Your argument is silly. Ignoring your incorrect understanding that "the people" means only "the militia", the militia is defined by 10 U.S. Code 246:
"The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard."
Unless you're asserting most gun nuts are women and you think women should be disarmed.
I don't know that I'd say they don't belong to be aired - while the science may be make believe, comic books and especially x-men cover issues of racism and bullying very well. Entire major story arcs are devoted to exploring how society struggles to accept someone they view as alien/different. Setting it in a fantastical world allows them to get away with it while still captivating an audience - good luck getting people to sit through a lecture on race relations as entertainment.
Doesn't sound as sensational though, after all we'd expect a two party system in first past the post voting, and we'd further expect those two parties to fluctuate between being in charge cyclically, as they have.
As for the meat of the article - saying opinions weren't weighed heavily when making a legal decision is exactly what they should be doing. We should not be ruled by opinions, but by fact and logical application of the law.
I believe internet service is in the same category as water/electric/sewer. In practice in the US you have no real option. If you want cable internet you have one provider, one DSL provider, one electricty provider, one sewer provider. I can't decline electric/cable internet/sewer service from my current provider and pay a different company, they don't exist. Any monopoly should be heavily incentivized to reorganize (legislatively if necessary) in such a manner that there is healthy competition. Failure to do so is on both parties.
Your post seemed strange to me, because off hand I would consider the USSR to be a prime example of "left" in practice (not theory) and they were very good at violence.
This led me to look up the definition of left wing vs right wing, and I see on Wikipedia it is defined as a measure of how hierarchical the power structure is, with flat being left and triangle being right.
This form of left vs right seems to be an unimportant nuance; I can predict an argument that the USSR was not "left" but "right" because while it talked about equality, it led to a singular despot in a very sharp triangular power structure. But that seems to be the problem of the difference between theory and practice. In theory "left wing" policies would be wonderful, but in practice. . .
By "giving away as freebies" you mean "not taxing as high". Money isn't inherently the government's, a tax cut isn't "giving away" money, it is "not taking at gun point".
It is not the government's job to employ people, your recommended alternative is likely outside the bounds of their constitution. If the people taking these jobs were unemployed, they were generating zero or negative tax revenue for the state. If they work these jobs they're now contributing.
The globalization experiment has shown that there are many low skill jobs that will leave for the country with the lowest labor cost if allowed. Nobody has a solution that involves a work force with 100% highly skilled labor, therefore if you want to maximize employment you need to protect some amount of low skilled jobs. If protecting those jobs requires taxing those jobs less is that not a good thing to enable? Is it not better for a person to earn their daily wage than have it handed to them by the government? They're not talking about exempting them from minimum wage or child labor laws.
AI drivers will not phase out truck drivers for a very long time, but it will decrease their workload. The AI will handle the long haul portion on highways, with a human in the cab ready to take over for portions the AI fails to handle. Does this mean there will be fewer truck driving position? Yes, one driver will be able to handle more hours (although don't underestimate the power of unions to maintain hourly limits). There will also be job openings for AI R&D, repair, and the myriad of automated solutions they'll come up with for corner cases (automated refueling? automated loading and unloading? automated non-automated toll payment?).
Why do we end up with people whose skill set limits them to being a fry cook at a fast food restaurant? If that's the best you are capable of, your problems in life aren't starting with the AI revolution. And if society hasn't done anything to lift those people up already, (assuming they want to be lifted?) it isn't going to now.
The WA Mail in voting experience is overall good from a voter perspective, ballots show up early, you fill them out and mail them back in or drop them off at a secure ballot box. From that point onward the system is secure, there are multiple people monitoring the collection, opening, and tallying. But they seem to overlook two essential problems: fraudulently registered voters, and fraudulently filled/coerced ballots.
If you have non-qualified people signed up to vote, they get a ballot at their registered address and you fill it in and mail it in, it will be counted. (this problem is not solved by voting in person) If you know someone who doesn't vote, you grab their ballot and fill it in for them and mail it, it will be counted. (this problem is likely solved by voting in person)
The most recent WA election scandal was the 2004 Governor election, which was BEFORE mail in voting was State level. They "found" the votes to reach the "right result" after two recounts. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
I would be okay with a federal level mail in vote IF they mandated ranked voting or better, not first past the post. Two party system would be gone. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
An 1866 act of congress forbids a living person to be on currency. The reasoning behind this is that historically the monarch/emperor would have their face upon the currency of their country - we do not have monarchs. Even having someone on currency only because they were a president seems too close to that, where as having them because they are a founding father seems more appropriate.
Eh, I think I get his point. "Deaths when these items are used as intended" would perhaps describe his approach. Yes a lot of people commit suicide with a firearm, and it is unfortunate, but when it is a intentional choice made by an adult (someone under 18 cannot legally purchase a firearm) I don't see it in the same category as "accidental death" or "murder". If we want to talk about reducing suicides that is a different conversation.
Comparing accidental firearm deaths with accidental car deaths we'd find cars are much higher. Comparing murders with firearms to cars we'd find firearms are much higher. Comparing suicide method use between firearms and cars we'd find firearms are much higher.
So why are we so accepting of automobile deaths? I posit it is because everyone finds great utility in cars, and think "that will not happen to me". Many people today live in such comfort and safety that they have never needed to touch a firearm and thus see them as something they will never need or want, and so they're easy to dismiss in a "go ahead and ban them, I have never needed them" sort of way. If you dig further in to the firearm deaths issue, it resolves as an inner city drug dealer/drug war/gang problem, not the general firearm homicide problem it is pitched as. But statistics appear racist to some people so we don't bring it up.
A driver's license teaches you the laws concerning driving, and ensures you have sufficient proficiency. Is your statement implying he didn't know murdering people was illegal? Or that his aim was too poor? How would a licensing system have prevented this? Background checks for FFL purchases are a federal level law that applies to all states.
I'd consider buying one, once the military, secret service, FBI, and the police have them standard issue without complaints or malfunctions. And I hate the idea on its face, as a software dev I'm too aware of the answer to "what could go wrong?".
No, even Elder Scrolls 1 (Arena) had a HUGE number of patches for the time, when much fewer people understood the internet and downloading patches. I like to joke that the patch notes.txt was larger than the game.exe. Elder Scrolls 2 (Daggerfall) was worse, with many more crash bugs, but it was also even more complicated. Morrowind wasn't as bad but it also scaled back on the complexity a bit.
I know you're joking but there IS a law against it.
(state laws vary but mostly:) Under 18 years of age you can't legally own any firearm, and they can only be in possession of a firearm with permission and supervision from the owner.
It is not a technology problem. It is a variation on PEBKAC - you do not leave knives with toddlers, just as you do not leave a firearm in their reach.
With the proper permit they're allowed to conceal carry on campus yes, but that is deceptive. They may/do still ban carrying IN any educational building on campus. So if you're attending class it doesn't help you because all of the state schools have exercised that ability. source: http://www.armedcampuses.org/o...
Blacks are disproportionately represented, so they're right out. Congratulations, if that actually worked you've just reduced the homicide rate by roughly 60% despite blacks being 12.6% of the population.
Can't discriminate by race? Ok, how about men! Men are the majority of homicide perpetrators, especially firearms, ruling them out you've removed 92% of gun homicides and only removed the 2A rights of 50% of the population.
Can't discriminate by gender? Youths are over represented so they're out. No guns until you're 30 years old. You've reduced gun homicides by 40%. Except, well, under 18 can't legally own a firearm already, so 695 of the 5895 you'd stop are already doubly illegal, but now, NOW that it is triply illegal that'll stop it. Around 65% of the population affected.
This is technically inaccurate. Machine guns may not be manufactured for civilian ownership since 1986 ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... ), however any made before that time are able to be owned by civilians, once the NFA is complied with. This requires submitting a $200 tax/fee to the BATF along with documenting paperwork, background checks, and waiting several months for approval (a right delayed is not a right denied? Where have I heard that before?).
As anyone who understands supply and demand will know, a fixed supply and decades of demand growth means the very limited number of NFA items (the actual number is unknown as the BATF does not fulfil FOIA requests as they claim they are not a "government agency") have risen in price from as low as $50/each at the time of the law passing to $30k-80k in the case of M16s today, depending on model and condition. So poor citizens can't afford machine guns, the rich can collect them if they see fit. More rare or fancy MGs, like a minigun are in the +$100k range. The cheapest end of the spectrum is something like a MAC10 for $5k-10k. Prices keep rising. ( Example prices http://www.autoweapons.com/pro... )
I should add because of their price and controlled nature, you basically never see a legally registered and possessed NFA firearm used in crime, it is just too expensive and a semi-auto does the job just as well. In some ways the banning of MGs has been allowed by both sides of the gun issue because it lets the anti-gun feel safer those "evil guns" are hard to obtain, and the pro-gun people can point to it and say, "see the really scary stuff is basically illegal".
You're being purposefully antagonistic and pretending to be retarded. Of course the 2nd amendment is currently being infringed.
The tank cannon is considered a destructive device by the BATF, if you can get them to approve it, that is another $200 tax stamp, but the import rules would probably still require disabling it, and then you'd have to build your own to replace it. Modern tank shells are explosive, and so another destructive device, and each one is a $200 tax stamp. In theory you could do it legally.
In theory nothing comes before the constitution when it comes to laws in the USA. In practice clearly things do. I don't think it should be that way.
No, I'm saying anyone who wants a bunch of sarin gas is probably a murderer. It is a reasonable conclusion given the parameters of use of the item. It would be very difficult to use in a targeted manner without incurring collateral damage. Anyone willing to kill innocent people along with their target is a murderer. So I'll say again, that is why 2A supporters aren't clamouring for the things you're listing, because they desire to be able to protect themselves, not murder anyone. They're willing to focus their fighting on the laws that limit what they want to accomplish and will let other areas slide.
There's a balance to be found in our military structure, as I said, it could be moved much closer to the original concept without significantly degrading our defence abilities - but because of the high cost+training time of advanced equipment and the rapid movement capabilities of troops and weaponry you could not eliminate all active segments of the military.
You can own a tank, they're just expensive, and the main cannon will be disabled if it is over 50 caliber (which they all are). They tend to disable it by setting concrete in the barrel. Seems the USSR left overs are still the easiest/cheapest to get, and there are companies that specialize in importing them. You'll be spending several hundred thousand dollars. You can purchase old fighter jets, they're also very expensive, and their use requires a pilot's license. SAMs are less expensive but still cost a lot (FIM-92 Stinger unit cost is $40k), and those you cannot purchase. You CAN ATF form 1 an explosive device (pay a $200 tax stamp to legally make a grenade for example, someone has done this already), and you could in theory attach that to a propulsion device of some sort and produce something extremely inadequate compared to a modern SAM. Sarin gas is outlawed by the Chemical Weapons Convention of which the USA is a signatory, but a person with knowledge of chemistry could create a variety of toxic chemicals if they desired. Simple elemental Chlorine alone is quite deadly.
You don't find 2A supporters rallying for the ability to purchase those things because they're not murderers. They are interested in defending their lives, family, and property, and they don't find those things to be useful in pursuit of that goal.
The key thing here is the purpose of the 2A was to ensure the population stayed armed in a USA where they were to BE the army. We have subverted that by having a standing army that covers all areas of operations. There is a balance to be had, because individuals cannot afford to build modern equipment (aircraft carriers are expensive!), nor can they learn to use it on short notice. The military could be reformed to something closer to the system when the country was founded, but there is too much money and fear involved for anyone to allow that to happen. Eisenhower knew what he was talking about when he warned about the military-industrial complex. http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu...
Slashdot Mirror
Your argument is silly. Ignoring your incorrect understanding that "the people" means only "the militia", the militia is defined by 10 U.S. Code 246:
"The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard."
Unless you're asserting most gun nuts are women and you think women should be disarmed.
I don't know that I'd say they don't belong to be aired - while the science may be make believe, comic books and especially x-men cover issues of racism and bullying very well. Entire major story arcs are devoted to exploring how society struggles to accept someone they view as alien/different. Setting it in a fantastical world allows them to get away with it while still captivating an audience - good luck getting people to sit through a lecture on race relations as entertainment.
"They control literally all of government except a few parts of NY & CA."
should say:
"They control much of government except NY, CA, CO, CT, DE, HI, IL, MD, MA, NV, NJ, NM, OR, RI, VT, and WA."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Doesn't sound as sensational though, after all we'd expect a two party system in first past the post voting, and we'd further expect those two parties to fluctuate between being in charge cyclically, as they have.
As for the meat of the article - saying opinions weren't weighed heavily when making a legal decision is exactly what they should be doing. We should not be ruled by opinions, but by fact and logical application of the law.
I believe internet service is in the same category as water/electric/sewer. In practice in the US you have no real option. If you want cable internet you have one provider, one DSL provider, one electricty provider, one sewer provider. I can't decline electric/cable internet/sewer service from my current provider and pay a different company, they don't exist. Any monopoly should be heavily incentivized to reorganize (legislatively if necessary) in such a manner that there is healthy competition. Failure to do so is on both parties.
Your post seemed strange to me, because off hand I would consider the USSR to be a prime example of "left" in practice (not theory) and they were very good at violence.
This led me to look up the definition of left wing vs right wing, and I see on Wikipedia it is defined as a measure of how hierarchical the power structure is, with flat being left and triangle being right.
This form of left vs right seems to be an unimportant nuance; I can predict an argument that the USSR was not "left" but "right" because while it talked about equality, it led to a singular despot in a very sharp triangular power structure. But that seems to be the problem of the difference between theory and practice. In theory "left wing" policies would be wonderful, but in practice. . .
Do you get to sue someone if compliance with the Paris accords costs you money?
By "giving away as freebies" you mean "not taxing as high". Money isn't inherently the government's, a tax cut isn't "giving away" money, it is "not taking at gun point".
It is not the government's job to employ people, your recommended alternative is likely outside the bounds of their constitution. If the people taking these jobs were unemployed, they were generating zero or negative tax revenue for the state. If they work these jobs they're now contributing.
The globalization experiment has shown that there are many low skill jobs that will leave for the country with the lowest labor cost if allowed. Nobody has a solution that involves a work force with 100% highly skilled labor, therefore if you want to maximize employment you need to protect some amount of low skilled jobs. If protecting those jobs requires taxing those jobs less is that not a good thing to enable? Is it not better for a person to earn their daily wage than have it handed to them by the government? They're not talking about exempting them from minimum wage or child labor laws.
Because women have nipples, and the additional genetic code required to completely remove nipples from males gives no survival benefit.
AI drivers will not phase out truck drivers for a very long time, but it will decrease their workload. The AI will handle the long haul portion on highways, with a human in the cab ready to take over for portions the AI fails to handle. Does this mean there will be fewer truck driving position? Yes, one driver will be able to handle more hours (although don't underestimate the power of unions to maintain hourly limits). There will also be job openings for AI R&D, repair, and the myriad of automated solutions they'll come up with for corner cases (automated refueling? automated loading and unloading? automated non-automated toll payment?).
Why do we end up with people whose skill set limits them to being a fry cook at a fast food restaurant? If that's the best you are capable of, your problems in life aren't starting with the AI revolution. And if society hasn't done anything to lift those people up already, (assuming they want to be lifted?) it isn't going to now.
The WA Mail in voting experience is overall good from a voter perspective, ballots show up early, you fill them out and mail them back in or drop them off at a secure ballot box. From that point onward the system is secure, there are multiple people monitoring the collection, opening, and tallying. But they seem to overlook two essential problems: fraudulently registered voters, and fraudulently filled/coerced ballots.
If you have non-qualified people signed up to vote, they get a ballot at their registered address and you fill it in and mail it in, it will be counted. (this problem is not solved by voting in person)
If you know someone who doesn't vote, you grab their ballot and fill it in for them and mail it, it will be counted. (this problem is likely solved by voting in person)
The most recent WA election scandal was the 2004 Governor election, which was BEFORE mail in voting was State level. They "found" the votes to reach the "right result" after two recounts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
I would be okay with a federal level mail in vote IF they mandated ranked voting or better, not first past the post. Two party system would be gone.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
An 1866 act of congress forbids a living person to be on currency. The reasoning behind this is that historically the monarch/emperor would have their face upon the currency of their country - we do not have monarchs. Even having someone on currency only because they were a president seems too close to that, where as having them because they are a founding father seems more appropriate.
Eh, I think I get his point. "Deaths when these items are used as intended" would perhaps describe his approach. Yes a lot of people commit suicide with a firearm, and it is unfortunate, but when it is a intentional choice made by an adult (someone under 18 cannot legally purchase a firearm) I don't see it in the same category as "accidental death" or "murder". If we want to talk about reducing suicides that is a different conversation.
Comparing accidental firearm deaths with accidental car deaths we'd find cars are much higher.
Comparing murders with firearms to cars we'd find firearms are much higher.
Comparing suicide method use between firearms and cars we'd find firearms are much higher.
So why are we so accepting of automobile deaths? I posit it is because everyone finds great utility in cars, and think "that will not happen to me". Many people today live in such comfort and safety that they have never needed to touch a firearm and thus see them as something they will never need or want, and so they're easy to dismiss in a "go ahead and ban them, I have never needed them" sort of way. If you dig further in to the firearm deaths issue, it resolves as an inner city drug dealer/drug war/gang problem, not the general firearm homicide problem it is pitched as. But statistics appear racist to some people so we don't bring it up.
A driver's license teaches you the laws concerning driving, and ensures you have sufficient proficiency. Is your statement implying he didn't know murdering people was illegal? Or that his aim was too poor? How would a licensing system have prevented this? Background checks for FFL purchases are a federal level law that applies to all states.
I'd consider buying one, once the military, secret service, FBI, and the police have them standard issue without complaints or malfunctions. And I hate the idea on its face, as a software dev I'm too aware of the answer to "what could go wrong?".
No, even Elder Scrolls 1 (Arena) had a HUGE number of patches for the time, when much fewer people understood the internet and downloading patches. I like to joke that the patch notes.txt was larger than the game .exe. Elder Scrolls 2 (Daggerfall) was worse, with many more crash bugs, but it was also even more complicated. Morrowind wasn't as bad but it also scaled back on the complexity a bit.
I know you're joking but there IS a law against it.
(state laws vary but mostly:) Under 18 years of age you can't legally own any firearm, and they can only be in possession of a firearm with permission and supervision from the owner.
It is not a technology problem. It is a variation on PEBKAC - you do not leave knives with toddlers, just as you do not leave a firearm in their reach.
With the proper permit they're allowed to conceal carry on campus yes, but that is deceptive. They may/do still ban carrying IN any educational building on campus. So if you're attending class it doesn't help you because all of the state schools have exercised that ability. source: http://www.armedcampuses.org/o...
How do you determine who should get guns?
Statistically. (Note: this post is sarcasm, source: https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/c... )
Blacks are disproportionately represented, so they're right out. Congratulations, if that actually worked you've just reduced the homicide rate by roughly 60% despite blacks being 12.6% of the population.
Can't discriminate by race? Ok, how about men! Men are the majority of homicide perpetrators, especially firearms, ruling them out you've removed 92% of gun homicides and only removed the 2A rights of 50% of the population.
Can't discriminate by gender? Youths are over represented so they're out. No guns until you're 30 years old. You've reduced gun homicides by 40%. Except, well, under 18 can't legally own a firearm already, so 695 of the 5895 you'd stop are already doubly illegal, but now, NOW that it is triply illegal that'll stop it. Around 65% of the population affected.
This is technically inaccurate. Machine guns may not be manufactured for civilian ownership since 1986 ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... ), however any made before that time are able to be owned by civilians, once the NFA is complied with. This requires submitting a $200 tax/fee to the BATF along with documenting paperwork, background checks, and waiting several months for approval (a right delayed is not a right denied? Where have I heard that before?).
As anyone who understands supply and demand will know, a fixed supply and decades of demand growth means the very limited number of NFA items (the actual number is unknown as the BATF does not fulfil FOIA requests as they claim they are not a "government agency") have risen in price from as low as $50/each at the time of the law passing to $30k-80k in the case of M16s today, depending on model and condition. So poor citizens can't afford machine guns, the rich can collect them if they see fit. More rare or fancy MGs, like a minigun are in the +$100k range. The cheapest end of the spectrum is something like a MAC10 for $5k-10k. Prices keep rising. ( Example prices http://www.autoweapons.com/pro... )
I should add because of their price and controlled nature, you basically never see a legally registered and possessed NFA firearm used in crime, it is just too expensive and a semi-auto does the job just as well. In some ways the banning of MGs has been allowed by both sides of the gun issue because it lets the anti-gun feel safer those "evil guns" are hard to obtain, and the pro-gun people can point to it and say, "see the really scary stuff is basically illegal".
You're being purposefully antagonistic and pretending to be retarded. Of course the 2nd amendment is currently being infringed.
The tank cannon is considered a destructive device by the BATF, if you can get them to approve it, that is another $200 tax stamp, but the import rules would probably still require disabling it, and then you'd have to build your own to replace it. Modern tank shells are explosive, and so another destructive device, and each one is a $200 tax stamp. In theory you could do it legally.
In theory nothing comes before the constitution when it comes to laws in the USA. In practice clearly things do. I don't think it should be that way.
No, I'm saying anyone who wants a bunch of sarin gas is probably a murderer. It is a reasonable conclusion given the parameters of use of the item. It would be very difficult to use in a targeted manner without incurring collateral damage. Anyone willing to kill innocent people along with their target is a murderer. So I'll say again, that is why 2A supporters aren't clamouring for the things you're listing, because they desire to be able to protect themselves, not murder anyone. They're willing to focus their fighting on the laws that limit what they want to accomplish and will let other areas slide.
There's a balance to be found in our military structure, as I said, it could be moved much closer to the original concept without significantly degrading our defence abilities - but because of the high cost+training time of advanced equipment and the rapid movement capabilities of troops and weaponry you could not eliminate all active segments of the military.
You can own a tank, they're just expensive, and the main cannon will be disabled if it is over 50 caliber (which they all are). They tend to disable it by setting concrete in the barrel. Seems the USSR left overs are still the easiest/cheapest to get, and there are companies that specialize in importing them. You'll be spending several hundred thousand dollars. You can purchase old fighter jets, they're also very expensive, and their use requires a pilot's license. SAMs are less expensive but still cost a lot (FIM-92 Stinger unit cost is $40k), and those you cannot purchase. You CAN ATF form 1 an explosive device (pay a $200 tax stamp to legally make a grenade for example, someone has done this already), and you could in theory attach that to a propulsion device of some sort and produce something extremely inadequate compared to a modern SAM. Sarin gas is outlawed by the Chemical Weapons Convention of which the USA is a signatory, but a person with knowledge of chemistry could create a variety of toxic chemicals if they desired. Simple elemental Chlorine alone is quite deadly.
You don't find 2A supporters rallying for the ability to purchase those things because they're not murderers. They are interested in defending their lives, family, and property, and they don't find those things to be useful in pursuit of that goal.
The key thing here is the purpose of the 2A was to ensure the population stayed armed in a USA where they were to BE the army. We have subverted that by having a standing army that covers all areas of operations. There is a balance to be had, because individuals cannot afford to build modern equipment (aircraft carriers are expensive!), nor can they learn to use it on short notice. The military could be reformed to something closer to the system when the country was founded, but there is too much money and fear involved for anyone to allow that to happen. Eisenhower knew what he was talking about when he warned about the military-industrial complex. http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu...