And having a *license* plate on it would not help in this instance. Unless perhaps you shoot it down to get the number:)
Which also opens up a whole can of worms as to:
1) Under what circumstances is it lawful for a civilian or police to shoot down a drone, 2) Over what objects below is it lawful for a civilian or police to shoot down a drone, 3) With what kind of weapon and projectile(s) is it lawful for a civilian or police to shoot down a drone.
Requiring insurance to own a gun might not be a terrible idea for dealing with America's gun problem
I was unaware that we had thousands of unattended guns just going off randomly.
lower premiums for less powerful/lower capacity models,
So your average single shot hunting rifle will cost more in insurance than a standard AR variant? I assure you, your average 30-06 or 270 is far more powerful than any standard sort of AR.
"Capacity" you say is the difference? Just because you have a detachable magazine option (tool or not) doesn't mean you are often putting a 50 round drum or 30 round mag in it.
especially if kept in a secure gun cabinet.
Because insurance companies are so eager to come into your home on a semi-annual basis to verify the integrity of your cabinet. Wait, cabinet? You mean the sort of thing that tin snips can cut through in a matter of seconds? Yeah... great idea.
Higher premiums for types of gun more likely to be involved in crime or accidents.
So again you confirm, so called 'assault weapons' would actually have pretty cheap insurance as they aren't used in most crimes per FBI statistics... now owning a handgun on the other hand would see massive costs to insure... which given Heller & McDonald would probably have a hard time being upheld given the frequency of their use as self-defense weapons.
The magnitude and incidence of damages/injuries caused by cars is large and often more than most people could pay for, that is not *generally* true of bicycles or drones (which for normal people are quad-copters).
Except that 9 times out of 10 the car is going to get blamed, no matter how stupid the bike rider is who is more concerned over their perceived rights than physics.
The lack of insurance in no way changes any aspect of liability for damages Insurance serves to "insure" that you could have the resource to pay for them.
Correct, however 'uninsured motorist' insurance is a thing, including in California which shows just how well their requirement to be insured is (at last check ~12% of their drivers are uninsured), time for 'uninsured drone operator' insurance as well?
At last check, a drives license & insurance are not required to purchase outright or operate a vehicle... they are only required to do so on public roadways.
That hasn't stopped them from trying to regulate things they don't understand before. Right now they are trying to ban the 'bullet button' as their previous ban on detachable magazines was so effective, just look at how great their gun regulation did at stopping the San Bernardino terrorist attack.
At the very least I would like to see bikes require to have visible license plates and drivers who are licensed and insured if they are to ride on the same roads as motorized vehicles, for the same reasons we require both for cars.
The US has plenty of laws on the books at the local, state & federal level... none of which are apparently enough.
I'm still waiting for someone to specify exactly what sort of laws are enough with regards to firearms that they will be happy with that restricts the liberties of law abiding persons.
You certainly thought things through, but I think you missed a few things.
While taxing/regulating the primer is certainly one way to achieve such ends, I don't think you are aware that your local Home Depot sells them: http://www.homedepot.com/p/Ram...
They are actually a very useful part when driving a nail into concrete.
What's interesting about the idea of taxing ammunition is that it has a fairly small effect on those that are somewhat casual owners, but has a very large effect on those that desire to own large numbers of disparate firearms and lots of ammunition for each weapon.
Why is that a goal?
A person with a single 9mm pistol for self-defense that puts a couple of magazines' ammunition through every month to keep in-practice won't feel it very much, but a person that wants to purchase thousands of rounds of ammunition and dozens of guns would be fairly greatly impacted.
While true, why? More often than not, your average guy who goes on a single or multiple-person killing spree doesn't have a dozen different guns? More so, what's wrong with having a few thousand rounds of ammunition? Sometimes it's fun to go to the range and fire off a few hundred rounds in an afternoon... which often requires one to keep a look out for good prices during the year.
I do not question the availability of the equipment to do so today, I question the cost effectiveness of doing so. Add microstamping to the mix and you end up in an even greater world of hurt & confusion.
On the AR platform today the lower receiver is the only thing required to be serialized, meaning my upper receiver, barrel, butt stock, trigger assembly and magazines are all unserialized. It is perfectly legal for a otherwise non-prohibited person to build any of these components in their garage or a machine shop, ditto for brass & bullets.
Stamping in smaller numbers something with large flat surfaces in the case of a lower receiver is far far easier & cheaper than stamping many thousands of smaller & round objects as would be required.
Cars also try to fail to a safe state (limp mode, gradual deceleration, etc)... which in the case of a firearm can be deadly if you need to use it now.
A good first start to this would be to add a federal tax of 5 cents per bullet or shell
Completed or parts?
I ask because I've some reloading friends in Seattle who are chucking at the bullet tax there and how it won't affect them.
And the big bonus is if a gun was used in a crime and they didn't have a federal tax stamp for their bullets they could be charged with a federal crime
So you want to... put a serial number and/or tax stamp on each and every bullet? Riiight.
Not just cops, when the Secret Service detail who protects Obama after he leaves office starts carrying only 'smart guns' at his request... I still won't consider it, but at least then we will know he's not the sort of total hypocrite he is today.
we don't need it to be responsible for such mind-bogglingly byzantine complexity that it can't even keep an eye on its own people's ongoing criminal enterprises and partisan betrayals of trust.
There is a reason for it, and it's not just about governmental size, to quote an older book:
"Did you really think that we want those laws to be observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against - then you'll know that this is not the age for beautiful gestures. We're after power and we mean it. You fellows were pikers, but we know the real trick, and you'd better get wise to it. There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted - and you create a nation of law-breakers - and then you cash in on guilt. Now, that's the system, Mr. Rearden, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with."
Again, revisionist history that ignores reality, not to mention well established constitutional process and law.
Like I said, "Under no constitutional or lawful sequence of events was Al Gore going to become President."
A "Certificate of Ascertainment" had already been sent to congress and the Archivist of the United States, at that point the role of the state was over. Period.
The only remaining hope for the Gore campaign would be for the joint session of (the new) congress that is tasked with counting the votes challenge the result. If successful, each state delegation would cast a single vote for President. Given the breakdown of the 2000 House of Representatives election, it is almost certain that Bush would have won.
When it comes to VP, similar process in the senate, however due to the 50/50 split at the time, the President pro tempore of the Senate would cast the deciding vote. Who was that at the time? None other than the Vice President of the United States, Al Gore.
Tell me about it. When a renter I was slightly annoyed by 2-3 credit card offers a week... now I've got 2+ refinance offers in addition to at least 1 credit card offer, not to mention solicitations by real estate agents for when I am ready to sell my house. My wife was even puzzled by the fact we got a Christmas card from one of these agents this year.
The difference though is that property sales/ownership information generally doesn't have these sort of prohibitions on them.
Do we need it available to anyone but election officials to make sure only registered voters vote?
Need? No, but if you are part of a campaign they are invaluable.
While most state/national parties maintain their own curated lists (usually based on input from the states + their own info on likelihood of voting their way), if you are an upstart candidate who doesn't have the support of the party, your campaign is going to be doomed from the start without being able to target registered voters.
But I'm still waiting on how you make Mexico pay for it..
While not a fan of Trump, I recognize that as a business person he starts with a more out there proposal which he can then back off from during negotiations... which this sounds to be too.
The only ways I've come up with involve military force or some kind of new tax/tariff etc.. Just sending them a bill marked "over due, please pay now" is unlikely to be effective.
Aren't we better served if we just had the states make this information available for download?
Most states put limitations on how the data can be used: ie only political, law enforcement, journalistic, etc. The issue in part becomes how do you prevent people from misusing the list(s)?
Finding the home address of a potential stalking target becomes easy, as is using the data for marketing or other commercial purposes (which most states prohibit).
Watermarking a CSV file in a way that a quick search for differences between a couple different copies of the list isn't so easy.
Otherwise what I purchased just last week would either be illegal or worth it's weight in gold as they are stilt widely available in many a store, including online with the worlds foremost outfitters"
Slashdot Mirror
Which also opens up a whole can of worms as to:
1) Under what circumstances is it lawful for a civilian or police to shoot down a drone,
2) Over what objects below is it lawful for a civilian or police to shoot down a drone,
3) With what kind of weapon and projectile(s) is it lawful for a civilian or police to shoot down a drone.
I was unaware that we had thousands of unattended guns just going off randomly.
So your average single shot hunting rifle will cost more in insurance than a standard AR variant? I assure you, your average 30-06 or 270 is far more powerful than any standard sort of AR.
"Capacity" you say is the difference? Just because you have a detachable magazine option (tool or not) doesn't mean you are often putting a 50 round drum or 30 round mag in it.
Because insurance companies are so eager to come into your home on a semi-annual basis to verify the integrity of your cabinet. Wait, cabinet? You mean the sort of thing that tin snips can cut through in a matter of seconds? Yeah... great idea.
So again you confirm, so called 'assault weapons' would actually have pretty cheap insurance as they aren't used in most crimes per FBI statistics... now owning a handgun on the other hand would see massive costs to insure... which given Heller & McDonald would probably have a hard time being upheld given the frequency of their use as self-defense weapons.
There goes your plan, sorry.
Except that 9 times out of 10 the car is going to get blamed, no matter how stupid the bike rider is who is more concerned over their perceived rights than physics.
Correct, however 'uninsured motorist' insurance is a thing, including in California which shows just how well their requirement to be insured is (at last check ~12% of their drivers are uninsured), time for 'uninsured drone operator' insurance as well?
At last check, a drives license & insurance are not required to purchase outright or operate a vehicle... they are only required to do so on public roadways.
That hasn't stopped them from trying to regulate things they don't understand before. Right now they are trying to ban the 'bullet button' as their previous ban on detachable magazines was so effective, just look at how great their gun regulation did at stopping the San Bernardino terrorist attack.
At the very least I would like to see bikes require to have visible license plates and drivers who are licensed and insured if they are to ride on the same roads as motorized vehicles, for the same reasons we require both for cars.
Care to define 'gun control'?
The US has plenty of laws on the books at the local, state & federal level... none of which are apparently enough.
I'm still waiting for someone to specify exactly what sort of laws are enough with regards to firearms that they will be happy with that restricts the liberties of law abiding persons.
I was unaware that carrying a suitcase full of cash was usually illegal... the same cannot be said for a suitcase full of crack.
You certainly thought things through, but I think you missed a few things.
While taxing/regulating the primer is certainly one way to achieve such ends, I don't think you are aware that your local Home Depot sells them: http://www.homedepot.com/p/Ram...
They are actually a very useful part when driving a nail into concrete.
Why is that a goal?
While true, why? More often than not, your average guy who goes on a single or multiple-person killing spree doesn't have a dozen different guns? More so, what's wrong with having a few thousand rounds of ammunition? Sometimes it's fun to go to the range and fire off a few hundred rounds in an afternoon... which often requires one to keep a look out for good prices during the year.
I do not question the availability of the equipment to do so today, I question the cost effectiveness of doing so. Add microstamping to the mix and you end up in an even greater world of hurt & confusion.
On the AR platform today the lower receiver is the only thing required to be serialized, meaning my upper receiver, barrel, butt stock, trigger assembly and magazines are all unserialized. It is perfectly legal for a otherwise non-prohibited person to build any of these components in their garage or a machine shop, ditto for brass & bullets.
Stamping in smaller numbers something with large flat surfaces in the case of a lower receiver is far far easier & cheaper than stamping many thousands of smaller & round objects as would be required.
What sort of active movement? Like racking the slide? That doesn't work well if keep one in the chamber for minimum time between drawing & discharge.
Cars also try to fail to a safe state (limp mode, gradual deceleration, etc)... which in the case of a firearm can be deadly if you need to use it now.
Completed or parts?
I ask because I've some reloading friends in Seattle who are chucking at the bullet tax there and how it won't affect them.
So you want to... put a serial number and/or tax stamp on each and every bullet? Riiight.
Not just cops, when the Secret Service detail who protects Obama after he leaves office starts carrying only 'smart guns' at his request... I still won't consider it, but at least then we will know he's not the sort of total hypocrite he is today.
You really need to read up on the definition of 'irony'.
Today we had a guy rail against access to guns who is protected by a group of guys with guns... care to say something on the topic of the discussion?
There is a reason for it, and it's not just about governmental size, to quote an older book:
I'd hope they have ways of telling the difference between your PC being up vs being logged in to a desktop session (either local or remote).
Again, revisionist history that ignores reality, not to mention well established constitutional process and law.
Like I said, "Under no constitutional or lawful sequence of events was Al Gore going to become President."
A "Certificate of Ascertainment" had already been sent to congress and the Archivist of the United States, at that point the role of the state was over. Period.
The only remaining hope for the Gore campaign would be for the joint session of (the new) congress that is tasked with counting the votes challenge the result. If successful, each state delegation would cast a single vote for President. Given the breakdown of the 2000 House of Representatives election, it is almost certain that Bush would have won.
When it comes to VP, similar process in the senate, however due to the 50/50 split at the time, the President pro tempore of the Senate would cast the deciding vote. Who was that at the time? None other than the Vice President of the United States, Al Gore.
Tell me about it. When a renter I was slightly annoyed by 2-3 credit card offers a week... now I've got 2+ refinance offers in addition to at least 1 credit card offer, not to mention solicitations by real estate agents for when I am ready to sell my house. My wife was even puzzled by the fact we got a Christmas card from one of these agents this year.
The difference though is that property sales/ownership information generally doesn't have these sort of prohibitions on them.
Like it or not, those methods are legal at present.
How well paid are the lobbyists for the 'little people'?
Need? No, but if you are part of a campaign they are invaluable.
While most state/national parties maintain their own curated lists (usually based on input from the states + their own info on likelihood of voting their way), if you are an upstart candidate who doesn't have the support of the party, your campaign is going to be doomed from the start without being able to target registered voters.
While not a fan of Trump, I recognize that as a business person he starts with a more out there proposal which he can then back off from during negotiations... which this sounds to be too.
You aren't thinking creatively enough.
If $23 billion is in fact being sent from the US to Mexico... just tack a 20% 'wall' tax and you pay for a $49 billion dollar wall in just 10 years.
Granted, such projections are based on more or less static accounting and discounts any changes in behavior.
Most states put limitations on how the data can be used: ie only political, law enforcement, journalistic, etc. The issue in part becomes how do you prevent people from misusing the list(s)?
Finding the home address of a potential stalking target becomes easy, as is using the data for marketing or other commercial purposes (which most states prohibit).
Watermarking a CSV file in a way that a quick search for differences between a couple different copies of the list isn't so easy.
I'm sorry to see/hear that you still push with this revisionist bit of history.
The best you could have hoped for in 2000 was Bush as Pres & Lieberman as VP.
Under no constitutional or lawful sequence of events was Al Gore going to become President.
Did you forget to add "where I live" ... maybe?
Otherwise what I purchased just last week would either be illegal or worth it's weight in gold as they are stilt widely available in many a store, including online with the worlds foremost outfitters"