People say that, but look at the middle east, those advanced weapons can only do so much against asymmetrical warfare. Further, do you think that if the military began oppressing the general public or that an all out rebellion occurred that all would side with the powers that be? Rhetorical question. No they wouldn't, the Civil War is proof of this.
I'm not advocating rebellion mind you. I'm just saying that with 89 guns for 100 people in this country, that's a lot of people with weapons. 30% of this country owns guns. If we assume the 30% comes from the men and women available for military service, that's 42 million people out of 140 million, against a 2 million person military.
You're correct on the law, but you're off on the licensing bit.
Licensing and serialization are only required if you choose to manufacture arms for sale to others.
Automatic weapons are semi-banned, along with certain other types of weapons. All automatic weapons must be licensed by the ATF. They could change the law to include homemade weapons. Heller which you referenced makes note of common use for legal purposes restriction on firearms (I have a quote in an above post).
They could easily argue a law change for homemade guns. DC v Heller said this in the decision.
Taken from Wikipedia:
(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes.
Common use for lawful purposes. That line of thinking is what allows the semi-ban on automatic weapons, etc. The could probably argue that homemade guns must be registered and stamps applied for to allow for the possession of said firearms. Now, that wouldn't prevent the proliferation, it'd just enable law enforcement to do at least something about it.
They've both given factually sparse arguments. Though the second threw in threat of danger. It could be said that the dermatologist is being alarmist because it means they'll get to charge you for a test. That said, most warts are benign in nature, and warts on the face are most likely to be flat warts and they're not associated with the development of cancer. The dermatologist would probably recommend you buy some OTC wart remover or a give you a prescription for said thing. Usually after they treat it. All in all, the SOP isn't that different than the dry-cleaner's advice. Just pricier.
I haven't read either because I can't read the original behind the paywall. I have no need to read a retort to something I can't read and I have no desire to read something that I can't fact check (i.e. make sure the retort doesn't make things up).
What kind of bias though is it? The assumption I'm seeing is that, the WSJ doesn't want to print the retort for religious or support of religious reasons. But is that the case? Could it just be that they don't feel the need, desire, or inclination to publish every letter to the editor that comes out? Could it be that they might have thought that there were other articles that were deserving to be printed? And let's be honest, from what I saw of the letter, it's short. I can't believe that it really had anything substantial to it, it's basically a long winded comment to the article. (Disclosure: I have not read the letter, because I can not read the original article).
Who said anything about the first amendment. It's their business, they put what's in that paper. It's their decision. Got nothing to do with the First Amendment, so I'm not sure what the quotes were for.
No it is not. A scientist's argument when dealing with science is more likely to be valid, yes. But it is no more valid based purely on their author's characteristics. To say that one argument is more valid because it was written by a scientist is a classic appeal to authority.
I can agree with that, but do we really want a slashdot summary for every time somebody decides to write a response letter to some op-ed piece? This is just drama, not actual news.
So what you're saying is, every time there's an op-ed piece, someone get's to have a retort published? Really? We can ignore the appeal to authority, a "well respected" scientist's opinion is no more valid than a "charlatan's." So if we go this route, Sarah Palin deserves to have quite a few letter to the editor's published.
Because you apparently didn't read TFA. TFA is talking about hypersonic missiles that don't look like ballistic missiles and are fired suborbitally.
From article:
Medium-range, conventionally armed ballistic missiles with precision-guidance (such as those operated by China and Russia) are arguably hypersonic weapons. The United States doesn’t operate any of this type, but it provides effectively the same capability as that offered by new hypersonic systems....
...initial U.S. plans for hypersonic-capable systems concentrated on conventionally armed ballistic missiles, but concerns over attribution and identification (conventional missiles look a lot like nuclear missiles to Russia and China) have shifted attention in the direction of suborbital platforms, including cruise missiles.
The Shaurya is a ballistic missile. The BrahMos is supersonic.
Slashdot Mirror
People say that, but look at the middle east, those advanced weapons can only do so much against asymmetrical warfare. Further, do you think that if the military began oppressing the general public or that an all out rebellion occurred that all would side with the powers that be? Rhetorical question. No they wouldn't, the Civil War is proof of this.
I'm not advocating rebellion mind you. I'm just saying that with 89 guns for 100 people in this country, that's a lot of people with weapons. 30% of this country owns guns. If we assume the 30% comes from the men and women available for military service, that's 42 million people out of 140 million, against a 2 million person military.
You're correct on the law, but you're off on the licensing bit.
Licensing and serialization are only required if you choose to manufacture arms for sale to others.
Automatic weapons are semi-banned, along with certain other types of weapons. All automatic weapons must be licensed by the ATF. They could change the law to include homemade weapons. Heller which you referenced makes note of common use for legal purposes restriction on firearms (I have a quote in an above post).
They could easily argue a law change for homemade guns. DC v Heller said this in the decision.
Taken from Wikipedia:
(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes.
Common use for lawful purposes. That line of thinking is what allows the semi-ban on automatic weapons, etc. The could probably argue that homemade guns must be registered and stamps applied for to allow for the possession of said firearms. Now, that wouldn't prevent the proliferation, it'd just enable law enforcement to do at least something about it.
You have an odd grasp of the English language.
Did you read what you wrote?
So if they start publishing pro-nazi propaganda that's not "newsworthy?"
So "what" did you compare it to? Hint - the main point of issue here.
Congratulations, you know the First Amendment. I did not invoke it, the rest of your comment is moot.
Or that GTA Online still has...
A) Godwin's Law.
B) Is it newsworthy if they don't publish pro-nazi propaganda?
Prefer yes, but that doesn't make the scientist's argument valid or correct.
They've both given factually sparse arguments. Though the second threw in threat of danger. It could be said that the dermatologist is being alarmist because it means they'll get to charge you for a test. That said, most warts are benign in nature, and warts on the face are most likely to be flat warts and they're not associated with the development of cancer. The dermatologist would probably recommend you buy some OTC wart remover or a give you a prescription for said thing. Usually after they treat it. All in all, the SOP isn't that different than the dry-cleaner's advice. Just pricier.
Your point?
Appeal to authority:
A is an authority on a particular topic
A says something about that topic
A is probably correct
I'll admit, it's not cookie cutter exact here.
Feel free to discuss it, doesn't make it news or newsworthy.
I haven't read either because I can't read the original behind the paywall. I have no need to read a retort to something I can't read and I have no desire to read something that I can't fact check (i.e. make sure the retort doesn't make things up).
What kind of bias though is it? The assumption I'm seeing is that, the WSJ doesn't want to print the retort for religious or support of religious reasons. But is that the case? Could it just be that they don't feel the need, desire, or inclination to publish every letter to the editor that comes out? Could it be that they might have thought that there were other articles that were deserving to be printed? And let's be honest, from what I saw of the letter, it's short. I can't believe that it really had anything substantial to it, it's basically a long winded comment to the article. (Disclosure: I have not read the letter, because I can not read the original article).
Who said anything about the first amendment. It's their business, they put what's in that paper. It's their decision. Got nothing to do with the First Amendment, so I'm not sure what the quotes were for.
No it is not. A scientist's argument when dealing with science is more likely to be valid, yes. But it is no more valid based purely on their author's characteristics. To say that one argument is more valid because it was written by a scientist is a classic appeal to authority.
I can agree with that, but do we really want a slashdot summary for every time somebody decides to write a response letter to some op-ed piece? This is just drama, not actual news.
So what you're saying is, every time there's an op-ed piece, someone get's to have a retort published? Really? We can ignore the appeal to authority, a "well respected" scientist's opinion is no more valid than a "charlatan's." So if we go this route, Sarah Palin deserves to have quite a few letter to the editor's published.
What prejudice? They have a right to publish whatever they feel like.
So they didn't print a letter.
Because you apparently didn't read TFA. TFA is talking about hypersonic missiles that don't look like ballistic missiles and are fired suborbitally.
From article:
Medium-range, conventionally armed ballistic missiles with precision-guidance (such as those operated by China and Russia) are arguably hypersonic weapons. The United States doesn’t operate any of this type, but it provides effectively the same capability as that offered by new hypersonic systems....
...initial U.S. plans for hypersonic-capable systems concentrated on conventionally armed ballistic missiles, but concerns over attribution and identification (conventional missiles look a lot like nuclear missiles to Russia and China) have shifted attention in the direction of suborbital platforms, including cruise missiles.
The Shaurya is a ballistic missile. The BrahMos is supersonic.
Have some balls and post as a non-AC.
And Russia.
When you're talking phones, you usually talk the whole size, screen and all.