You still allow someone to own a machine gun for "personal protection". There's a problem there I think.
You cannot seriously be that dense.. Machine guns have been strictly controlled and licensed in this country since the 1930's and I don't hear anybody of note calling for the repeal of that, including the NRA. Certainly I'm NOT asking for the repeal of that ban as it makes perfect sense to tightly control machine guns. We are talking about "Assault Weapons" which are NOT machine guns but a definition usually associated with a now defunct law which defined the term, mostly based on the appearance of the weapon and not it's function. The AR-15 is such a weapon, if you buy it with certain options it is classified as an assault weapon (Say a folding stock with a pistol grip and a barrel threaded for a silencer) but you can take the same exact mechanical parts, with a hunting stock and standard barrel and it's NOT an assault weapon, even though it's performance has not changed one bit.
But either you don't know anything about guns and are parroting the media's party lines on this issue, or you are not being honest about exactly what all this means. I find that it's usually the former. The world is filled with people who think appearance is everything and if you paint something in camo it somehow makes it a military item. Don't just be a sheep in the flock, take the time to learn something.
I disagree with your conclusion. The constitution works just fine, even today, if you seek what the original framers intended and not what you want it to say. The legal, moral and ethical principles it is founded on are timeless, even if the language isn't. We don't need to rewrite it, we need to seek to understand what it said to the people of the day, especially those who wrote the document. The problem I'm pointing out is that many judges today DO NOT seek original meaning from the constitution or the laws they are charged with interpreting, they seek to mold it into what they want to see and inject personal bias driven by political, social and personal beliefs.
Don't forget, warrants just make the evidence collected viable in criminal court. So what if evidence is collected on perps outside the USA. It's not like the FBI is going to charge and try some foreign national not in the USA using this evidence which would only be valid in a US criminal court. It is clearly out of their jurisdiction to file charges in a foreign country and it doesn't make sense to charge them here unless they happen to BE here...
The previous poster was discussing INTENTIONAL backdoors, you are talking about inadvertent backdoors caused by honest mistakes.
I don't think anybody has intentionally slipped some backdoor into systemd with the intention of breaking into systems later. Are there possible avenues someone could use to leverage a here to fore unknown systemd bug to do this same? It would not be surprising, but it would also be fixed as soon as it was found and if the feds where out breaking into scads of computers in some fishing exercise, somehow I think *somebody* would catch on and lock them out pretty quick.
Computer security is best served at multiple levels anyway, and some breach in systemd is likely the least of your concerns if you ask me. By the time systemd gets into the picture, you had better have stuff in place that can catch the attack as it enters your network, our you are dead meat anyway.
The real problem, I think, is that a lot of older judges just don't understand technology.
Reading the case, he seems to understand technology well enough. Civil liberties, not so much.
Ah yes, political appointees doing what they perceive is their master's bidding.. I tell you, the framers did not envision a judicial branch like this. They where supposed to be independent.
We've long ago abandoned the legal principles that this nation was founded upon and have spiraled into this ruling from the social issue and identity politics perspectives and not legal principle and original meaning. If you can contort the words, either by redefining their meaning or using twisted logic to find a loophole, your pet social issue can win the day...
How is it "trivially easy" for bad guys to get guns? We already do background checks and heavily regulate how guns can be bought and sold. What more do you want?
We have that pesky 2nd amendment thingy that says we have to allow people to have and carry guns. You got to allow folks to buy guns. We also have a legal principle that says the government cannot abridge rights without cause, reasonable provable cause. So unless you can prove somebody is "bad" you cannot abridge their right to buy, own, and carry guns..
So... I ask you, how do you propose we keep the bad guys away from guns? We already do background checks and don't allow a whole host of folks to buy weapons.... What more do you think we can do that 1. Doesn't infringe on constitutional rights and 2. keeps even *some* bad guys from getting guns? What you got?
Where I don't disagree, I do think that you leave out one more factor...
IF you have a gun free zone, you need to provide both physical protection that keeps guns out as well as some kind of protection should your physical layer fail to keep all guns out and someone starts shooting up the place. You need well trained, armed guards ON SITE and emergency plans that include isolating the shooter from their intended victims as quickly as possible and meeting their force with overwhelming force to subdue them (or eliminate them) as necessary. This means office doors that lock, interior doors that won't let you in, even with the proper credentials and a building design that allows for multiple means of escape/refuge for potential victims and an effective way to communicate what to do to those in danger.
In short, if you run an establishment that is a gun free zone, either by your choice (by prohibiting firearms) or legally mandated, the owners are legally responsible for security and liable when the security fails and somebody gets hurt.
You are still not saying what you mean.. But hey, at this point you either don't really know what you mean and don't want to risk being called out or are just being abrasive on purpose.
That's my point. There is a legal limit to what law enforcement can do to find and disarm people who wish to do others harm. Like it or not, unless a person is a known danger to himself or others and this danger can be proven, the 2nd amendment gives them the right to bear arms. Rights cannot be taken away on a hunch, the government MUST have and show there is a real reason before they can infringe on an individual's rights. That's why you cannot be summarily searched or be jailed without a trial or charges, why the government cannot force you to say or not to say certain things or why they cannot just take your property away. People have rights, even the weird dangerous looking ones...
To be fair to the FBI, just being interviewed, even multiple times is NOT sufficient cause to take away a person's rights.
It's not, but what they hell do you have to be doing to not only get the FBI's attention, but to be collected and interviewed by them - twice?
So you are advocating that if the FBI comes out and asks you questions multiple times that you be banned from buying guns?
We don't know the content of those interviews, what questions where asked and how they where answered, and with the benefit of hindsight it sure seems suspicious that they hauled him in a couple of times, BUT just being investigated is NOT sufficient cause to take away someone's rights. Even if they are investigated multiple times... You have to FIND something provable to take away someone's rights and the burden of proof is on the government in this case. It's called innocent until proven guilty.
We cannot "Monday morning quarterback" the FBI like this and somehow blame them for this. There may have been NOTHING to miss here when you consider how it was in the moment. Yes, we need to take a close look at this, learn what we might do better, but I believe that there literally is NO stopping this kind of lone wolf, loosely associated attacker from doing this and the FBI never knowing anything in advance. The organized groups or individuals directly associated with known terror groups, those the FBI can do things about.
The legally insane, yes, keep guns out of their hands, but that's not what you said before. Before you said "religious nutjob" which is far from a legally defined description of a group of people who shouldn't carry guns around.
Understand, I'm trying to get you to say what you *really* mean and drop the rhetoric designed to inflame...
You don't know that, and a whole bunch of defenseless folks got shot the way this went down. It's a bad situation when some guy is shooting up the place and killing people no matter what and this didn't end until he was confronted by someone using deadly force (HOURS after it started).
I'm not claiming to know if having multiple armed people in the building would have helped, but it HAS helped in the past. Chances are it could have helped here too if there was enough people who could use deadly force. It's possible they could have made it worse, but given that would not be their intent, I dare say the amount of damage the law abiding would inflict is a far cry less than the heavily armed shooter bent on killing as many as possible..
Give the folks inside that nightclub a chance to defend themselves, let them be armed.. Yes, it's a risk, but all not as bad as letting the guy have free reign to shoot until his ammo runs out.
Thanks for the correction... Sorry I get my crazy nut job's names switched sometimes... Was that Hillary or Barack who said that? Oh what's the difference...
Easy to avoid.. However, the more good guys with guns you throw into the mix, the less likely the shooter will continue to do damage unscathed. Which is EXACTLY why you need MORE weapons in the hands of good guys in situations like this. If you want to stop the shooting before the gunman does the maximum damage, you need good guys with guns to stop them.
Unfortunately, being weird is not a disqualifier. The government cannot deny you your rights because they think you are weird or they make somebody uncomfortable. Government needs a valid provable REASON to do this and what looks obvious in hindsight may not be so obvious as to make the infringement of a person's rights possible.
To be fair to the FBI, just being interviewed, even multiple times is NOT sufficient cause to take away a person's rights.
Like it or not, in a "free" society, there is no effective way to fix stuff like this though laws and enforcement. We CAN NOT infringe on an individual's rights without good reason and due process. Now if you are advocating for totalitarianism, where the state has enough control to stop stuff like this lone wolf attack, then I'm sorry I cannot play along like it's a good idea. It's not.
I know you are being inflammatory, but there is a serious question lurking back in that..
In the USA, the government CANNOT infringe on a person's constitutional rights without due cause. So, you cannot go collect guns from "religious nutjobs" (assuming there was a legal way to determine that) unless the government can show reasonable cause.
For instance, to many, I'm a religious nut case. Some of the families in my religious group are HEAVILY armed and we routinely have "fellowships" out at the private range where we bring and share food, weapons and ammo for an enjoyable day of gun safety training, target practice, and tactical training. We bring the kids and shoot some pretty interesting weapons and have a blast. Are you planning to take MY weapons?
I sure hope not, because there is nothing about this that is a problem in my mind. We are not advocating violence, just self defense and fun. Some of the guys get into heavy weapons for the fun of it, not plotting the overthrow of the government or advocating that somebody use these weapons to attack/kill people who oppose our common religious, political or world views. Quite the opposite.
So I ask you the question... How do you decide who to take guns from and who gets to keep them? Surely a religious test is going to be unconstitutional no matter how you slice it...
Now that's a question we cannot answer because the bar was a "gun free zone" legally. Meaning that law abiding folks who enter the establishment where not able to bring their weapons along. Concealed Carry Permits in FL do not allow you to carry in establishments where adult drinks are sold. The only one with a gun inside was the shooter until the police entered the building a couple of hours later.
Now I'm not saying that having a bunch of drinking folks carrying guns is a good idea, but I am saying that a couple of armed individuals inside the club would have a good chance of disrupting the carnage and lowering the death toll. However, we will never know the answer to all these "what if" questions.
But we DO know that putting guns into law abiding hands LOWERS violent crime rates (such as shootings) not the other way around. The statistics don't lie, and they tell a totally different story than what you think, especially if you tend to be on the left side politically. We also know that mass shooters seek out gun free zones to ply their trade. According to his diary, Adam Landza passed up shooting up the Denver airport and instead decided on a movie theatre which explicitly prohibited guns because he understood it was unlikely he'd encounter armed resistance and could kill more people.
So, let's be honest, you need to disarm the bad guys, not the good guys. Suggest laws that do that for a change and I'll bet you find there is a lot of support for your suggestions... However, this "assault weapon" ban garbage or the attack on the AR-15 in particular is a non-starter as is most of the "gun control" legislation coming from the lefties. But I'm beginning to think that this is really about political posturing and not really about doing anything, it's about blaming the other side for saying "no" to them on a topic that garners them emotional support from the sob stories, and not anything else...
LOL.. When new and the door seals actually worked and the heater channels where not rusted out, yea they could float... My old 65' beetle would have sunk like a scuttled German U-Boat on the high seas when I owned it. A cross wind was more than just an adventure in uncommanded lane changes, it also blew stuff around inside the car because the "door seals" didn't seal anything... Imagine driving this across Indiana in -10 weather.... Can you say COLD, with roasted ankles?
Slashdot Mirror
You still allow someone to own a machine gun for "personal protection". There's a problem there I think.
You cannot seriously be that dense.. Machine guns have been strictly controlled and licensed in this country since the 1930's and I don't hear anybody of note calling for the repeal of that, including the NRA. Certainly I'm NOT asking for the repeal of that ban as it makes perfect sense to tightly control machine guns. We are talking about "Assault Weapons" which are NOT machine guns but a definition usually associated with a now defunct law which defined the term, mostly based on the appearance of the weapon and not it's function. The AR-15 is such a weapon, if you buy it with certain options it is classified as an assault weapon (Say a folding stock with a pistol grip and a barrel threaded for a silencer) but you can take the same exact mechanical parts, with a hunting stock and standard barrel and it's NOT an assault weapon, even though it's performance has not changed one bit.
But either you don't know anything about guns and are parroting the media's party lines on this issue, or you are not being honest about exactly what all this means. I find that it's usually the former. The world is filled with people who think appearance is everything and if you paint something in camo it somehow makes it a military item. Don't just be a sheep in the flock, take the time to learn something.
I disagree with your conclusion. The constitution works just fine, even today, if you seek what the original framers intended and not what you want it to say. The legal, moral and ethical principles it is founded on are timeless, even if the language isn't. We don't need to rewrite it, we need to seek to understand what it said to the people of the day, especially those who wrote the document. The problem I'm pointing out is that many judges today DO NOT seek original meaning from the constitution or the laws they are charged with interpreting, they seek to mold it into what they want to see and inject personal bias driven by political, social and personal beliefs.
As my dad used to say... "Yesterday I couldn't spell in-ga-nerr, Today, I are one!"
Spelling is clearly not my thing, especially in English... Now give me C++ or Java.... I got the keywords on macros...
Don't forget, warrants just make the evidence collected viable in criminal court. So what if evidence is collected on perps outside the USA. It's not like the FBI is going to charge and try some foreign national not in the USA using this evidence which would only be valid in a US criminal court. It is clearly out of their jurisdiction to file charges in a foreign country and it doesn't make sense to charge them here unless they happen to BE here...
The previous poster was discussing INTENTIONAL backdoors, you are talking about inadvertent backdoors caused by honest mistakes.
I don't think anybody has intentionally slipped some backdoor into systemd with the intention of breaking into systems later. Are there possible avenues someone could use to leverage a here to fore unknown systemd bug to do this same? It would not be surprising, but it would also be fixed as soon as it was found and if the feds where out breaking into scads of computers in some fishing exercise, somehow I think *somebody* would catch on and lock them out pretty quick.
Computer security is best served at multiple levels anyway, and some breach in systemd is likely the least of your concerns if you ask me. By the time systemd gets into the picture, you had better have stuff in place that can catch the attack as it enters your network, our you are dead meat anyway.
The real problem, I think, is that a lot of older judges just don't understand technology.
Reading the case, he seems to understand technology well enough. Civil liberties, not so much.
Ah yes, political appointees doing what they perceive is their master's bidding.. I tell you, the framers did not envision a judicial branch like this. They where supposed to be independent.
We've long ago abandoned the legal principles that this nation was founded upon and have spiraled into this ruling from the social issue and identity politics perspectives and not legal principle and original meaning. If you can contort the words, either by redefining their meaning or using twisted logic to find a loophole, your pet social issue can win the day...
Offline was the only safe place even before the government got cart blanch to hack you...
How is it "trivially easy" for bad guys to get guns? We already do background checks and heavily regulate how guns can be bought and sold. What more do you want?
We have that pesky 2nd amendment thingy that says we have to allow people to have and carry guns. You got to allow folks to buy guns. We also have a legal principle that says the government cannot abridge rights without cause, reasonable provable cause. So unless you can prove somebody is "bad" you cannot abridge their right to buy, own, and carry guns..
So... I ask you, how do you propose we keep the bad guys away from guns? We already do background checks and don't allow a whole host of folks to buy weapons.... What more do you think we can do that 1. Doesn't infringe on constitutional rights and 2. keeps even *some* bad guys from getting guns? What you got?
Where I don't disagree, I do think that you leave out one more factor...
IF you have a gun free zone, you need to provide both physical protection that keeps guns out as well as some kind of protection should your physical layer fail to keep all guns out and someone starts shooting up the place. You need well trained, armed guards ON SITE and emergency plans that include isolating the shooter from their intended victims as quickly as possible and meeting their force with overwhelming force to subdue them (or eliminate them) as necessary. This means office doors that lock, interior doors that won't let you in, even with the proper credentials and a building design that allows for multiple means of escape/refuge for potential victims and an effective way to communicate what to do to those in danger.
In short, if you run an establishment that is a gun free zone, either by your choice (by prohibiting firearms) or legally mandated, the owners are legally responsible for security and liable when the security fails and somebody gets hurt.
You are still not saying what you mean.. But hey, at this point you either don't really know what you mean and don't want to risk being called out or are just being abrasive on purpose.
I think it is the latter...
I don't, but neither do you.
That's my point. There is a legal limit to what law enforcement can do to find and disarm people who wish to do others harm. Like it or not, unless a person is a known danger to himself or others and this danger can be proven, the 2nd amendment gives them the right to bear arms. Rights cannot be taken away on a hunch, the government MUST have and show there is a real reason before they can infringe on an individual's rights. That's why you cannot be summarily searched or be jailed without a trial or charges, why the government cannot force you to say or not to say certain things or why they cannot just take your property away. People have rights, even the weird dangerous looking ones...
To be fair to the FBI, just being interviewed, even multiple times is NOT sufficient cause to take away a person's rights.
It's not, but what they hell do you have to be doing to not only get the FBI's attention, but to be collected and interviewed by them - twice?
So you are advocating that if the FBI comes out and asks you questions multiple times that you be banned from buying guns?
We don't know the content of those interviews, what questions where asked and how they where answered, and with the benefit of hindsight it sure seems suspicious that they hauled him in a couple of times, BUT just being investigated is NOT sufficient cause to take away someone's rights. Even if they are investigated multiple times... You have to FIND something provable to take away someone's rights and the burden of proof is on the government in this case. It's called innocent until proven guilty.
We cannot "Monday morning quarterback" the FBI like this and somehow blame them for this. There may have been NOTHING to miss here when you consider how it was in the moment. Yes, we need to take a close look at this, learn what we might do better, but I believe that there literally is NO stopping this kind of lone wolf, loosely associated attacker from doing this and the FBI never knowing anything in advance. The organized groups or individuals directly associated with known terror groups, those the FBI can do things about.
The legally insane, yes, keep guns out of their hands, but that's not what you said before. Before you said "religious nutjob" which is far from a legally defined description of a group of people who shouldn't carry guns around.
Understand, I'm trying to get you to say what you *really* mean and drop the rhetoric designed to inflame...
You don't know that, and a whole bunch of defenseless folks got shot the way this went down. It's a bad situation when some guy is shooting up the place and killing people no matter what and this didn't end until he was confronted by someone using deadly force (HOURS after it started).
I'm not claiming to know if having multiple armed people in the building would have helped, but it HAS helped in the past. Chances are it could have helped here too if there was enough people who could use deadly force. It's possible they could have made it worse, but given that would not be their intent, I dare say the amount of damage the law abiding would inflict is a far cry less than the heavily armed shooter bent on killing as many as possible..
Give the folks inside that nightclub a chance to defend themselves, let them be armed.. Yes, it's a risk, but all not as bad as letting the guy have free reign to shoot until his ammo runs out.
Thanks for the correction... Sorry I get my crazy nut job's names switched sometimes... Was that Hillary or Barack who said that? Oh what's the difference...
ONE Guy? In Uniform?
Easy to avoid.. However, the more good guys with guns you throw into the mix, the less likely the shooter will continue to do damage unscathed. Which is EXACTLY why you need MORE weapons in the hands of good guys in situations like this. If you want to stop the shooting before the gunman does the maximum damage, you need good guys with guns to stop them.
Ah yes, time for a Senate filibuster (sort of) that has no hope of doing ANYTHING except getting press attention..
Some might think the goal was something other than fixing the problem...
Oh yea, demonstrate the absurd by making absurd statements.
Has anybody here but me seen "Minority report" and understood the theme?
Unfortunately, being weird is not a disqualifier. The government cannot deny you your rights because they think you are weird or they make somebody uncomfortable. Government needs a valid provable REASON to do this and what looks obvious in hindsight may not be so obvious as to make the infringement of a person's rights possible.
To be fair to the FBI, just being interviewed, even multiple times is NOT sufficient cause to take away a person's rights.
Like it or not, in a "free" society, there is no effective way to fix stuff like this though laws and enforcement. We CAN NOT infringe on an individual's rights without good reason and due process. Now if you are advocating for totalitarianism, where the state has enough control to stop stuff like this lone wolf attack, then I'm sorry I cannot play along like it's a good idea. It's not.
I know you are being inflammatory, but there is a serious question lurking back in that..
In the USA, the government CANNOT infringe on a person's constitutional rights without due cause. So, you cannot go collect guns from "religious nutjobs" (assuming there was a legal way to determine that) unless the government can show reasonable cause.
For instance, to many, I'm a religious nut case. Some of the families in my religious group are HEAVILY armed and we routinely have "fellowships" out at the private range where we bring and share food, weapons and ammo for an enjoyable day of gun safety training, target practice, and tactical training. We bring the kids and shoot some pretty interesting weapons and have a blast. Are you planning to take MY weapons?
I sure hope not, because there is nothing about this that is a problem in my mind. We are not advocating violence, just self defense and fun. Some of the guys get into heavy weapons for the fun of it, not plotting the overthrow of the government or advocating that somebody use these weapons to attack/kill people who oppose our common religious, political or world views. Quite the opposite.
So I ask you the question... How do you decide who to take guns from and who gets to keep them? Surely a religious test is going to be unconstitutional no matter how you slice it...
How much of your guns helped out in Orlando?
Now that's a question we cannot answer because the bar was a "gun free zone" legally. Meaning that law abiding folks who enter the establishment where not able to bring their weapons along. Concealed Carry Permits in FL do not allow you to carry in establishments where adult drinks are sold. The only one with a gun inside was the shooter until the police entered the building a couple of hours later.
Now I'm not saying that having a bunch of drinking folks carrying guns is a good idea, but I am saying that a couple of armed individuals inside the club would have a good chance of disrupting the carnage and lowering the death toll. However, we will never know the answer to all these "what if" questions.
But we DO know that putting guns into law abiding hands LOWERS violent crime rates (such as shootings) not the other way around. The statistics don't lie, and they tell a totally different story than what you think, especially if you tend to be on the left side politically. We also know that mass shooters seek out gun free zones to ply their trade. According to his diary, Adam Landza passed up shooting up the Denver airport and instead decided on a movie theatre which explicitly prohibited guns because he understood it was unlikely he'd encounter armed resistance and could kill more people.
So, let's be honest, you need to disarm the bad guys, not the good guys. Suggest laws that do that for a change and I'll bet you find there is a lot of support for your suggestions... However, this "assault weapon" ban garbage or the attack on the AR-15 in particular is a non-starter as is most of the "gun control" legislation coming from the lefties. But I'm beginning to think that this is really about political posturing and not really about doing anything, it's about blaming the other side for saying "no" to them on a topic that garners them emotional support from the sob stories, and not anything else...
Naw, they are just using Cheap Chinese knock offs of some AMD processors they purchased on EBay..
Tesla will be flooded with orders now for the Model S?
Yes, folks, Hard to believe I'm here all week... No cover, one drink minimum.. And NO, I'm not quitting my day job..
LOL.. When new and the door seals actually worked and the heater channels where not rusted out, yea they could float... My old 65' beetle would have sunk like a scuttled German U-Boat on the high seas when I owned it. A cross wind was more than just an adventure in uncommanded lane changes, it also blew stuff around inside the car because the "door seals" didn't seal anything... Imagine driving this across Indiana in -10 weather.... Can you say COLD, with roasted ankles?