembly, citizenry...) state (the U.S.).
>The whole idea of the framers thinking about oppreson and liberty all of the sudden think > aobut their own personal fireamrs.
Umm... yeah? They saw their firearms as the means for securing that liberty against that oppression. We should see things in much the same way. Do you honestly think that, if the populace was not armed, the U.S. would be any less prone to tyranny than any other place on the planet? Why do you have this delusion?
> ITs obviously out of context.
What is out of context? The founding fathers had that belief, and it is still a valid belief. I can only hope that, if they were around today, they would have written the same provision in a much clearer fashion which irrefutably secured that right to the people. I believe they would.
> The nra supports crazy stuff like ammo that can peirce bullet proof vests of police officers (I > can't see how this would benifiet deer hunting)
The constitution said nothing about deer-hunting. And the armor-piercing variety of bullets would be necessary to defend yourself against a tyrannical government. If the Marines decided to take over, say, Boston, do you think they would go in in tee shirts or standard-issue BDUs? I doubt it. I think they'd wear flak-jackets. People in Boston would be _thankful_ for the armor-piercing ammunition, and don't think they wouldn't.
> and making it legal to conceal a semi automatic weapon in your jacket.
If you're speaking of "assault rifles", they're hard as hell to conceal in a jacket, even a trench coat. If you're speaking of, say, a 9mm Beretta, that's easier. Why shouldn't I be able to carry my weapon inconspicuously? If I wear it on my belt, it's more likely that some wacko will try to take it from me and use it against me by just grabbing it out of the holster. If I have it under my arm, in a shoulder-holster, I might have a better chance of stopping an ongoing rape or robbery, or of defending myself if I am not disarmed _first_.
> I heard on cnn in Missouri the nra tried to do just that.
Yeah, but Missouri is on a different planet. Seriously, though, I'm from Missouri. I live in Missouri. I wanted Proposition B to pass. The fact is that it did pass by overwhelming numbers in the outlying counties. Only St. Louis and Kansas City kept the bill from passing due to turnout by ill-informed urban votes, drummed into action by media hype. But it wasn't the NRA that put this before the people. The state legislature put it before the people in a direct vote (a referendum, for the uninitiated).
> Missouri made it ilegal in the 1800's when outlaws were everywhere and the crime went down > when criminals couldn't hide pistols in their coats.
I had not thought it possible for someone to be so ill-informed.
Missouri did, indeed, make it illegal to carry a gun on your person in the 1800s. But only if you were going further than two counties distant (the distance one could reasonably be expected to travel on horseback in a day's time). So, there is nothing in state law that says I can't sling a belt around my waist, hang a six-shooter in it, and walk down the street. The fact that the police would, in short order, arrest me is an abridgement of my rights under state law.
Besides, I'd be willing to bet that in over 95% of crimes committed in the U.S. (and in Missouri) where a gun was involved, the gun involved was not legally registered to the wielder. The proposition in Missouri would have required a concealed-carry license and a properly registered handgun.
One question I'd pose to you: given that a criminal will use an illegal gun to commit his crimes (95+% of the time), what is to stop said criminal from concealing an illegal gun in his jacket?
Another question: if that criminal can conceal his illegal gun in his jacket (which he will do, in order to avoid or at least defer detainment by the constabulary), why can I, a law-abiding citizen, not conceal my properly registered and duly-authorized gun in my jacket?
> Now tell me how concealing semi automatic weapons benifets deer hunting or even shooting > semi automatic weapons on rural property for fun.
Semi-automatic weapons of what kind? Assault rifles? Those are difficult to conceal even in a trench coat. Handguns? Who would hunt deer with a handgun? What does deer-hunting have to do with the constitutional right to keep and bear arms?
> Their is no need to conceal them. THe NRA are nuts the constition does not state to own weapons > but rather bear arms agaisn't the foriegn or dictatory power. Jeez
Okay, so, if we go up and wave our arms at an invading army (our bare arms, no guns), they'll turn tail and run away? The kids at Kent State waved their bare arms at the National Guard, and some of them ended up dead because of it. If we have no arms to bear, then all we can do is bare our arms at the oppressor, and that won't do a damn bit of good or secure a single bit of freedom for anyone. Except, of course, the oppressor who will slaughter all of those who come at him with bare arms like sheep. He will have guns, shouldn't we?
> For all you europeans and australinas reading this, remember that the vast majority of > Americans don't agree with this madness but are rather captive by powerfull nra politicians.
No, all you Europeans and Australians, believe that the vast majority of Americans DO agree with the second amendment. We are not captive to powerful NRA politicians, but are rather fond of the idea of maintaining some semblence of common sense and civility. The last couple of generations notwithstanding, this is a decent country. It can be again, but only if we take our rights more seriously, as well as the responsibility that goes along with them.
> Bill Gates is having a fund raiser to raise money against the volience of handguns. This is > the only thing I have common in Bill Gates.
Well, I have to say this: I sympathize with those who have been victims, directly or indirectly, of handgun violence. I would give money to a fund that helped to counsel those victims, or pay benefits to those who are so afflicted. I would not, however, give up my right to bear arms. Just because Billcutus gives money to a cause doesn't mean he thinks one way or another about it. I suspect that he, in the guise of Microsoft, gives a good rate to the Exxon Corporation for the purchase of MS Office. Does this mean that he believes in the senseless killing of animals and the wanton destruction of the environment?
Think about it. Just think about it. Hell, just think period.
We ought to use the slash engine to make a constitution and public policy discussion forum. I love this stuff, too, and that would be a great way to incite riotous debate among geeks.
Your perception of the courts' "interpretation" of the constitution is the correct one. Poor, unwashed constitutional non-literalists can't seem to understand that sometimes people say and write exactly what they mean.
A crazy guy with weapons of mass destruction was NOT the reason we fought the second world war. It was due to popular sentiment after the bombing of Pearl Harbor (which, for you recent high school graduates, is in the state of Fairbanks).
The U.S. tended toward isolationism until AFTER the second world war. And WE were the guys with the weapons of mass destruction (remember Hiroshima, Nagasaki?).
Give up your RIGHT to bear arms to save just one life, eh? How 'bout if it's the life of the guy you just caught raping your wife?
Oh, and there are just as many, if not MORE drugs around now as then. That's a red herring.
So, if you played a lot of DooM in high school, and you had the same exposure to the internet and the media that these kids had, and your ability to get guns (which, by your other rants, must be seen as "guns are too easily available", meaning that they are easily available to YOU), why did you never think of doing something like this?
What? Society not to blame? Fscked-up kids to blame? Parents not minding their children? What? What means this word, "responsibility"?
Population of about 30Million? 600 homicides a year? Lessee... multiply your population by about 10 times, and increase the homicides by about that much. Now, you've got 6000 homicides a year to deal with.
CanaDUH doesn't look so peachy any more, does it?
I don't know what the homicide rate is for the U.S., but that's not the issue.
Because he owns a gun does not make him a bad person. It makes him a smart person. Have you ever had your house violated? Broken into while you were there? Been victim of some kind of crime? Wouldn't you have liked to have protected yourself?
I doubt whether ESR has had any of these problems, as it _REALLY_ISN'T_THAT_COMMON_ here in the U.S. to be burgled or raped or whatever, but it never hurts to be prepared.
Better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it. -- My Grandma
Better to be judged by twelve than carried by six. -- My Grandpa
Your initial impression of ESR was probably the correct one. He probably _is_ a nice guy. Just because he wants to protect what is ultimately his to protect, his life, why is he demonized by you?
So, this same sort of thing _didn't_ happen in Scotland a short while ago? Granted, it wasn't a student in that case, but a guy killed a bunch of friggin kindergarteners.
Guns are also readily available to everyone in such regions as Africa, South America, SE Asia, and Switzerland. When was the last time you heard of a Swiss guy going off half-cocked and blowing away a bunch of people? Granted, this doesn't put the U.S. in a favorable light, but that's not the point of this rant.
A simple truth is this: guns don't kill people - people kill people.
That the Swiss have machine guns in their houses doesn't prompt them to go on shooting sprees, right? The U.S. didn't have all these problems before the last twenty or so years, when guns were _MORE_ prevalent. No, the availability of guns to the populace has nothing to do with this sort of behavior. This behavior is a symptom of a much deeper problem.
The problem here is, nobody wants to take responsibility for their own actions. "My three-year-old kid went out and died in a ditch while I was passed out drunk, so there must have been something on TV that made her do that." It's revolting.
It is a fact that, in 1930s Germany, Hitler advocated licensing all guns. Germans, stolid and dutiful, loyal to their fuhrer, registered their guns. When Hitler wanted to pervert his chancellorship and turn it into something more nefarious, who got rounded up first? Gun owners.
Changing the gun laws would make it illegal for otherwise law-abiding citizens to own guns. Good, solid citizens would become criminals. As it stands, criminals already have guns. They would not be affected in the slightest. Do criminals in Europe have guns? Oh, wait, Europe is perfect and there is no crime there. Maybe its citizenry is just too lazy to bristle at taxes more oppressive than those shouldered by us in the U.S.
Also shown by the numbers is this fact, which you so conveniently ignore: in states where concealed carrying of guns has been once again permitted, crime rates have DROPPED. Yes, guns have actually made it SAFER in the U.S. where they are allowed to work their magic. An armed citizenry is not only there to defend against an oppressive government (mark my words, we will see civil war in this nation again inside 50 years... people have ignorantly given their rights, and soon they will realize just what has been taken from them, and they'll be pissed...), but to defend against each other.
The Internet, guns, movies, TV, newspapers, drugs, neo-Nazi activity, racism, sexism, and hate have _NOTHING_ to do with actions like this. They are simply symptoms of a much larger problem. This problem to which I allude is, from what I've seen, a Universal Truth [tm] (and is also pervasive amongst Europeans, much to their utter chagrin).
Here it is: PEOPLE ARE STUPID.
Armed citizenry is _necessary_ to maintaining the bounds on government set forth in our Constitution. The Constitution is not there to mandate government power over the people, but to limit government's power over the people. Our entire body of laws was miniscule until the last thirty years or so, as common sense had its rightful place in society.
As I dwell more on this subject, I see a correlation between dates of various happenings, and the beginnings of problems in the U.S. that could lead to the problem in Littleton.
The problem is that people don't take responsibility for their own actions. The baby-boomers didn't have to bear responsibility in their time, and instead set their goals toward more social "justice".
To wit, they passed the "Great Society" legislation in the 1960s, which established a system of welfare and cyclic dependency on government. This dependency on government freed young men of the burden of caring for children they fathered illegitimately, and made it profitable for young women to become baby-mills; the more babies they produced, the fatter the welfare check from Uncle Sucker. This money was easily converted into booze or drugs and, since there was no reason to work, there was no reason to stay clean. Uncle Sucker would take care of things, and just keep sending the checks no matter what, right? Oh, the kids? They'll mind themselves. I used that welfare check to buy a TV.
Seeing their parents practicing this lifestyle, one where nobody exercised any self-control, never took any responsibility for their own actions (I do drugs because the Man doesn't give me a chance... it's all a racist conspiracy... wait, I'm white... what?), how do you expect these kids to act? They'll learn the lessons taught them by their parents, and they'll learn them well.
Maybe one of the best things that ever happened to this country will be the impending WWIII that is starting (again!) in the Balkans. Gen-X will have to buckle down and bear the burden of responsibility for this war brought to us by a bunch of flaming, bleeding-heart liberal baby-boomer do-gooders.
Slashdot Mirror
Hi,
I ran across a link in one of the user posts yesterday that led me to a web site that actually sells serial console cards for PCs.
The setup is, this is an 8-bit ISA card that responds to the system like an MDA card. I'm guessing it intercepts writes into the text buffer of the MDA and outputs VT100 escape sequences or something. At least, that's what I'd do if I were them.
Unfortunately, I don't have the URL handy, but I emailed the company (whose email is apparently different from the URL at which these cards reside, and I'm too friggin' lazy to go knocking about trying to root this out right now), and asked them to post in this thread so they may be roundly slashdotted.
I'm going to pick up at least a couple of these things. Neat hack.
--Corey
I agree with the point about the guaranteed R&D spending drawing folks to RedHat. It would draw me back to them, for sure (for Linsux). Right now I'm trying to install Debian and, for lack of a better phrase, its installer SUCKS! At least RedHat got that right (God, it's sooo braindead-easy to install RedHat...).
Even OpenBSD is easier (by *FAR*) to install than Debian.
Oh, well... time for my own distro...
Or something...
--Corey
Actually, he probably got this idea from reading the works of Richard C. Hoagland, who was the first to come forth with credible evidence of liquid water beneath the surface of Europa.
The heat that could keep the system going would, indeed, be caused by vulcanism. However, it is doubtful that that volcanic activity will ever cease. Consider that Europa is probably about the same age as the Earth, and is at least hypothetically volcanically active. This volcanic activity would be caused by the gravitational forces of Jupiter and the other moons, and isn't likely to change (unless something rather drastic happens in the vicinity of Jupiter).
Io, another of Jupiter's moons, is visibly volcanically active (probably the most active body in the whole solar system). It is and will remain very hot because of the gravitation of Jupiter.
So, if Europa is currently volcanically active (a likely hypothesis, given the gravitational oomph of Jupiter), and has a big bunch of water ice (we believe we've observed this), and has liquid water beneath an icy crust (another likely hypothesis, given the heat that must be at the core of that little moon), then assuming that some kind of life could have organized itself there, and could have evolved to the point where it can survive in the water (which must be quite toxic, at least by our standards, by now, though what is garbage to us might well be rich nutrition to some little beasties on Europa), then it's a good possibility that life exists there to this day.
--Corey
Can I be pissed off that they didn't code up an X screensaver module with all the pretty eye-candy? I don't care how fast the blasted thing churns out keys (4 proc Alpha), I want a neat-o graphics hack on my root window, dammit!
--Corey
Where can you source these? Respond via email?
Back in the day (remember the 50+ free floppies IBM would give out if you'd beta test OS/2 2.1?), I saw a 386/16 MCA-bus IBM machine with 12M RAM that would SMOKE my 486/33 with 16 running OS/2.
The MCA bus kicked ass back then, and we'd all be running a variant of it now (maybe some whiz-bang 100MHz 64bit MCA-3 or something) if it hadn't been for IBM's proclivity to proprietize EVERYTHING.
They saw that open architectures meant they'd not have a total lock on a market, and instead of making a new, better standard for everyone to use, driving forward the technology, they only gave out programming specs on the hardware to a few business partners.
EVERYONE, especially IBM, lost.
That's the reason I can't understand folks like NVidia today. They could be THE STANDARD by which all others are judged (they are now, sort of, but I digress), but instead they err on the side of propriety.
Gah. Stupid. What ever happened to KOSH?
--Corey
There's a name for 6.02e23 - Avogadro's Number, IIRC.
--Corey
I will set up an escrow account for Slashdotters who would like to funnel money my way. Maybe if everyone who reads Slashdot donated $5, we could get the statue erected and add prestige to this forum. :)
:)
Or, maybe, it would be better if Rob or Hemos would do so. At any rate, email me if you're interested. I think it'd be a hoot.
--Corey
A.C.,
I love you, man...
(but I don't want no damn Bud Light, gimme yer Guinness)
--Corey
So, the crime rate in England is lower than that of, say, Switzerland? Hahahah.
I can refute your argument by pointing out two or three cases of the opposite.
It is your assertion that no civilized country which allows firearm ownership by the populace, including handguns (France, as you say, allows the private ownership of hunting rifles... as I have no knowledge of this, I will give you this point), is "safe".
Would your idea of civilized countries include such countries as Switzerland, New Zealand, and Israel? These are all "western" countries, and as such are "civilized" by your criteria from what I can see.
All of these countries allow, and in the case of Switzerland and Israel (not sure about NZ), PROMOTE the keeping of arms by the citizenry. The difference: they TRAIN and EDUCATE their citizens on the proper use of these arms.
I would venture a guess that Switzerland and New Zealand are among the safest nations in the world. Now, where was your argument?
Also, there have been reports of "civilization" in the far East. One little nation there, called Taiwan, strictly forbids the ownership of firearms. That little nation sports one of the highest incidents of violent crime in the world. So, where was that argument again?
--Corey
In a situation where I would leave my wife for another woman (which is unthinkable, since I don't have a wife... but if I did, she would not have to worry about such a thing anyway... but I digress), and she was pointing a gun at my head, I would certainly be scared shitless. However, thoughts about her right to bear arms would never even enter my mind. I would still, at that point, support her right to bear arms if I were even able to think.
I can see the rationality in an armed citizenry. I _think_ about these things from time to time. Can you say the same?
Your blatant appeal to emotion, "How many kids have to die...", is indicative of your inability to rationally discuss such an issue.
Indeed, I do think very highly of my argument, Slick. I actually have _thought_ about my argument. I doubt that you can say the same.
--Corey
I guess you missed the sarcasm in those statements. Yes, I know the state of Hawaii is home to Pearl Harbor. I was thinking of a young man who, when I said I lived in St. Louis, asked me what state that was in. He was a recent high school graduate from Philadelphia (PA - in case you're wondering).
Verily, I know that our isolationist tendencies ended with the bombing of Pearl Harbor. That was the reason we got into the war. It was only after WWII, though, that our "maritime" policies tended away from isolationism.
--Corey
This text is a summation of a study done by an anti-gun guy in Chicago who embarked on this mission to prove that guns kill people.
His conclusion? That in states where concealed-carry was allowed, violent crime declined dramatically.
So what if it's from some NRA text? The point is, indeed, valid. Not only that, but the fact that the man who did the study was an avid anti-gun guy (who quite properly revealed the results of his study, though they contradicted his hoped-for result, in the best scientific tradition) lends credence to the text cited above.
Where in the above text, which includes bibliographic annotations, and into which vastly more study has gone than your considered opinion that it is invalid, is there an inaccuracy?
Hmm???
--Corey
The French citizenry didn't have guns in the early 1940s, either, did they?
It's telling, it really is.
--Corey
I will attempt to dissect your appeal to emotion point by point, in hopes that it will show you the logic errors in your rant, and increase your awareness on topics of public policy.
.22 ca Marlin squirrel gun, and the much-hyped "assault weapons" which are used in far less than 1% of crimes committed with guns in the U.S. - even _BEFORE_ the ban). So, what was this statement about?
> AFTER 20 INNOCENT CHILDREN WERE KILLED IN COLORADO YOU HAVE ENOUGH BALLS TO BREAG ABOUT
> OWNING SEMI AUTOMATIC GUNS!
If I owned semi-automatic guns, I would likely not brag about them... oh, wait, I _do_. Now, have I gone out and shot anyone? No.
The fact is, the wackos in Colorado used _shotguns_ to perpetrate their crime. Not semi-automatic weapons (the likes of which technically include all hand guns, including revolvers, semi-automatic hunting rifles, even my
> THese werent people who were killed. They were children.
And since when have children not been people? If you're a radical leftist, that may be the case (pulling up the abortion issue, just to incite your ire).
> ITs because of liberal gun laws made by NRA extremist who only make up 3% of
> America's population.
No, it's not. The fact is, in places where the gun laws are the most strict you'll find the highest incidents of violent crimes commited with firearms.
"When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns."
It's not just a quaint saying, but the stone truth.
> ITs embarasing calling myself an American while all the Canadians and Europeans scratch their
> heads at us.
Renounce your citizenship. Move to Canada or Europe. No? Why not? Perhaps you are not that embarrassed after all? Why are you embarrassed calling yourself an American (at least, over this issue... there are a number of other issues wherein I will agree with you)?
What you fail to realize is that the first two amendments go hand-in-hand, and the first would not be secure without the second. Nor would any of the others. That little piece of paper in the hermetically sealed cabinet in the museum in Washington, D.C. isn't just a novelty. It's a living, breathing document and a shining beacon of reason in an otherwise hostile world. The Kosovar Albanians didn't have guns, nor do the people of Iraq. We do, and because of that, we will never be as bad off as they. If the government gets too nasty here, assuming the people don't act like sheep and foolishly give up their rights to bear arms, we can overthrow it. That idea is not a tinker-toy, either. It's a moral imperative.
"The tree of liberty is fertilized by the blood of patriots."
> THe constitution says that in case the government becaomes a tryant and abasues its
> pwoer then we as the people must bear arms agaisnt the power. NOT OWN GUNS! Read it yourslef.
The logical fallibility of that statement should be clear even to you, but if it is not, I will point it out.
How can We, The People, bear arms THAT WE DO NOT OWN against the power of a tyrannical government? Do you think such a government will supply us with arms as a gesture of good will? No, We The People _MUST_ be able to own arms. Note that the Constitution (the paper in the sealed box in D.C.) does not mandate that people own and carry guns, but SECURES THAT RIGHT via the Second Amendment. If you value the other amendments in the Bill Of Rights, then you must value the second. It is there for a reason, and is the underpinning of the guarantee that the others will remain secure for us.
> THE NRA missinterprets the constititon for their own greedy agenda.
That agenda being... ? The death of more Americans, or maybe the wanton destruction and blight caused by crime? I don't think so.
> WHy would the framers of the constitution and the bill of rights mention personal firing arms
> when discusing how to build a governemnt.
Because they were Very Wise Men [tm] who had just fought a war for their independence from a tyrannical government, and did not want their progeny (us) to face the same threat from their own government. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed means exactly that, and for the reason given, the necessity of such for the security of a free (speech, assembly, citizenry...) state (the U.S.).
>The whole idea of the framers thinking about oppreson and liberty all of the sudden think
> aobut their own personal fireamrs.
Umm... yeah? They saw their firearms as the means for securing that liberty against that oppression. We should see things in much the same way. Do you honestly think that, if the populace was not armed, the U.S. would be any less prone to tyranny than any other place on the planet? Why do you have this delusion?
> ITs obviously out of context.
What is out of context? The founding fathers had that belief, and it is still a valid belief. I can only hope that, if they were around today, they would have written the same provision in a much clearer fashion which irrefutably secured that right to the people. I believe they would.
> The nra supports crazy stuff like ammo that can peirce bullet proof vests of police officers (I
> can't see how this would benifiet deer hunting)
The constitution said nothing about deer-hunting. And the armor-piercing variety of bullets would be necessary to defend yourself against a tyrannical government. If the Marines decided to take over, say, Boston, do you think they would go in in tee shirts or standard-issue BDUs? I doubt it. I think they'd wear flak-jackets. People in Boston would be _thankful_ for the armor-piercing ammunition, and don't think they wouldn't.
> and making it legal to conceal a semi automatic weapon in your jacket.
If you're speaking of "assault rifles", they're hard as hell to conceal in a jacket, even a trench coat. If you're speaking of, say, a 9mm Beretta, that's easier. Why shouldn't I be able to carry my weapon inconspicuously? If I wear it on my belt, it's more likely that some wacko will try to take it from me and use it against me by just grabbing it out of the holster. If I have it under my arm, in a shoulder-holster, I might have a better chance of stopping an ongoing rape or robbery, or of defending myself if I am not disarmed _first_.
> I heard on cnn in Missouri the nra tried to do just that.
Yeah, but Missouri is on a different planet. Seriously, though, I'm from Missouri. I live in Missouri. I wanted Proposition B to pass. The fact is that it did pass by overwhelming numbers in the outlying counties. Only St. Louis and Kansas City kept the bill from passing due to turnout by ill-informed urban votes, drummed into action by media hype. But it wasn't the NRA that put this before the people. The state legislature put it before the people in a direct vote (a referendum, for the uninitiated).
> Missouri made it ilegal in the 1800's when outlaws were everywhere and the crime went down
> when criminals couldn't hide pistols in their coats.
I had not thought it possible for someone to be so ill-informed.
Missouri did, indeed, make it illegal to carry a gun on your person in the 1800s. But only if you were going further than two counties distant (the distance one could reasonably be expected to travel on horseback in a day's time). So, there is nothing in state law that says I can't sling a belt around my waist, hang a six-shooter in it, and walk down the street. The fact that the police would, in short order, arrest me is an abridgement of my rights under state law.
Besides, I'd be willing to bet that in over 95% of crimes committed in the U.S. (and in Missouri) where a gun was involved, the gun involved was not legally registered to the wielder. The proposition in Missouri would have required a concealed-carry license and a properly registered handgun.
One question I'd pose to you: given that a criminal will use an illegal gun to commit his crimes (95+% of the time), what is to stop said criminal from concealing an illegal gun in his jacket?
Another question: if that criminal can conceal his illegal gun in his jacket (which he will do, in order to avoid or at least defer detainment by the constabulary), why can I, a law-abiding citizen, not conceal my properly registered and duly-authorized gun in my jacket?
> Now tell me how concealing semi automatic weapons benifets deer hunting or even shooting
> semi automatic weapons on rural property for fun.
Semi-automatic weapons of what kind? Assault rifles? Those are difficult to conceal even in a trench coat. Handguns? Who would hunt deer with a handgun? What does deer-hunting have to do with the constitutional right to keep and bear arms?
> Their is no need to conceal them. THe NRA are nuts the constition does not state to own weapons
> but rather bear arms agaisn't the foriegn or dictatory power. Jeez
Okay, so, if we go up and wave our arms at an invading army (our bare arms, no guns), they'll turn tail and run away? The kids at Kent State waved their bare arms at the National Guard, and some of them ended up dead because of it. If we have no arms to bear, then all we can do is bare our arms at the oppressor, and that won't do a damn bit of good or secure a single bit of freedom for anyone. Except, of course, the oppressor who will slaughter all of those who come at him with bare arms like sheep. He will have guns, shouldn't we?
> For all you europeans and australinas reading this, remember that the vast majority of
> Americans don't agree with this madness but are rather captive by powerfull nra politicians.
No, all you Europeans and Australians, believe that the vast majority of Americans DO agree with the second amendment. We are not captive to powerful NRA politicians, but are rather fond of the idea of maintaining some semblence of common sense and civility. The last couple of generations notwithstanding, this is a decent country. It can be again, but only if we take our rights more seriously, as well as the responsibility that goes along with them.
> Bill Gates is having a fund raiser to raise money against the volience of handguns. This is
> the only thing I have common in Bill Gates.
Well, I have to say this: I sympathize with those who have been victims, directly or indirectly, of handgun violence. I would give money to a fund that helped to counsel those victims, or pay benefits to those who are so afflicted. I would not, however, give up my right to bear arms. Just because Billcutus gives money to a cause doesn't mean he thinks one way or another about it. I suspect that he, in the guise of Microsoft, gives a good rate to the Exxon Corporation for the purchase of MS Office. Does this mean that he believes in the senseless killing of animals and the wanton destruction of the environment?
Think about it. Just think about it. Hell, just think period.
--Corey, NOT an NRA member.
We ought to use the slash engine to make a constitution and public policy discussion forum. I love this stuff, too, and that would be a great way to incite riotous debate among geeks.
Your perception of the courts' "interpretation" of the constitution is the correct one. Poor, unwashed constitutional non-literalists can't seem to understand that sometimes people say and write exactly what they mean.
--Corey
YES!!! I love it! Great idea!
Wasn't Hrunting the name of the bier hall of the king in Beowulf?
--Corey
Oh, and by the way...
A crazy guy with weapons of mass destruction was NOT the reason we fought the second world war. It was due to popular sentiment after the bombing of Pearl Harbor (which, for you recent high school graduates, is in the state of Fairbanks).
The U.S. tended toward isolationism until AFTER the second world war. And WE were the guys with the weapons of mass destruction (remember Hiroshima, Nagasaki?).
--Corey
Give up your RIGHT to bear arms to save just one life, eh? How 'bout if it's the life of the guy you just caught raping your wife?
Oh, and there are just as many, if not MORE drugs around now as then. That's a red herring.
So, if you played a lot of DooM in high school, and you had the same exposure to the internet and the media that these kids had, and your ability to get guns (which, by your other rants, must be seen as "guns are too easily available", meaning that they are easily available to YOU), why did you never think of doing something like this?
What? Society not to blame? Fscked-up kids to blame? Parents not minding their children? What? What means this word, "responsibility"?
--Corey
... to another ongoing festival of flames and whatnot here on /., but it doesn't sound to me like you Aussies need help.
It sounds like you need GUNS.
First they take away guns, then they take away speech. Sound familiar?
--Corey
Population of about 30Million? 600 homicides a year? Lessee... multiply your population by about 10 times, and increase the homicides by about that much. Now, you've got 6000 homicides a year to deal with.
CanaDUH doesn't look so peachy any more, does it?
I don't know what the homicide rate is for the U.S., but that's not the issue.
--Corey
'Scuse me?
Because he owns a gun does not make him a bad person. It makes him a smart person. Have you ever had your house violated? Broken into while you were there? Been victim of some kind of crime? Wouldn't you have liked to have protected yourself?
I doubt whether ESR has had any of these problems, as it _REALLY_ISN'T_THAT_COMMON_ here in the U.S. to be burgled or raped or whatever, but it never hurts to be prepared.
Better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it. -- My Grandma
Better to be judged by twelve than carried by six. -- My Grandpa
Your initial impression of ESR was probably the correct one. He probably _is_ a nice guy. Just because he wants to protect what is ultimately his to protect, his life, why is he demonized by you?
--Corey
So, this same sort of thing _didn't_ happen in Scotland a short while ago? Granted, it wasn't a student in that case, but a guy killed a bunch of friggin kindergarteners.
Guns are also readily available to everyone in such regions as Africa, South America, SE Asia, and Switzerland. When was the last time you heard of a Swiss guy going off half-cocked and blowing away a bunch of people? Granted, this doesn't put the U.S. in a favorable light, but that's not the point of this rant.
A simple truth is this: guns don't kill people - people kill people.
That the Swiss have machine guns in their houses doesn't prompt them to go on shooting sprees, right? The U.S. didn't have all these problems before the last twenty or so years, when guns were _MORE_ prevalent. No, the availability of guns to the populace has nothing to do with this sort of behavior. This behavior is a symptom of a much deeper problem.
The problem here is, nobody wants to take responsibility for their own actions. "My three-year-old kid went out and died in a ditch while I was passed out drunk, so there must have been something on TV that made her do that." It's revolting.
It is a fact that, in 1930s Germany, Hitler advocated licensing all guns. Germans, stolid and dutiful, loyal to their fuhrer, registered their guns. When Hitler wanted to pervert his chancellorship and turn it into something more nefarious, who got rounded up first? Gun owners.
Changing the gun laws would make it illegal for otherwise law-abiding citizens to own guns. Good, solid citizens would become criminals. As it stands, criminals already have guns. They would not be affected in the slightest. Do criminals in Europe have guns? Oh, wait, Europe is perfect and there is no crime there. Maybe its citizenry is just too lazy to bristle at taxes more oppressive than those shouldered by us in the U.S.
Also shown by the numbers is this fact, which you so conveniently ignore: in states where concealed carrying of guns has been once again permitted, crime rates have DROPPED. Yes, guns have actually made it SAFER in the U.S. where they are allowed to work their magic. An armed citizenry is not only there to defend against an oppressive government (mark my words, we will see civil war in this nation again inside 50 years... people have ignorantly given their rights, and soon they will realize just what has been taken from them, and they'll be pissed...), but to defend against each other.
The Internet, guns, movies, TV, newspapers, drugs, neo-Nazi activity, racism, sexism, and hate have _NOTHING_ to do with actions like this. They are simply symptoms of a much larger problem. This problem to which I allude is, from what I've seen, a Universal Truth [tm] (and is also pervasive amongst Europeans, much to their utter chagrin).
Here it is: PEOPLE ARE STUPID.
Armed citizenry is _necessary_ to maintaining the bounds on government set forth in our Constitution. The Constitution is not there to mandate government power over the people, but to limit government's power over the people. Our entire body of laws was miniscule until the last thirty years or so, as common sense had its rightful place in society.
As I dwell more on this subject, I see a correlation between dates of various happenings, and the beginnings of problems in the U.S. that could lead to the problem in Littleton.
The problem is that people don't take responsibility for their own actions. The baby-boomers didn't have to bear responsibility in their time, and instead set their goals toward more social "justice".
To wit, they passed the "Great Society" legislation in the 1960s, which established a system of welfare and cyclic dependency on government. This dependency on government freed young men of the burden of caring for children they fathered illegitimately, and made it profitable for young women to become baby-mills; the more babies they produced, the fatter the welfare check from Uncle Sucker. This money was easily converted into booze or drugs and, since there was no reason to work, there was no reason to stay clean. Uncle Sucker would take care of things, and just keep sending the checks no matter what, right? Oh, the kids? They'll mind themselves. I used that welfare check to buy a TV.
Seeing their parents practicing this lifestyle, one where nobody exercised any self-control, never took any responsibility for their own actions (I do drugs because the Man doesn't give me a chance... it's all a racist conspiracy... wait, I'm white... what?), how do you expect these kids to act? They'll learn the lessons taught them by their parents, and they'll learn them well.
Maybe one of the best things that ever happened to this country will be the impending WWIII that is starting (again!) in the Balkans. Gen-X will have to buckle down and bear the burden of responsibility for this war brought to us by a bunch of flaming, bleeding-heart liberal baby-boomer do-gooders.
\</rant\>
--Corey
Like as not, he plugged in an external serial modem (yes, those _do_ still exist... and have distinct advantages over the internal variety).
For that, you would not necessarily need to reboot Linsux (setserial will fix this up for you, I think... not terribly sure any more).
--Corey
/.ed already. Does anyone have a mirror? Just seeing this little blurb makes me want a set of these things to play with.
:(
--Corey