I am uery sorry for vsing a colloqvial expression. I apparently have offended yov.
Perhaps the great master of the English language (which is so thorovghly f'd up on so many levels) can explain to me why we switched U's with V's a few hundred years ago.
Let me offend you even more....irregardless of my use of "of" inappropriately, you knew what was meant. And rather than face the argument, you chose to make a logical fallacy as a rebuttal. Congratulations.
You could of made an argument, instead of, you chose to be a turd.
How many people were killed with semi-automatic rifles (the class that so called "assault weapons" fall into)?
Of the 30,000 quoted as killed by guns. 50%+ of which are merely suicides. What percentage are due to AR15s and similar rifles? Approximately 350. So why is ALL the focus put on a tool that poses very little risk to Americans. But poses a HUGE threat to governments?
And yet, we have lost our wars in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan, where the only weapons those nations had to face the most powerful army that ever existed in the history of planet earth.....was those same said rifles. Just something to consider.
Those are considered ordinance/artillery, not small arms. Different category. Such things as cannons were usually owned by towns, lords (titled deeded land owners), and vessels (ships in many ways are akin to mini villages, this is why captains often have similar rights - ie: ability to marry).
Actually US vs Miller, is probably one of the most flawed decisions ever made. It was quite possibly staged. Mr. Miller's side didn't even have a defense. And he was found dead before the decision (you can decide if it was by gang rivals or government officials).
It even ignored the fact that yes, the military used 30-40 thousand short barreled shotguns.
And if you want to use the common use clause. Then we need to remove restrictions on the M4 Automatic battle rifle used by our military.
Ordinance was usually considered the possession of a town, estate (which was akin to a deeded minor titled land holder), or a vessel (a ship being in many ways treated as a small village).
Hence, I view the 2nd Amendment, that ALL small arms (personal weapons) are protected. But ordinance/artillery is not. We should have access to machine guns, but not necessarily nukes or missiles.
In many states the permits simply state the right to bear a concealed weapon. Hence often referenced as a concealed weapons permit.
It's one of my objections with the Pennsylvania permit, while it is one of the best states for personal firearms possession. The permit is worded specifically as a "License To Carry Firearms" (LTCF)
Yes, the case was used for banning sawed off shotguns. The argument being the military didn't use them, therefore they were not protected.
Couple points, that decision was flawed. It is well documented that it was one of the worse Supreme Court cases in history. And likely staged...Neither the defendants nor their legal counsel appeared at the Supreme Court. A lack of financial support and procedural irregularities prevented counsel from traveling.[4] Miller was found shot to death in April, before the decision was rendered.[5]
So imagine using as precedent a case that was never even defended against. So what were the precedents established?
1.The Second Amendment protects only the ownership of military-type weapons appropriate for use in an organized militia.
2.The "double barrel 12-gauge Stevens shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches in length, bearing identification number 76230" was never used in any militia organization.
***
If you want to USE that argument. Then guess what? 1. This would overturn the 1986 prohibition against post '86 machine guns and fully automatic rifles. As these ARE used by military. 2. Our military now regularly uses short barreled shotguns in door-to-door operations. As such, short barreled rifles would now have to be legal sans the tax stamp.
And even back in the day it was an incorrect decisions as: During WWI, between 30,000 and 40,000 short-barreled pump-action shotguns were purchased by the US Ordnance Department and saw service in the trenches and for guarding German prisoners.[8]
***
AND A BIG FYI - Shot barreled shotguns are NOT illegal per Federal law. They merely require a tax stamp and registration.
The 2nd Amendment does not state the right to bear guns, or even firearms. But arms....a term for personal weapons...this means guns, knives, swords, electromagnetic pulse pistols, tasers, etc....are ALL protected by the words of the 2nd Amendment.
You're quoting the law. But we all know the laws don't apply to big corporations. Look at all the copyright violations of big corps. Yet, they do not get the fines that a single mom is hit with.
The PIE is getting smaller. The portion of the GDP that goes into the hands of the average person is far less today than in the past. So you had 8 slices, now you have 7 slices. And suddenly you have 2 H1Bs - you now need 10 slices. You are told to cut the slices in half. You now have 14 slices. And are told you should be happy, there are extra slices. And you shouldn't be as hungry, because before you had only 1 slice. And now if you're hungry there are four extra slices. But your slice was half as big.
Scenario C - company doesn't hire the American worker that suits the role, and chooses to import a worker at 60% the salary cost. Company C rejects all American workers they can based on any criteria they can find, while accepting falsified resumes by H1B importer companies. Company C, who would of had to spend $1 million on American workers saves $400,000 on H1B workers. Rather than increase salary, the $400,000 is divided in two, $200,000 goes to investors, and $200,000 goes to executive bonuses.
American worker finally concedes, lowers salary from $100K to $75K. Gets hired. Company C then hires H1B workers at $50K instead of $60K. Result, our own government IT jobs are filled with 30 man teams in which 3 are Americans and the rest H1B.
FY2009, 214,271 visas were approved. I was out of work from mid 2008 till 2010. I've since been gainfully employed in a large government/corporate work environment in which it is not uncommon for 85% of the staff to be or have been H1B visa holders.
Since being employed, I have survived two project cuts and received multiple promotions and a 50% increase in salary. Obviously, I was capable and competent.
I actually like the H1B visa program as a cultural exchange. But the whole, we need this because there are not any skilled, capable American workers is utter BS. It's like the "trucker shortage". There is no shortage of skilled truck drivers in America. There is a shortage of truck drivers who will work for peanuts, barely making above what they have to expend in gas. Truck drivers work because they were able to make half decent money to support their families. Now they can't.
We all know the Disney import of H1B visa holders to be trained by the employees they are to replace is not uncommon. The H1B visa program is repeatedly used by corporations to depress wages.
So no, this article is utter BS.
I actually have an idea to improve the H1B program. A tax...for every $100K increment there would be a $10K tax on the visa. An IT worker earning an $85K salary = $10K tax, a doctor earning $165K salary = $20K tax. These revenues would go directly to funding 2 year community colleges allowing any American to attend a community college for free. That's a minimum of $2.5 billion and likely a lot more....
If the courts can deem Uber drivers NOT to be contractors. Then first off, that calls into question ALL taxi services since most drivers lease their cars/taxi permit from the owner.
But more so, what does this decision say for ALL of us IT folks? Hundreds of thousands of whom are hired as contractors.
This decision will pretty much shake up all the Silicon Valley corps if left to stand. Once the courts realize how much big $$$ money they jeopardized, they'll recant this decision.
And frankly, I think Uber more than almost all contractors, is clearly a contracting service.
There are very few facts in my elementary science book that stand true today. And I'm not that old.
My point is, claiming a "consensus" is actually a violation of one of the rules of logic. And if science held to all of it's consensuses simply because there was a consensus at the time, then we would still believe the sun orbited the Earth.
I'm not wanting to hide in a cave. Rather, I just want an logical fallacy used as a claim of science.
Slashdot Mirror
Nyet, you're probably right....
Yes....
But I also understand the difference of unarmed human spirit....and armed human spirit.
I am uery sorry for vsing a colloqvial expression. I apparently have offended yov.
Perhaps the great master of the English language (which is so thorovghly f'd up on so many levels) can explain to me why we switched U's with V's a few hundred years ago.
Let me offend you even more....irregardless of my use of "of" inappropriately, you knew what was meant. And rather than face the argument, you chose to make a logical fallacy as a rebuttal. Congratulations.
You could of made an argument, instead of, you chose to be a turd.
Nope that's ordinance/artillery - not arms.
No it didn't...
How many people were killed with semi-automatic rifles (the class that so called "assault weapons" fall into)?
Of the 30,000 quoted as killed by guns. 50%+ of which are merely suicides. What percentage are due to AR15s and similar rifles? Approximately 350. So why is ALL the focus put on a tool that poses very little risk to Americans. But poses a HUGE threat to governments?
And yet, we have lost our wars in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan, where the only weapons those nations had to face the most powerful army that ever existed in the history of planet earth.....was those same said rifles. Just something to consider.
Those are considered ordinance/artillery, not small arms. Different category. Such things as cannons were usually owned by towns, lords (titled deeded land owners), and vessels (ships in many ways are akin to mini villages, this is why captains often have similar rights - ie: ability to marry).
It does vary from state to state. Check out kniferights.org.
Which if you do research, you will learn did not mean "regulations" as we use the term today. It meant "well trained/equipped"...
Actually US vs Miller, is probably one of the most flawed decisions ever made. It was quite possibly staged. Mr. Miller's side didn't even have a defense. And he was found dead before the decision (you can decide if it was by gang rivals or government officials).
It even ignored the fact that yes, the military used 30-40 thousand short barreled shotguns.
And if you want to use the common use clause. Then we need to remove restrictions on the M4 Automatic battle rifle used by our military.
Hmm.... and just WHO killed Jack Miller?
^ that's because those fall under ordinance/artillery as opposed to [small] arms.
Ordinance was usually considered the possession of a town, estate (which was akin to a deeded minor titled land holder), or a vessel (a ship being in many ways treated as a small village).
Hence, I view the 2nd Amendment, that ALL small arms (personal weapons) are protected. But ordinance/artillery is not. We should have access to machine guns, but not necessarily nukes or missiles.
In many states the permits simply state the right to bear a concealed weapon. Hence often referenced as a concealed weapons permit.
It's one of my objections with the Pennsylvania permit, while it is one of the best states for personal firearms possession. The permit is worded specifically as a "License To Carry Firearms" (LTCF)
Yes, the case was used for banning sawed off shotguns. The argument being the military didn't use them, therefore they were not protected.
Couple points, that decision was flawed. It is well documented that it was one of the worse Supreme Court cases in history. And likely staged...Neither the defendants nor their legal counsel appeared at the Supreme Court. A lack of financial support and procedural irregularities prevented counsel from traveling.[4] Miller was found shot to death in April, before the decision was rendered.[5]
So imagine using as precedent a case that was never even defended against. So what were the precedents established?
1.The Second Amendment protects only the ownership of military-type weapons appropriate for use in an organized militia.
2.The "double barrel 12-gauge Stevens shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches in length, bearing identification number 76230" was never used in any militia organization.
***
If you want to USE that argument. Then guess what? 1. This would overturn the 1986 prohibition against post '86 machine guns and fully automatic rifles. As these ARE used by military. 2. Our military now regularly uses short barreled shotguns in door-to-door operations. As such, short barreled rifles would now have to be legal sans the tax stamp.
And even back in the day it was an incorrect decisions as: During WWI, between 30,000 and 40,000 short-barreled pump-action shotguns were purchased by the US Ordnance Department and saw service in the trenches and for guarding German prisoners.[8]
***
AND A BIG FYI - Shot barreled shotguns are NOT illegal per Federal law. They merely require a tax stamp and registration.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
LASTLY>>>>>>>
The 2nd Amendment does not state the right to bear guns, or even firearms. But arms....a term for personal weapons...this means guns, knives, swords, electromagnetic pulse pistols, tasers, etc....are ALL protected by the words of the 2nd Amendment.
You're quoting the law. But we all know the laws don't apply to big corporations. Look at all the copyright violations of big corps. Yet, they do not get the fines that a single mom is hit with.
Except....
The PIE is getting smaller. The portion of the GDP that goes into the hands of the average person is far less today than in the past.
So you had 8 slices, now you have 7 slices. And suddenly you have 2 H1Bs - you now need 10 slices. You are told to cut the slices in half. You now have 14 slices. And are told you should be happy, there are extra slices. And you shouldn't be as hungry, because before you had only 1 slice. And now if you're hungry there are four extra slices. But your slice was half as big.
And who paid for the statistical (manipulation) analysis of said evidence?
But neither Scenario A or B is the common one.
Scenario C - company doesn't hire the American worker that suits the role, and chooses to import a worker at 60% the salary cost. Company C rejects all American workers they can based on any criteria they can find, while accepting falsified resumes by H1B importer companies. Company C, who would of had to spend $1 million on American workers saves $400,000 on H1B workers. Rather than increase salary, the $400,000 is divided in two, $200,000 goes to investors, and $200,000 goes to executive bonuses.
American worker finally concedes, lowers salary from $100K to $75K. Gets hired. Company C then hires H1B workers at $50K instead of $60K. Result, our own government IT jobs are filled with 30 man teams in which 3 are Americans and the rest H1B.
That's far more the accurate scenario.
IF but that if is false.... It doesn't create more jobs.
Let's see...
FY2009, 214,271 visas were approved. I was out of work from mid 2008 till 2010. I've since been gainfully employed in a large government/corporate work environment in which it is not uncommon for 85% of the staff to be or have been H1B visa holders.
Since being employed, I have survived two project cuts and received multiple promotions and a 50% increase in salary. Obviously, I was capable and competent.
I actually like the H1B visa program as a cultural exchange. But the whole, we need this because there are not any skilled, capable American workers is utter BS. It's like the "trucker shortage". There is no shortage of skilled truck drivers in America. There is a shortage of truck drivers who will work for peanuts, barely making above what they have to expend in gas. Truck drivers work because they were able to make half decent money to support their families. Now they can't.
We all know the Disney import of H1B visa holders to be trained by the employees they are to replace is not uncommon. The H1B visa program is repeatedly used by corporations to depress wages.
So no, this article is utter BS.
I actually have an idea to improve the H1B program. A tax...for every $100K increment there would be a $10K tax on the visa. An IT worker earning an $85K salary = $10K tax, a doctor earning $165K salary = $20K tax. These revenues would go directly to funding 2 year community colleges allowing any American to attend a community college for free. That's a minimum of $2.5 billion and likely a lot more....
$150,000 fine per individual they broadcast the video too.
Really,
If the courts can deem Uber drivers NOT to be contractors. Then first off, that calls into question ALL taxi services since most drivers lease their cars/taxi permit from the owner.
But more so, what does this decision say for ALL of us IT folks? Hundreds of thousands of whom are hired as contractors.
This decision will pretty much shake up all the Silicon Valley corps if left to stand. Once the courts realize how much big $$$ money they jeopardized, they'll recant this decision.
And frankly, I think Uber more than almost all contractors, is clearly a contracting service.
There are very few facts in my elementary science book that stand true today. And I'm not that old.
My point is, claiming a "consensus" is actually a violation of one of the rules of logic. And if science held to all of it's consensuses simply because there was a consensus at the time, then we would still believe the sun orbited the Earth.
I'm not wanting to hide in a cave. Rather, I just want an logical fallacy used as a claim of science.
There was a scientific consensus....
How could it have been wrong? All the consenting scientists couldn't be wrong, could they?