No high capacity clips. 5-10 rounds ought to take down any deer.
You can train to be able to reload a magazine in about half a second. Since we're just hunting, how about we ban detachable magazines altogether? But then that leaves stripper clips that allow you to reload that 70 year-old semi-auto rifle in under a second. Let's ban stripper clips! But a stripper clip is just a bent piece of metal you could make with a vice, a hammer and a punch.
Not one, NOT ONE, of the over 100,000 legally-owned automatic weapons in civilian hands has been used to commit a murder in over 70 years. Even murders using illegally-owned automatic weapons are pretty rare.
You're right. The amendment as written left too much ambiguity for those against rights to be able to interpret it to infringe upon those rights. It needs to be much clearer on the individual right to keep and bear arms to prevent the machinations of those who would disarm us.
Having lived in Europe, I found the basic difference is that owning a gun there is only for people of means. The average person usually cannot afford it.
This system works and take out the crackpots. Selling pistol to anyone who wishes to have one doesn't.
Like Winnenden Germany in 2009? Oh wait, that was a crackpot who used his dad's gun (who was rightfully prosecuted for not securing them). But then there was the Emsdetten shooting, but they blamed that on violent video games. I believe the expelled student who killed all those people at the Erfurt school acquired his guns legally.
What are 'arms'? Isn't a SAM 'arms'? Why can't people carry them around?
The standard arms of a soldier. What the average person would need to fight an invading power, or his own oppressive government, or defend himself from others.
So why doesn't at least a multi-fire assault rifle fit this definition
What the hell is that? The first thing usually done by anti-gun people is obscure the argument using faulty, vague, pejorative and meaningless terms.
But up until relatively recently in American history, fully-automatic weapons were considered to be ownable by the average person. You could even buy them through the mail. They were rarely used for crimes, except by the mafia and a few high-profile criminals. Now there are still over 100,000 fully-automatic weapons legally in civilian hands in the US, and not one of them has been used in a real crime.
Actually, this whole idea of restricted gun ownership is rather new in American history. Well, at least for whites. Our early gun laws were meant to keep the blacks from fighting back. You can literally see in our court decisions quotes along the lines of "This prohibition was never meant to apply to the white citizen." Before the Civil War, the only reason prohibition against black gun ownership was considered constitutional was that blacks weren't considered to be citizens.
North Carolina still has a law on its books preventing the transport of guns during a time of declared emergency. It's purpose was that in a time of black unrest, the governor could declare an emergency, and the police could then arrest any black man found with a gun outside his home (even if he was just out hunting for dinner). Of course white men would never be arrested.
Guns amplify the problem like no other tool in existence does.
Yeah, it's just so hard to drive an ammonium nitrate bomb up to a building. McVeigh killed 168 people, including about 20 kids, in a couple seconds. Oh yes, we put tags on the precursors now to ID the perpetrators, but that means nothing if one is willing to die like these gunmen are.
We already have the legal framework for making it illegal for a "lunatic" to possess firearms. The problem is our system for detecting, handling and treating such people is seriously deficient. Alarms were up everywhere for the guy at Virginia Tech, yet nobody pushed it through.
the fact remains that if people have their backs to the wall economically, they tend to turn to socialism
It's sad that people are so short-sighted, the whole doomed to repeat history thing. Every socialist revolution has turned into an economic and human rights disaster, were people's backs are literally put against the wall.
I disagree with your whole "backs against the wall" premise. In a free society, everybody is free to try to succeed. People with their "backs against the wall" are people who didn't succeed. Rational people will admit they had a major responsibility in their own lack of success. The lazy, ignorant, irrational or power-hungry will blame it on others, claim someone forced their backs against the wall, and start a socialist revolution.
Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty; Signed 1972, withdrawn 2001: Treaty was with the Soviet Union, which had ceased to exist, but we were going on an informal understanding (not ratified) that Russia and a few other former USSR states were the successor. Also, we withdrew according to the withdrawal terms of the treaty itself, so we didn't break the treaty, but followed it.
Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention: I believe we're still in that one. We just couldn't agree on an inspection protocol because we thought it could actually undermine the treaty.
Chemical Weapons Convention: An exemption, if one exists, within the treaty does not make a broken treaty, it means following the treaty with the exemption. In any case, the destruction of chemical weapons has been inspected in the US.
Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty: We have valid objections. Still, we have not tested a nuclear weapon in 20 years, so regardless of whether we have ratified we are still in compliance with the spirit of no nuclear weapons testing.
Convention on Discrimination of Women: It isn't about the rights of women, it's about radical feminism. The committee in charge of this has chastised member states for declaring a Mother's Day, and not having enough kids in state-run daycare. It's not pro-woman, it's anti-family.
Convention on the Rights of the Child: Can't work due to the federal nature of this country. Also, interferes with the parent-child relationship, for example spanking is banned. There are other reaons why it's just not a good idea. Even countries under it signed, but still object to many of its terms.
Mine Ban Treaty: In practice, we already adhere to it with the exception of the Korean DMZ, and we have helped countries around the world clear mines just as if we were in the treaty. But we're not because of the DMZ, where the point of the treaty (civilians being harmed) is irrelevant since civilians aren't allowed there and all mine locations are recorded for eventual demining. As far as future use, we no longer have any dumb mines, which are what kills civilians after a conflict. Ours degrade over time and become inert (and our policy is to record location for demining anyway). About 100% of the effectiveness of this treaty is in conflicts in which the US is not a party to the landmine laying. Joining would at best be symbolic, and still harm national security.
Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: We pioneered this concept with the Nuremburg and Tokyo trials, so we're not against the idea, but there are serious problems with the ICC, especially with the violation of what we in the US consider to be fundamental due process rights. The risk of politically motivated prosecution is also quite high.
Guantanamo Bay, for example, is a violation of numerous Geneva Conventions: The Geneva Conventions apply to the signatories, or to a signatory country when fighting with another force that has agreed to abide by the Conventions. Those in Guantanamo are neither.
However, I don't think you want to go by the Convention. The main complaint is the fact that the detainees are there without trial, and could be there forever. If we classify them as prisoners of war under the Convention, then we can keep them until the end of the conflict, which will probably be forever. No trial, no nothing. And we can put 'em to work in the fields or the coal mines.
What other reasonable conclusion was there for me to draw?
That many would see your socialist revolution as an end to freedom and react accordingly. You try to murder the rich guy down the street, I'll fight against you too. Socialist revolutions have always resulted in severe violations of human rights.
You might also have mis-construed socialism and that bizarre crap from the former soviet union.
You mean the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics? I feel I'm going to hear another instance of "Socialism has always miserably failed, destroyed economies, destroyed civil rights, but I promise we're going to do it right THIS time."
"Hello, you have dialed Pakistani emergency. You say you are being raped? You slut. After you are done having your fun we will track you down and have you stoned for adultery."
"Hello, you have dialed American emergency. You witnessed a kid copying a CD of your music? We will have him executed immediately."
I'm not putting anyone's back against a wall. I'm just working to provide for my family. And if I'm a success, then I'm a success. If not, then not. Same for them. Too bad, that's how freedom works. You can't have freedom to succeed without the freedom to fail, because to prevent failure from happening you must hinder or destroy the freedom to succeed (depending on the level to which you prevent failure). And I'm not an extremist on this. I do consider some amount of subsistence level safety net to be necessary and realize it will place a slight hindrance on the freedom to succeed. Absolutism in anything usually is not a good thing.
But either way, if some socialist "revolutionary" comes after me, my family or my stuff, he's going to die as the common low-life criminal he is, regardless of the "revolutionary" label you put on him. And it will be wholly his fault for initiating violence against another person.
"We followed the accounting laws as written" is definitely within the ethical bounds, does not fall under "maximize profits at any cost." Not only that, they are using well-known and accepted accounting practices, not even going anywhere near shady.
However, "I threw away five billion dollars of your investment because I felt the government needed it more than you" is definitely unethical towards investors.
If you answer yes, you are defrauding your investors. And since much investment is done by institutional investors for retirement accounts, you are literally ripping off grandma to pay the government.
(protip: You didn't win last time).... It escalates to total war?
Actually, there's the problem. We haven't done total war since WWII. McArthur was fired because he wanted total war. He wanted to WIN instead of just screwing around.
These piecemeal little actions make us more likely to engage in violence more often because the results aren't as severe, the risk to politicians not as great. I would like for us to never do anything short of total war. These little "police actions" and crap we do that alway flare up again are just a waste of time, money and lives. If you're going to war, fucking destroy their will to fight forever and WIN.
The same applies everywhere. What's with all these Middle East problems? Hamas keeps firing rockets on Israel? DESTROY them, every last member, then start going through the supporters until nobody is willing to support them or their cause anymore. The surrounding Arab countries already tried total war against Israel and lost, so they should just give it up, cease hostilities or complaints, unless they are willing to go for total war again. And if after that Israel ceases to exist, then so be it. If Israel ends up encompassing large parts of Syria, Jordan and Lebananon, then so be it.
I hear NK people these days are shocked because they are actually being told when their sports teams lose. Apparently they used to always win. The new dear leader is very progressive.
Many environmentalists are mad because they're just against anything. Slashdot recently had a story about new clean geothermal, but the Sierra Club tried very hard to stop it. The energy companies could show that their fracking fluid is pure distilled unicorn dreams, it wouldn't matter. They are evil, end of story.
Very socialist-speak of you. Freedom is slavery, slavery is freedom. Defending yourself and yours from violent socialist revolutionaries is considered a violation of their rights.
They might as well have just given him a slap on the wrist
Thinking of it another way, they might as well have just given him the death sentence because most people are on death row for longer than he will probably live.
With his "crime" though, it's insane to be locking him up with hundreds of actually violent people. It would make far more sense to take virtually all of his money
I say do both. And not virtually all of his money, but every single penny plus a lien for anything his estate may accrue in the future.
What you've proven is simply under some rare circumstances, your wealth can't even protect you
This is an entirely different thing. Down there, a payoff to an judge or other public official will make it all go away. Here you are only more likely (but not sure) to escape punishment because you can afford someone who is very good at making your case before the court. Example: If this were Belize, Lindsey Lohan wouldn't be having all of these legal troubles. OJ would have never been tried. Hans Reiser was pretty loaded, and he's in jail for murder. The formerly very rich Menendez brothers will never leave prison, and they went in during their mid 20s. None of these people would have seen a courtroom in a third world country as long as they kept the right people happy.
I just understand that it is through a show of maturity and restraint as a species that we can all have more opportunities and greater freedom (just not the freedom to piss on our neighbor's head).
I think we have different ideas of freedom. I'm thinking more libertarian, freedom from restraint, no shackles, things not taken from you by force or the threat of it. Free to succed, free to fail. To me, freedom does not mean freedom from want, because to cure that want on the part of one person, the government must take by force from another, violating his freedom. You try to solve an evil by creating an evil.
Apparently, all of our 'free markets' that show signs of failure or under-performance are not truly free markets
As I said, the problems mainly stem from a distortion of the free market, often caused by government. The funny thing is, you must have a strong government to ensure a free market. Somalia does not have a free market. There's no guarantee that when you work hard to create a business and amass capital it won't just be taken away on the whim of a warlord. Or course, you're thinking about it being taken away on the whim of the "underclass." They're the same thing, a thuggish mentality with no respect for others. I will take it from you because I can, and kill you if necessary in order to get what I want.
Frankly, your ideal society sounds like a hellhole to me and if you try to force it on me (thus backing me into a corner) I will fight you to the death.
That's the society that we had, and it's been eroded by people like you for decades, trying to drown us in a socialist hellhole.
Hey, if you're made of money, you can do the same thing here in the U.S. too...
So that's why billionaire Bernie Madoff is in jail on a 150 year sentence. Being rich can reduce your chance of conviction in court, but it won't just make the whole thing disappear. Well, unless you're a drunk-driving Kennedy who just got a girl killed, but that was more about political power than money.
Slashdot Mirror
You can train to be able to reload a magazine in about half a second. Since we're just hunting, how about we ban detachable magazines altogether? But then that leaves stripper clips that allow you to reload that 70 year-old semi-auto rifle in under a second. Let's ban stripper clips! But a stripper clip is just a bent piece of metal you could make with a vice, a hammer and a punch.
Not one, NOT ONE, of the over 100,000 legally-owned automatic weapons in civilian hands has been used to commit a murder in over 70 years. Even murders using illegally-owned automatic weapons are pretty rare.
You're right. The amendment as written left too much ambiguity for those against rights to be able to interpret it to infringe upon those rights. It needs to be much clearer on the individual right to keep and bear arms to prevent the machinations of those who would disarm us.
Having lived in Europe, I found the basic difference is that owning a gun there is only for people of means. The average person usually cannot afford it.
Like Winnenden Germany in 2009? Oh wait, that was a crackpot who used his dad's gun (who was rightfully prosecuted for not securing them). But then there was the Emsdetten shooting, but they blamed that on violent video games. I believe the expelled student who killed all those people at the Erfurt school acquired his guns legally.
The standard arms of a soldier. What the average person would need to fight an invading power, or his own oppressive government, or defend himself from others.
What the hell is that? The first thing usually done by anti-gun people is obscure the argument using faulty, vague, pejorative and meaningless terms.
But up until relatively recently in American history, fully-automatic weapons were considered to be ownable by the average person. You could even buy them through the mail. They were rarely used for crimes, except by the mafia and a few high-profile criminals. Now there are still over 100,000 fully-automatic weapons legally in civilian hands in the US, and not one of them has been used in a real crime.
Actually, this whole idea of restricted gun ownership is rather new in American history. Well, at least for whites. Our early gun laws were meant to keep the blacks from fighting back. You can literally see in our court decisions quotes along the lines of "This prohibition was never meant to apply to the white citizen." Before the Civil War, the only reason prohibition against black gun ownership was considered constitutional was that blacks weren't considered to be citizens.
North Carolina still has a law on its books preventing the transport of guns during a time of declared emergency. It's purpose was that in a time of black unrest, the governor could declare an emergency, and the police could then arrest any black man found with a gun outside his home (even if he was just out hunting for dinner). Of course white men would never be arrested.
Yeah, it's just so hard to drive an ammonium nitrate bomb up to a building. McVeigh killed 168 people, including about 20 kids, in a couple seconds. Oh yes, we put tags on the precursors now to ID the perpetrators, but that means nothing if one is willing to die like these gunmen are.
We already have the legal framework for making it illegal for a "lunatic" to possess firearms. The problem is our system for detecting, handling and treating such people is seriously deficient. Alarms were up everywhere for the guy at Virginia Tech, yet nobody pushed it through.
It's sad that people are so short-sighted, the whole doomed to repeat history thing. Every socialist revolution has turned into an economic and human rights disaster, were people's backs are literally put against the wall.
I disagree with your whole "backs against the wall" premise. In a free society, everybody is free to try to succeed. People with their "backs against the wall" are people who didn't succeed. Rational people will admit they had a major responsibility in their own lack of success. The lazy, ignorant, irrational or power-hungry will blame it on others, claim someone forced their backs against the wall, and start a socialist revolution.
Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty; Signed 1972, withdrawn 2001: Treaty was with the Soviet Union, which had ceased to exist, but we were going on an informal understanding (not ratified) that Russia and a few other former USSR states were the successor. Also, we withdrew according to the withdrawal terms of the treaty itself, so we didn't break the treaty, but followed it.
Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention: I believe we're still in that one. We just couldn't agree on an inspection protocol because we thought it could actually undermine the treaty.
Chemical Weapons Convention: An exemption, if one exists, within the treaty does not make a broken treaty, it means following the treaty with the exemption. In any case, the destruction of chemical weapons has been inspected in the US.
Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty: We have valid objections. Still, we have not tested a nuclear weapon in 20 years, so regardless of whether we have ratified we are still in compliance with the spirit of no nuclear weapons testing.
Convention on Discrimination of Women: It isn't about the rights of women, it's about radical feminism. The committee in charge of this has chastised member states for declaring a Mother's Day, and not having enough kids in state-run daycare. It's not pro-woman, it's anti-family.
Convention on the Rights of the Child: Can't work due to the federal nature of this country. Also, interferes with the parent-child relationship, for example spanking is banned. There are other reaons why it's just not a good idea. Even countries under it signed, but still object to many of its terms.
Mine Ban Treaty: In practice, we already adhere to it with the exception of the Korean DMZ, and we have helped countries around the world clear mines just as if we were in the treaty. But we're not because of the DMZ, where the point of the treaty (civilians being harmed) is irrelevant since civilians aren't allowed there and all mine locations are recorded for eventual demining. As far as future use, we no longer have any dumb mines, which are what kills civilians after a conflict. Ours degrade over time and become inert (and our policy is to record location for demining anyway). About 100% of the effectiveness of this treaty is in conflicts in which the US is not a party to the landmine laying. Joining would at best be symbolic, and still harm national security.
Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: We pioneered this concept with the Nuremburg and Tokyo trials, so we're not against the idea, but there are serious problems with the ICC, especially with the violation of what we in the US consider to be fundamental due process rights. The risk of politically motivated prosecution is also quite high.
Guantanamo Bay, for example, is a violation of numerous Geneva Conventions: The Geneva Conventions apply to the signatories, or to a signatory country when fighting with another force that has agreed to abide by the Conventions. Those in Guantanamo are neither.
However, I don't think you want to go by the Convention. The main complaint is the fact that the detainees are there without trial, and could be there forever. If we classify them as prisoners of war under the Convention, then we can keep them until the end of the conflict, which will probably be forever. No trial, no nothing. And we can put 'em to work in the fields or the coal mines.
That many would see your socialist revolution as an end to freedom and react accordingly. You try to murder the rich guy down the street, I'll fight against you too. Socialist revolutions have always resulted in severe violations of human rights.
You mean the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics? I feel I'm going to hear another instance of "Socialism has always miserably failed, destroyed economies, destroyed civil rights, but I promise we're going to do it right THIS time."
"Hello, you have dialed Pakistani emergency. You say you are being raped? You slut. After you are done having your fun we will track you down and have you stoned for adultery."
"Hello, you have dialed American emergency. You witnessed a kid copying a CD of your music? We will have him executed immediately."
I'm not putting anyone's back against a wall. I'm just working to provide for my family. And if I'm a success, then I'm a success. If not, then not. Same for them. Too bad, that's how freedom works. You can't have freedom to succeed without the freedom to fail, because to prevent failure from happening you must hinder or destroy the freedom to succeed (depending on the level to which you prevent failure). And I'm not an extremist on this. I do consider some amount of subsistence level safety net to be necessary and realize it will place a slight hindrance on the freedom to succeed. Absolutism in anything usually is not a good thing.
But either way, if some socialist "revolutionary" comes after me, my family or my stuff, he's going to die as the common low-life criminal he is, regardless of the "revolutionary" label you put on him. And it will be wholly his fault for initiating violence against another person.
"We followed the accounting laws as written" is definitely within the ethical bounds, does not fall under "maximize profits at any cost." Not only that, they are using well-known and accepted accounting practices, not even going anywhere near shady.
However, "I threw away five billion dollars of your investment because I felt the government needed it more than you" is definitely unethical towards investors.
If you answer yes, you are defrauding your investors. And since much investment is done by institutional investors for retirement accounts, you are literally ripping off grandma to pay the government.
Actually, there's the problem. We haven't done total war since WWII. McArthur was fired because he wanted total war. He wanted to WIN instead of just screwing around.
These piecemeal little actions make us more likely to engage in violence more often because the results aren't as severe, the risk to politicians not as great. I would like for us to never do anything short of total war. These little "police actions" and crap we do that alway flare up again are just a waste of time, money and lives. If you're going to war, fucking destroy their will to fight forever and WIN.
The same applies everywhere. What's with all these Middle East problems? Hamas keeps firing rockets on Israel? DESTROY them, every last member, then start going through the supporters until nobody is willing to support them or their cause anymore. The surrounding Arab countries already tried total war against Israel and lost, so they should just give it up, cease hostilities or complaints, unless they are willing to go for total war again. And if after that Israel ceases to exist, then so be it. If Israel ends up encompassing large parts of Syria, Jordan and Lebananon, then so be it.
Islam is not a race.
I hear NK people these days are shocked because they are actually being told when their sports teams lose. Apparently they used to always win. The new dear leader is very progressive.
Many environmentalists are mad because they're just against anything. Slashdot recently had a story about new clean geothermal, but the Sierra Club tried very hard to stop it. The energy companies could show that their fracking fluid is pure distilled unicorn dreams, it wouldn't matter. They are evil, end of story.
Very socialist-speak of you. Freedom is slavery, slavery is freedom. Defending yourself and yours from violent socialist revolutionaries is considered a violation of their rights.
The reason to have a Vectrex. It only works right with the knob.
Are anti-fracking studies from members of Greenpeace or the Sierra Club suddenly invalid too?
Thinking of it another way, they might as well have just given him the death sentence because most people are on death row for longer than he will probably live.
I say do both. And not virtually all of his money, but every single penny plus a lien for anything his estate may accrue in the future.
This is an entirely different thing. Down there, a payoff to an judge or other public official will make it all go away. Here you are only more likely (but not sure) to escape punishment because you can afford someone who is very good at making your case before the court. Example: If this were Belize, Lindsey Lohan wouldn't be having all of these legal troubles. OJ would have never been tried. Hans Reiser was pretty loaded, and he's in jail for murder. The formerly very rich Menendez brothers will never leave prison, and they went in during their mid 20s. None of these people would have seen a courtroom in a third world country as long as they kept the right people happy.
I have plenty of guns and ammunition, a right missing from most socialist countries.
I think we have different ideas of freedom. I'm thinking more libertarian, freedom from restraint, no shackles, things not taken from you by force or the threat of it. Free to succed, free to fail. To me, freedom does not mean freedom from want, because to cure that want on the part of one person, the government must take by force from another, violating his freedom. You try to solve an evil by creating an evil.
As I said, the problems mainly stem from a distortion of the free market, often caused by government. The funny thing is, you must have a strong government to ensure a free market. Somalia does not have a free market. There's no guarantee that when you work hard to create a business and amass capital it won't just be taken away on the whim of a warlord. Or course, you're thinking about it being taken away on the whim of the "underclass." They're the same thing, a thuggish mentality with no respect for others. I will take it from you because I can, and kill you if necessary in order to get what I want.
That's the society that we had, and it's been eroded by people like you for decades, trying to drown us in a socialist hellhole.
So that's why billionaire Bernie Madoff is in jail on a 150 year sentence. Being rich can reduce your chance of conviction in court, but it won't just make the whole thing disappear. Well, unless you're a drunk-driving Kennedy who just got a girl killed, but that was more about political power than money.