Yet its price is up in the 1%er range. Absent a huge leap in battery technology, the price isn't likely to go down very quickly. Electrics are just too expensive in comparison to gasoline. Look at the Nissan Leaf, nice enough car, but it's basically an electric version of a Versa, but at over twice the price. Payback on fuel for the average case is seven years, not counting extra interest on that 2x car loan, not counting the $7,500 the taxpayers put in, but also not counting reduced service costs (unless you need the battery serviced out of warranty -- ouch!).
Some things like this are jokes. Some things are the speaking version of typos like Obama's 57 states. A rational person can't really believe that he thinks therea are 58 states. But others simply show ignorance. Jackson-Lee on the Mars Pathfinder was classic. Most Democrats and some Republicans when referring to guns are just displaying ignorance. Take Obama during that debate saying automatic rifles should be illegal, that's just ignorance. And then Romney trying to equal the ignorance, saying they're already illegal.
First Amendment principles mean we have to allowe the Westboro Baptists to protest, even if it means hearing their hate.
Most of us here would like to keep the 4th Amendment principles on search and seizure even if it means some terrorists and criminals slip through and kill people.
I know the 5th Amendment's principle of no double jeopardy has let criminals go free, yet I still support it. I don't want anybody tried twice no matter how obvious the guilt appears to be.
One could kill several hundred by, say, switching a train onto the wrong track. Computers have the potential to be far more deadly than any gun when used as intended, to manipulate data and control systems.
I read a case a while back of a guy who tried to rob a gun store. He walked in, pointed a gun at the employee and demanded money. He didn't live for very long after that.
Sometimes the humor is too dry to many to catch. Also, some people aren't very good comedians and shouldn't be making jokes. Take Romney talking about opening the window in a jet. He has spent more time in private jets than most of us and obviously knows what's up, but his delivery was too deadpan. Many in the audience caught the joke (you do hear laughter), but he left himself open to claims of stupidity.
But Jackson-Lee, that one was real. She was asking an honest question.
I, for one, believe there should be some sort of test you need to pass to prove you have basic understandings of certain things before you can represent others.
Or at least to be on committees for certain subjects. Jackson-Lee was on the science committee at the time she asked her famous question about when the Apollo astronauts landed on Mars. Most Democrat reps are completely ignorant on guns, so should be kept away from any committee related to them. Consider Todd Akin who thinks a woman's body can automatically reject a rape pregnancy. Someone like Steve Israel is a double threat, ignorant on guns and technology, wanting the firmware of 3D printers locked down so they can't make guns. Luckily these two are not on related committees, but they should definitely be barred.
But I'm more worried about assignments where the critter does know better, but has an agenda in opposition to the people. The two Howards (Berman and Coble) are on the committee for "IP" yet they are completely in the pocket of the MAFIAA. They should be barred due to conflict of interest.
Johnson was obviously joking about stationing too many people on the island. Jackson-Lee honestly asked a NASA official if the Mars Pathfinder had photographed the flag planted by Neil Armstrong. Her office accused those who pointed out her stupidity of racism.
Pollard and Manning both signed non-disclosure agreements that said they would be subject to punishment under UCMJ and civil law if they ever released any classified information. They voluntarily put themselves under these restrictions in order to get jobs that required access to this information.
Journalistic organizations, and I'll put WL under that for now, never agreed to this. They are passing on information that was given to them and have a claim to freedom of speech.
As far as giving money, WL hasn't been convicted or even indicted for breaking US law. I don't think they're even on one of thoses lists that legally kicks in sanctions. I believe their US legal status is along the lines of "the government doesn't like what they're doing." From a legal standpoint, how can you be a co-conspirator in nothing?
There is a difference here. The Pentagon Papers was whistleblowing on government malfeasance. The WikiLeaks release was just a huge amount of classified material, of which only a few bits could be considered whistleblowing. The government will go after you no matter what, but in the end the level of protection you receive by the courts will rely on intent.
It also helps that a senator entered thousands of pages of the papers into the congressional record, effectively making them free due to the debate clause of the Constitution.
Of course, it was that same turn to socialism that got us the 8 hour day and the 5 day work week, an end to child labor, workplace safety, and any number of other things we take for granted today.
That would be freedom of association in a free market. Unions, that is workers organizing to enhance their bargaining position in a free market, can be a healthy part of a free market. Of course socialists and organized crime have other purposes for the unions, none good.
A strong safety net (above mere subsistence)
Why above subsistence? If you are contributing nothing to society, then why should society support you in a comfortable lifestyle? That's basically pointing a gun at your neighbor, telling him to give you his shiny new boat because you want one, but don't feel like working for one. Only you would have the government point the gun for you and call it fairness.
The provisions protecting civilians apply as long as you are a signatory regardless of whether the opponent is or has agreed to follow the conventions
If they are civilian, we can put them on trial and lawfully execute them according to the Convention. IMHO, the tragedy of the situation is that all of the trials should have been done with long ago, the guilty imprisoned or executed. However, several lawsuits and political pressures delayed this for years.
indefinitely, besides classifying them as Prisoners of War would require and actual declaration of war by the US Congress because there cannot be prisoners of war without there being a war
Here you give up any credibility. The ONLY purpose for the "declaration of war" thing is a balance of powers, the President cannot wage war without the consent of Congress. The Constitution does not lock down consent to any formal "declaration of war" format. Consent takes whatever form Congress wishes. Since Congress has given its consent in an authorization for the use of military force, there is absolutely no issue here.
The issue of a declaration of war is completely irrelevant to the Convention too, because requires only that an armed conflict exist. Are we in a conflict? Is it armed? Ta-da, the Convention applies, they are prisoners of war, or civilians who can be tried and executed.
Designed to be built with the level of machinery in a 1930s bicycle repair shop in five man-hours. With third-hand, untraceable, 20 year-old tooling a person could easily crank out two STENs a day from his garage.
You have a high-powered (twice as much energy as a.223), quick-reload (stripper clip) rifle designed specifically for military use? You are a menace to society.
Frankly, bolt action is all you need for hunting.
Many like the ability for a quick follow-up. Me, I stick to a single-shot rifle. A bolt action is for mass murderers.
Reality is, a semi auto handgun is absolutley all you need for killing unarmed civilians.
And apparently limiting magazines to ten rounds will prevent that from happening.
I keep hearing this as if it were some nefarious organization. What is the gun lobby?
It's millions of Americans who don't want to see further erosion of our rights, and we support organizations that lobby on our behalf, and contact politicians directly to tell them our feelings on the subject. Politicians are rightfully afraid of going up against millions of constituents of both parties who have very strong opinions on the subject.
Guns are countable objects, you have "fewer" of them, not "less." You can have "less" of the general phenomenon "gun violence," but you have "fewer" gun deaths because those can be counted.
I know, you're just the last in the chain of people who don't know English. I'm sure some of them, maybe even you, have an excuse, such as English as a second language. I'm sure most don't.
If they were not legal it would be much harder to get hold of them illegally
You don't get the point: NOT ONE. Not one by its legal owner, not one by someone who stole it or found it lost. NOT ONE. In fact, the only people who have killed innocents with legally-owned automatic weapons have been law enforcement.
As soon as this happened I immediately predicted the level of ignorance about guns spewed on forums and on TV would go up exponentially. I was not wrong. Just today there was an idiot talking head talking about this "High-powered.223 Bushmaster assault rifle" he used. High-powered? It's not allowed for deer hunting in many states because it's considered too under-powered for a humane kill! By definition the round was designed as an intermediate-powered round, something between a pistol and a battle rifle. Assault rifle? Not selective-fire, by definition not an assault rifle.
Whether intentional or not,the cumulative effect of these games, movies and TV shows is a desensitized society.
Big difference between fantasy and reality. Penn & Teller found a kid who was awesome at first-person shooters, had seen blood and gore all over the games, probably fired millions of virtual rounds. One shot with a real AR-15 (a very light-recoil gun) and the kid was crying because it scared him.
Meanwhile, one of my kids loves to shoot pistols, but can't stand the virtual violence of such games.
And Vermont has almost no restriction on guns or ownership, to include constitutional concealed carry (you have the right, no permit needed). Yet Vermont has the second-lowest gun violence rate in the nation, less than a tenth of highly-restrictive California.
Slashdot Mirror
Yet its price is up in the 1%er range. Absent a huge leap in battery technology, the price isn't likely to go down very quickly. Electrics are just too expensive in comparison to gasoline. Look at the Nissan Leaf, nice enough car, but it's basically an electric version of a Versa, but at over twice the price. Payback on fuel for the average case is seven years, not counting extra interest on that 2x car loan, not counting the $7,500 the taxpayers put in, but also not counting reduced service costs (unless you need the battery serviced out of warranty -- ouch!).
I can't drive behind one because they make me quickly sick. But the modern diesels such as the VW/Audi TDi and the Mercedes CDI are clean, no smoke.
That's what makes it funny, and obviously a joke.
Some things like this are jokes. Some things are the speaking version of typos like Obama's 57 states. A rational person can't really believe that he thinks therea are 58 states. But others simply show ignorance. Jackson-Lee on the Mars Pathfinder was classic. Most Democrats and some Republicans when referring to guns are just displaying ignorance. Take Obama during that debate saying automatic rifles should be illegal, that's just ignorance. And then Romney trying to equal the ignorance, saying they're already illegal.
We sacrifice to the altar all the time.
First Amendment principles mean we have to allowe the Westboro Baptists to protest, even if it means hearing their hate.
Most of us here would like to keep the 4th Amendment principles on search and seizure even if it means some terrorists and criminals slip through and kill people.
I know the 5th Amendment's principle of no double jeopardy has let criminals go free, yet I still support it. I don't want anybody tried twice no matter how obvious the guilt appears to be.
One could kill several hundred by, say, switching a train onto the wrong track. Computers have the potential to be far more deadly than any gun when used as intended, to manipulate data and control systems.
I read a case a while back of a guy who tried to rob a gun store. He walked in, pointed a gun at the employee and demanded money. He didn't live for very long after that.
Sometimes the humor is too dry to many to catch. Also, some people aren't very good comedians and shouldn't be making jokes. Take Romney talking about opening the window in a jet. He has spent more time in private jets than most of us and obviously knows what's up, but his delivery was too deadpan. Many in the audience caught the joke (you do hear laughter), but he left himself open to claims of stupidity.
But Jackson-Lee, that one was real. She was asking an honest question.
Or at least to be on committees for certain subjects. Jackson-Lee was on the science committee at the time she asked her famous question about when the Apollo astronauts landed on Mars. Most Democrat reps are completely ignorant on guns, so should be kept away from any committee related to them. Consider Todd Akin who thinks a woman's body can automatically reject a rape pregnancy. Someone like Steve Israel is a double threat, ignorant on guns and technology, wanting the firmware of 3D printers locked down so they can't make guns. Luckily these two are not on related committees, but they should definitely be barred.
But I'm more worried about assignments where the critter does know better, but has an agenda in opposition to the people. The two Howards (Berman and Coble) are on the committee for "IP" yet they are completely in the pocket of the MAFIAA. They should be barred due to conflict of interest.
Johnson was obviously joking about stationing too many people on the island. Jackson-Lee honestly asked a NASA official if the Mars Pathfinder had photographed the flag planted by Neil Armstrong. Her office accused those who pointed out her stupidity of racism.
Yes, Congress includes a person who thinks the Apollo astronauts landed on Mars. Not our brightest.
Pollard and Manning both signed non-disclosure agreements that said they would be subject to punishment under UCMJ and civil law if they ever released any classified information. They voluntarily put themselves under these restrictions in order to get jobs that required access to this information.
Journalistic organizations, and I'll put WL under that for now, never agreed to this. They are passing on information that was given to them and have a claim to freedom of speech.
As far as giving money, WL hasn't been convicted or even indicted for breaking US law. I don't think they're even on one of thoses lists that legally kicks in sanctions. I believe their US legal status is along the lines of "the government doesn't like what they're doing." From a legal standpoint, how can you be a co-conspirator in nothing?
There is a difference here. The Pentagon Papers was whistleblowing on government malfeasance. The WikiLeaks release was just a huge amount of classified material, of which only a few bits could be considered whistleblowing. The government will go after you no matter what, but in the end the level of protection you receive by the courts will rely on intent.
It also helps that a senator entered thousands of pages of the papers into the congressional record, effectively making them free due to the debate clause of the Constitution.
That would be freedom of association in a free market. Unions, that is workers organizing to enhance their bargaining position in a free market, can be a healthy part of a free market. Of course socialists and organized crime have other purposes for the unions, none good.
Why above subsistence? If you are contributing nothing to society, then why should society support you in a comfortable lifestyle? That's basically pointing a gun at your neighbor, telling him to give you his shiny new boat because you want one, but don't feel like working for one. Only you would have the government point the gun for you and call it fairness.
If they are civilian, we can put them on trial and lawfully execute them according to the Convention. IMHO, the tragedy of the situation is that all of the trials should have been done with long ago, the guilty imprisoned or executed. However, several lawsuits and political pressures delayed this for years.
Here you give up any credibility. The ONLY purpose for the "declaration of war" thing is a balance of powers, the President cannot wage war without the consent of Congress. The Constitution does not lock down consent to any formal "declaration of war" format. Consent takes whatever form Congress wishes. Since Congress has given its consent in an authorization for the use of military force, there is absolutely no issue here.
The issue of a declaration of war is completely irrelevant to the Convention too, because requires only that an armed conflict exist. Are we in a conflict? Is it armed? Ta-da, the Convention applies, they are prisoners of war, or civilians who can be tried and executed.
In California you'd be considered a dangerous gun nut who has amassed an arsenal. In Texas you'd be considered an amateur enthusiast.
Me, I'd just call you a good candidate for shoulder surgery if you shoot too many of those in one sitting.
The police are only minutes away.
Designed to be built with the level of machinery in a 1930s bicycle repair shop in five man-hours. With third-hand, untraceable, 20 year-old tooling a person could easily crank out two STENs a day from his garage.
You have a high-powered (twice as much energy as a .223), quick-reload (stripper clip) rifle designed specifically for military use? You are a menace to society.
Many like the ability for a quick follow-up. Me, I stick to a single-shot rifle. A bolt action is for mass murderers.
And apparently limiting magazines to ten rounds will prevent that from happening.
I keep hearing this as if it were some nefarious organization. What is the gun lobby?
It's millions of Americans who don't want to see further erosion of our rights, and we support organizations that lobby on our behalf, and contact politicians directly to tell them our feelings on the subject. Politicians are rightfully afraid of going up against millions of constituents of both parties who have very strong opinions on the subject.
Okay, that's it, you are the victim:
FEWER!!!!!!!!!
Guns are countable objects, you have "fewer" of them, not "less." You can have "less" of the general phenomenon "gun violence," but you have "fewer" gun deaths because those can be counted.
I know, you're just the last in the chain of people who don't know English. I'm sure some of them, maybe even you, have an excuse, such as English as a second language. I'm sure most don't.
You don't get the point: NOT ONE. Not one by its legal owner, not one by someone who stole it or found it lost. NOT ONE. In fact, the only people who have killed innocents with legally-owned automatic weapons have been law enforcement.
As soon as this happened I immediately predicted the level of ignorance about guns spewed on forums and on TV would go up exponentially. I was not wrong. Just today there was an idiot talking head talking about this "High-powered .223 Bushmaster assault rifle" he used. High-powered? It's not allowed for deer hunting in many states because it's considered too under-powered for a humane kill! By definition the round was designed as an intermediate-powered round, something between a pistol and a battle rifle. Assault rifle? Not selective-fire, by definition not an assault rifle.
Assault rifles are illegal to own without an NFA.
And the ingredients to make the bombs is available over the counter.
Big difference between fantasy and reality. Penn & Teller found a kid who was awesome at first-person shooters, had seen blood and gore all over the games, probably fired millions of virtual rounds. One shot with a real AR-15 (a very light-recoil gun) and the kid was crying because it scared him.
Meanwhile, one of my kids loves to shoot pistols, but can't stand the virtual violence of such games.
The same system has been in place for quite a while, and it let people go on shooting sprees. Fact: it doesn't work.
And Vermont has almost no restriction on guns or ownership, to include constitutional concealed carry (you have the right, no permit needed). Yet Vermont has the second-lowest gun violence rate in the nation, less than a tenth of highly-restrictive California.