Actually, you've kind of made my point - SOP for US forces is to try and disarm everyone. We see how well it is working - armed militants blending in with an unarmed citizenry which cannot fight them.
In Israel, armed little old ladies shoot the suicide bomber they've just seen. In Iraq, armed little old ladies mourn the loss of their loved ones.
I don't think that the cost is hidden for introducing guns, and I don't necessarily think the fear level goes up. Many people, my self included, are fearful when NOT around guns, probably because we've grown up with them and are used to having them available in our daily lives and often times are used to carrying them upon our persons.
There is nothing to stop the punk from shooting you in the head instead of just beating and mugging you. You would possibly be dead (depending on the punk's aim). However, when the guy across the street sees what happens, and draws on the punk who shot you, then puts two in the punk's chest when he turns on this other citizen, then the problem is solved; dead punk in a justifiable shooting. Now, if you assume that the other citizen does have a gun, but the punk doesn't, your chance for rescue gets much better. The citizen can come to your rescue.
I think that the police as an institution tend to abuse power, armed or not. The fact that you guys are now seeing unjustified shootings is something that we've dealt with for years (hell, they sometimes shoot off duty police coming to help). It comes down to the individual department and area of the country. What goes in rural New Hampshire or Texas doesn't typically fly in LA or NYC.
However, from those sites: - Assaults per capita in the UK is more than double that of the US - Burglaries are almost double that of the US - Car thefts are almost double that of the US - Rape victims are more than double that of the US (though rape per capita is half)
Why? Well, because stuff like that gets you shot in the US.
I'm not saying that banning guns won't reduce gun crime; typically it does. However, a reduction in guns typically increases overall crime, and an increase in guns (or at least, an increase in carry permits) typically decreases overall crime (at least, those are the numbers coming out of US cities/counties/states that have tried this).
I also think that your IRA example doesn't hold water. After all, we're not talking about a bomb set off randomly; we're talking about shooting someone coming kicking in your door at 2am, or trying to steal your car with your kids in the backseat while you're at a stop light.
They are not indiscriminate; they are controlled by people. People are responsible for the actions which they take with their weapons.
Also, an armed populace is a tremendous deterrent by invasion by a foreign power: - Look at the armed citizens of Switzerland - According to some Japanese military officials, they never invaded mainland US because they did not have the resources for a prolonged military campaign against an armed civilian population.
Your position implies that "killing people" is universally illegal, immoral, and/or wrong. It is not. One can legally and morally kill someone in defense of human life and, some would say, in defense of property as well. Therefore, firearms "primary purpose" is defense of innocent life and/or property. Banning them because of their secondary uses of unlawful attack is foolish. After all, it's ILLEGAL, so what makes you think that perpetrators of these illegal acts will follow the laws which make the firearms illegal? Indeed, the UK has attempted this and noticed a huge influx of illegal firearms, which are then used on the now unarmed population.
Well, I can't profess to believe in God, but I do have the following responses: - The police and government cannot protect you (they invariably arrive too late, or not at all; witness Katrina) - Therefore, you are responsible for the defense of your person, your family, and your property. - Firearms make this defense much easier. - I presume that by "gun toting nazis" you do not mean the police, but actual, armed neo-nazi thugs. Now, until they actually do something illegal, they are perfectly within their rights to have firearms. You seem to propose to make this unlawful. Do you really thing that someone doing something unlawful would actually follow weapons laws when perpetrating that act? Indeed, the only thing you end up doing by removing firearms from law-abiding citizens is removing the ability of citizens to defend themselves from illegal acts without engaging in an illegal act themselves. - I don't know why you presume that having firearms would cause law abiding citizens to oppress other law abiding citizens. However, if all the citizens are armed, then it's at least fair. Now, I'm sure some will feel that if all are unarmed, then it's also fair. However, that doesn't quite work, because, as mentioned before, one can't assume that those breaking the law against attacking a fellow citizen will bother to follow the law prohibiting firearms. - As far as hunting animals, I don't see the problem with it. Indeed, one could argue that it's more humane than forcing livestock to live in barns and boxes, fed a diet specially formulated to make them grow rapidly, and are then slaughtered by driving a spike through their head. Of course, that implies that being humane to non-pet animals (aka either "food" or "pests") matters, which is up to the reader to decide.
And, throwing a random fact into the discussion, which is taken from my memory of reading John Lott's research: - Incidents of lawful defense of life and property vastly outnumber accidental shootings and school shootings, combined. Indeed, saying that guns should be banned because of accidental and illegal use is like saying that automobiles should be outlawed because of all the accidents and incidents of vehicular homicide.
Indeed, owning a firearm puts the power of life and death in the hands of John (or Jane) Q. Public. He/she assumes a personal responsibility for this power and is legally and ethically responsible for it's just use. The difference here is that the state is no longer wholly responsible for your defense and the defense of your property. The buck stops with you. I think that anti-gun people either do not want this responsibility themselves (the victim mentality), or don't feel that fellow citizens can be entrusted with this responsibility, often times only applying it to OTHER citizens (the "Double Standard", employed by notorious anti-gun activists like Diane Feinstein who, while being tremendously anti-gun, also has a concealed carry permit).
Bad people commit crimes with [certain type of] firearms. Therefore, we must ban [certain type of] firearms.
The UK has already taken broad steps towards this, and the US keeps trying.
Hell, they don't even need evidence that a crime is committed - just that the firearm could be used against people. Indeed, there are rumblings that they want to get rid of "sniper rifles" (aka - high powered rifles which can hit targets at 100m), also known as "quality hunting rifles".
I suppose that you would tell POW's that they are being pussies too, and should stand up to their captors.
1.) Make no mistake, high school is like prison. You are forced to go, to live a predictable schedule, which means that, tactically, they know where to find you, every minute of every day.
2.) If you get attacked, and go to the authorities, they will attempt to remedy the situation (maybe), but they cannot protect you from your attackers indefinitely, and you are not allowed to defend yourself.
3.) If you do defend yourself, you get detention / suspension, because of the zero tolerance policy against fighting.
4.) It is hardly ever one on one; there are usually a group of them, which means that (unless you are very good), if you try and fight them, you will lose.
5.) If I ever did fight back, I would end up catching hell at home.
6.) Carrying a weapon (to even the odds) will get you expelled, even if your assailants are armed.
Now, as an adult, it's easier to say that. Basically, any hostility you encounter as an adult is basically a meeting engagement - it's unlikely that you're going to have to come back to the place where you're victimized. Additionally, you can carry/have a weapon, and if it is indeed a justifiable use of force (see Florida Castle Doctrine laws), you won't be prosecuted for it.
Meanwhile, your kid will get the shit beat out of him every day for being a rat and getting the bullies in trouble. Most of the time, I didn't even bother to complain about the books being taken - unless it was a school book, I could just deal with the fact that it was lost, and complaining about it just made it worse.
My concern with buying kids laptops before college is the damage that the bullies in the school will do. I had a few books stolen/damaged/thrown in the mud, etc, accounting to maybe $200 in the course of the 7 years of middle school/high school. Imagine if that had been a laptop?
I have no doubt that I'll buy my child a laptop, but I will restrict his/her priviledges in bringing it to school, for fear of damage. The utility of a laptop is more that the kid can sit on the couch and surf/do work/etc., bring it to their grandparents' houses, coffeeshops, and friends' houses.
Seconded. When I had a desktop, I wouldn't get homework done, because I'd be hanging out in the campus coffee shop. With a laptop, however, I actually got work done, because I would do the work on the laptop in the coffee house.
I never used my laptop in class. That didn't mean I'd pay attention, however. I sat in the back and read SF novels until the lecture got interesting.
My previous post addresses this: In a free society, one does not have to demonstrate need in order to justify posession of an object. If I want to have a SMG for home defense (which, indeed, are quite wonderful for CQB, which is why they are the choice of trench warfare fighters and swat teams around the world), that is my business, until I commit a crime with it.
There is nothing illegal about using your M-60, as long as you do not use it to commit a crime.
Therefore, what you're really saying is that "since people can use firearms to commit crimes, it is silly to expect them to do anything but use firearms to commit crimes", a typical piece of anti-gun rhetoric. However, one could make the same argument about knives, baseball bats, and automobiles, thus demonstrating the flaw in your logic, since modern legal systems are (at least in theory) based around the presumption of innocence.
However, this brings up the whole "well, you don't NEED a machine gun" agrument, to which I reply: in a free society, need justifies nothing. If I take my machine gun to the range, and use it perfectly legally, then there is no harm to me having it. The issue really comes back to the idea "well, you MIGHT do something bad with it". Having an automobile, I might engage in illegal practices with it; do you propose to take it away before I do something bad, or do you wait until I have actually done something wrong?
In a nutshell, the whole anti-gun argument revolves around presumption of guilt on the part of your citizenry, which is not a way to run a free republic.
XP is such a joy when it comes to simply connecting a device and watching the pretty little bubble detecting it and saying "its installed and ready for use" makes the slightly high price absolutely worth it. In Linux, you have to recompile a kernel if you want to so much as change your modem! Give me a break guys, Linux is light years behind Windows XP and I am sure it will be further back biting the dust when Longhorn (now Vista) comes out.
1.) Mac OS had that pretty little bubble before XP.
2.) If that fancy little bubble "makes the slightly high price absolutely worth it", then the fact that, once installed things actually WORK and KEEP WORKING absolutely make OSX worth the price.
3.) "In Linux, you have to recompile a kernel if you want to so much as change your modem"
Uhm, no you don't. - Most stuff is supported by loadable kernel modules, which are loaded and unloaded as needed. - If you don't do kernel modules, most decent modems are supported with the plain old serial driver. It's only when you start to get into crappy software modems that you have problems. Indeed, I remember having those same problems under Windows, back in about 1997, which is why I returned the foolish modem and got a decent "real hardware" modem.
The thing about carrying a gun is that you end up having to use it, because everyone has them. You carry a katana, and people assume you know how to use it, so you never do.
Actually, a very interesting thought exercise is "what would happen if _Shaun_of_the_Dead_ took place in NYC instead of London? My colleagues and I speculated that amongst the police, FBI, ATF, Mafia, random gangs and armed citizens, the zombies would be dispatched pretty quickly. None of this "unarmed constables and cricket bat wielding salespeople" running for their lives rubbish.
I'm really surprised we haven't heard anything from Joe Lieberman. After all his pontificating after Columbine and the hearings on how video games and Marilyn Manson were responsible, I'm surprised he hasn't decided to opine on the subject.
If you wanted to explain Open Source as philosophy, rather than application, I find the best thing to do is recipes.
Start with something simple, like a recipe for a jelly sandwich. Then go around the table and have people add to it.
- Peanut butter - Bananas - Someone cuts the sandwich - Someone adds chips as a side
The recipe is open source. People can improve it.
Then, there is the proprietary sandwich model. You cannot make your own. You cannot improve upon it. The company controls the destiny of the sandwich, and they do not need to modify it if they do not want to.
(Cookies work too).
Open source, however, belongs to everyone who ever contributed to the software, and anyone who wants can fix it.
Then you can launch in to "and this is the result", and boot Knoppix off a random box.
Then start laying out the costs: Computer: $500 Windows XP Pro: $150 (OEM) MS Office: $300(??) (OEM)
So, you've doubled the cost of your machine by buying software with free equivalents.
Plus (bringing the argument back to the original idea), if the company stops making Jelly sandwiches, you can't get Jelly sandwiches anymore. However, the Open Source Jelly sandwiches are still around, and someone else could take up the torch to extend the Jelly sandwiches. If your company had a need, they could even hire a consultant to work on it, or extend it in-house. One cannot do that with the proprietary sandwich mode.
Best case: he might have survived because he had better odds (n:1 where n are armed with knives and 1 is armed with a firearm with 2n bullets starts to be a little more even).
I graduated with a degree, got a job, and just asked my g/f to marry me (she said yes).
I still play miniatures games, and would play RPG's if I had the time and a group.
I still paint minis and models, work on rules for miniatures games, and am writing some software gaim aids as a hobby in my free time.
My life and gaming are intertwined. I enjoy it, and my fiancee doesn't mind (indeed, we've dug out some of my old CCG's and have started playing those again, as a way of hanging out and spending time with each other). I am far from a stealth geek (whatever models I'm working on are off in a corner of the living room, so everyone sees them when they come in).
So, get over it. Not everyone has to hide who they are.
In Vancouver, BC... Someone got stabbed by some punks for asking them to be quiet.
Poor bastard needed to carry a.45. Might not have stopped him from getting a knife in the chest, but he might have left one of the hooligans with a sucking chest wound.
However, all DVD's are protected by CSS and ripping it circumvents that CSS and that is circumvention of a copy protection device, which is a felony under the DMCA, regardless of if the purpose you are circumventing the protection for is legal.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, you've kind of made my point - SOP for US forces is to try and disarm everyone. We see how well it is working - armed militants blending in with an unarmed citizenry which cannot fight them.
In Israel, armed little old ladies shoot the suicide bomber they've just seen.
In Iraq, armed little old ladies mourn the loss of their loved ones.
You quoted the statistics, not me.
I don't think that the cost is hidden for introducing guns, and I don't necessarily think the fear level goes up. Many people, my self included, are fearful when NOT around guns, probably because we've grown up with them and are used to having them available in our daily lives and often times are used to carrying them upon our persons.
There is nothing to stop the punk from shooting you in the head instead of just beating and mugging you. You would possibly be dead (depending on the punk's aim). However, when the guy across the street sees what happens, and draws on the punk who shot you, then puts two in the punk's chest when he turns on this other citizen, then the problem is solved; dead punk in a justifiable shooting. Now, if you assume that the other citizen does have a gun, but the punk doesn't, your chance for rescue gets much better. The citizen can come to your rescue.
I think that the police as an institution tend to abuse power, armed or not. The fact that you guys are now seeing unjustified shootings is something that we've dealt with for years (hell, they sometimes shoot off duty police coming to help). It comes down to the individual department and area of the country. What goes in rural New Hampshire or Texas doesn't typically fly in LA or NYC.
However, from those sites:
- Assaults per capita in the UK is more than double that of the US
- Burglaries are almost double that of the US
- Car thefts are almost double that of the US
- Rape victims are more than double that of the US (though rape per capita is half)
Why? Well, because stuff like that gets you shot in the US.
I'm not saying that banning guns won't reduce gun crime; typically it does. However, a reduction in guns typically increases overall crime, and an increase in guns (or at least, an increase in carry permits) typically decreases overall crime (at least, those are the numbers coming out of US cities/counties/states that have tried this).
I also think that your IRA example doesn't hold water. After all, we're not talking about a bomb set off randomly; we're talking about shooting someone coming kicking in your door at 2am, or trying to steal your car with your kids in the backseat while you're at a stop light.
They are not indiscriminate; they are controlled by people. People are responsible for the actions which they take with their weapons.
Also, an armed populace is a tremendous deterrent by invasion by a foreign power:
- Look at the armed citizens of Switzerland
- According to some Japanese military officials, they never invaded mainland US because they did not have the resources for a prolonged military campaign against an armed civilian population.
Your position implies that "killing people" is universally illegal, immoral, and/or wrong. It is not. One can legally and morally kill someone in defense of human life and, some would say, in defense of property as well. Therefore, firearms "primary purpose" is defense of innocent life and/or property. Banning them because of their secondary uses of unlawful attack is foolish. After all, it's ILLEGAL, so what makes you think that perpetrators of these illegal acts will follow the laws which make the firearms illegal? Indeed, the UK has attempted this and noticed a huge influx of illegal firearms, which are then used on the now unarmed population.
Well, I can't profess to believe in God, but I do have the following responses:
- The police and government cannot protect you (they invariably arrive too late, or not at all; witness Katrina)
- Therefore, you are responsible for the defense of your person, your family, and your property.
- Firearms make this defense much easier.
- I presume that by "gun toting nazis" you do not mean the police, but actual, armed neo-nazi thugs. Now, until they actually do something illegal, they are perfectly within their rights to have firearms. You seem to propose to make this unlawful. Do you really thing that someone doing something unlawful would actually follow weapons laws when perpetrating that act? Indeed, the only thing you end up doing by removing firearms from law-abiding citizens is removing the ability of citizens to defend themselves from illegal acts without engaging in an illegal act themselves.
- I don't know why you presume that having firearms would cause law abiding citizens to oppress other law abiding citizens. However, if all the citizens are armed, then it's at least fair. Now, I'm sure some will feel that if all are unarmed, then it's also fair. However, that doesn't quite work, because, as mentioned before, one can't assume that those breaking the law against attacking a fellow citizen will bother to follow the law prohibiting firearms.
- As far as hunting animals, I don't see the problem with it. Indeed, one could argue that it's more humane than forcing livestock to live in barns and boxes, fed a diet specially formulated to make them grow rapidly, and are then slaughtered by driving a spike through their head. Of course, that implies that being humane to non-pet animals (aka either "food" or "pests") matters, which is up to the reader to decide.
And, throwing a random fact into the discussion, which is taken from my memory of reading John Lott's research:
- Incidents of lawful defense of life and property vastly outnumber accidental shootings and school shootings, combined. Indeed, saying that guns should be banned because of accidental and illegal use is like saying that automobiles should be outlawed because of all the accidents and incidents of vehicular homicide.
Indeed, owning a firearm puts the power of life and death in the hands of John (or Jane) Q. Public. He/she assumes a personal responsibility for this power and is legally and ethically responsible for it's just use. The difference here is that the state is no longer wholly responsible for your defense and the defense of your property. The buck stops with you. I think that anti-gun people either do not want this responsibility themselves (the victim mentality), or don't feel that fellow citizens can be entrusted with this responsibility, often times only applying it to OTHER citizens (the "Double Standard", employed by notorious anti-gun activists like Diane Feinstein who, while being tremendously anti-gun, also has a concealed carry permit).
Why not? It's a common logical statement:
Bad people commit crimes with [certain type of] firearms.
Therefore, we must ban [certain type of] firearms.
The UK has already taken broad steps towards this, and the US keeps trying.
Hell, they don't even need evidence that a crime is committed - just that the firearm could be used against people. Indeed, there are rumblings that they want to get rid of "sniper rifles" (aka - high powered rifles which can hit targets at 100m), also known as "quality hunting rifles".
From my cold, dead hand.
I suppose that you would tell POW's that they are being pussies too, and should stand up to their captors.
1.) Make no mistake, high school is like prison. You are forced to go, to live a predictable schedule, which means that, tactically, they know where to find you, every minute of every day.
2.) If you get attacked, and go to the authorities, they will attempt to remedy the situation (maybe), but they cannot protect you from your attackers indefinitely, and you are not allowed to defend yourself.
3.) If you do defend yourself, you get detention / suspension, because of the zero tolerance policy against fighting.
4.) It is hardly ever one on one; there are usually a group of them, which means that (unless you are very good), if you try and fight them, you will lose.
5.) If I ever did fight back, I would end up catching hell at home.
6.) Carrying a weapon (to even the odds) will get you expelled, even if your assailants are armed.
Now, as an adult, it's easier to say that. Basically, any hostility you encounter as an adult is basically a meeting engagement - it's unlikely that you're going to have to come back to the place where you're victimized. Additionally, you can carry/have a weapon, and if it is indeed a justifiable use of force (see Florida Castle Doctrine laws), you won't be prosecuted for it.
Meanwhile, your kid will get the shit beat out of him every day for being a rat and getting the bullies in trouble. Most of the time, I didn't even bother to complain about the books being taken - unless it was a school book, I could just deal with the fact that it was lost, and complaining about it just made it worse.
My concern with buying kids laptops before college is the damage that the bullies in the school will do. I had a few books stolen/damaged/thrown in the mud, etc, accounting to maybe $200 in the course of the 7 years of middle school/high school. Imagine if that had been a laptop?
I have no doubt that I'll buy my child a laptop, but I will restrict his/her priviledges in bringing it to school, for fear of damage. The utility of a laptop is more that the kid can sit on the couch and surf/do work/etc., bring it to their grandparents' houses, coffeeshops, and friends' houses.
Seconded. When I had a desktop, I wouldn't get homework done, because I'd be hanging out in the campus coffee shop. With a laptop, however, I actually got work done, because I would do the work on the laptop in the coffee house.
I never used my laptop in class. That didn't mean I'd pay attention, however. I sat in the back and read SF novels until the lecture got interesting.
My previous post addresses this: In a free society, one does not have to demonstrate need in order to justify posession of an object. If I want to have a SMG for home defense (which, indeed, are quite wonderful for CQB, which is why they are the choice of trench warfare fighters and swat teams around the world), that is my business, until I commit a crime with it.
There is nothing illegal about using your M-60, as long as you do not use it to commit a crime.
Therefore, what you're really saying is that "since people can use firearms to commit crimes, it is silly to expect them to do anything but use firearms to commit crimes", a typical piece of anti-gun rhetoric. However, one could make the same argument about knives, baseball bats, and automobiles, thus demonstrating the flaw in your logic, since modern legal systems are (at least in theory) based around the presumption of innocence.
However, this brings up the whole "well, you don't NEED a machine gun" agrument, to which I reply: in a free society, need justifies nothing. If I take my machine gun to the range, and use it perfectly legally, then there is no harm to me having it. The issue really comes back to the idea "well, you MIGHT do something bad with it". Having an automobile, I might engage in illegal practices with it; do you propose to take it away before I do something bad, or do you wait until I have actually done something wrong?
In a nutshell, the whole anti-gun argument revolves around presumption of guilt on the part of your citizenry, which is not a way to run a free republic.
1.) Mac OS had that pretty little bubble before XP.
2.) If that fancy little bubble "makes the slightly high price absolutely worth it", then the fact that, once installed things actually WORK and KEEP WORKING absolutely make OSX worth the price.
3.) "In Linux, you have to recompile a kernel if you want to so much as change your modem"
Uhm, no you don't.
- Most stuff is supported by loadable kernel modules, which are loaded and unloaded as needed.
- If you don't do kernel modules, most decent modems are supported with the plain old serial driver. It's only when you start to get into crappy software modems that you have problems. Indeed, I remember having those same problems under Windows, back in about 1997, which is why I returned the foolish modem and got a decent "real hardware" modem.
The thing about carrying a gun is that you end up having to use it, because everyone has them. You carry a katana, and people assume you know how to use it, so you never do.
Especially when arguing over pizza delivery.
But then again, I'm not the Deliverator.
Actually, a very interesting thought exercise is "what would happen if _Shaun_of_the_Dead_ took place in NYC instead of London? My colleagues and I speculated that amongst the police, FBI, ATF, Mafia, random gangs and armed citizens, the zombies would be dispatched pretty quickly. None of this "unarmed constables and cricket bat wielding salespeople" running for their lives rubbish.
I'm really surprised we haven't heard anything from Joe Lieberman. After all his pontificating after Columbine and the hearings on how video games and Marilyn Manson were responsible, I'm surprised he hasn't decided to opine on the subject.
Don't blame me. I voted Libertarian.
If you wanted to explain Open Source as philosophy, rather than application, I find the best thing to do is recipes.
.02.
Start with something simple, like a recipe for a jelly sandwich. Then go around the table and have people add to it.
- Peanut butter
- Bananas
- Someone cuts the sandwich
- Someone adds chips as a side
The recipe is open source. People can improve it.
Then, there is the proprietary sandwich model. You cannot make your own. You cannot improve upon it. The company controls the destiny of the sandwich, and they do not need to modify it if they do not want to.
(Cookies work too).
Open source, however, belongs to everyone who ever contributed to the software, and anyone who wants can fix it.
Then you can launch in to "and this is the result", and boot Knoppix off a random box.
Then start laying out the costs:
Computer: $500
Windows XP Pro: $150 (OEM)
MS Office: $300(??) (OEM)
So, you've doubled the cost of your machine by buying software with free equivalents.
Plus (bringing the argument back to the original idea), if the company stops making Jelly sandwiches, you can't get Jelly sandwiches anymore. However, the Open Source Jelly sandwiches are still around, and someone else could take up the torch to extend the Jelly sandwiches. If your company had a need, they could even hire a consultant to work on it, or extend it in-house. One cannot do that with the proprietary sandwich mode.
But that's just my
Remove all Windows machines from the internet.
No more Zombie nets used to DDOS and act as spam relays.
Best case: he might have survived because he had better odds (n:1 where n are armed with knives and 1 is armed with a firearm with 2n bullets starts to be a little more even).
Worst case: he might be dead. Oh, wait, he is.
I'd rather at least have a fighting chance.
I graduated with a degree, got a job, and just asked my g/f to marry me (she said yes).
I still play miniatures games, and would play RPG's if I had the time and a group.
I still paint minis and models, work on rules for miniatures games, and am writing some software gaim aids as a hobby in my free time.
My life and gaming are intertwined. I enjoy it, and my fiancee doesn't mind (indeed, we've dug out some of my old CCG's and have started playing those again, as a way of hanging out and spending time with each other). I am far from a stealth geek (whatever models I'm working on are off in a corner of the living room, so everyone sees them when they come in).
So, get over it. Not everyone has to hide who they are.
In Vancouver, BC... Someone got stabbed by some punks for asking them to be quiet.
.45. Might not have stopped him from getting a knife in the chest, but he might have left one of the hooligans with a sucking chest wound.
Poor bastard needed to carry a
However, all DVD's are protected by CSS and ripping it circumvents that CSS and that is circumvention of a copy protection device, which is a felony under the DMCA, regardless of if the purpose you are circumventing the protection for is legal.
And if there are any girls there, I want to do them!