By which time the defendant has likely used up all resources and funds; we've reached the point where the process is the punishment and, with respect to child port, the accusation is the conviction.
It's really only a matter of time before political enemies start throwing this around and we see random (read: republican) politicians eliminated. cf. Circle, The.
I'm pretty sure that, 50 years ago, someone said something to the effect of, "You can't be thoughtful or educated if you really believe that individuals should be able to sit in the front of the bus. Basic literacy precludes that idea."
You should go back and retake high school civics, since you clearly didn't learn anything the first time around. Read a fucking book.
In my 22 years in the navy, not once have I gone to a firearms training course (either combat skills or law enforcement) and told to do anything BUT center-mass. Head shots are fun at the range, if they let you do them (might damage the ceiling of the range), but dubious practice when the adrenaline is flowing. If you're drawing your firearm, it is to stop a threat against your life. "Shoot to wound" exists only in Hollywood and in the minds of urban elites who have likely never been to a range in their lives.
Pfft, what is this "democracy" of which you speak? We lost that when people decided that shaming and silencing was a splendid little strategy. These days, calling someone a bigot merely translates into, "'Shut up or I'll harass your boss until he fires you," and when someone says they "want a conversation," they really mean, "Shut up and agree with everything I say."
Dude, what bearded-Spock version of "America" are you living in? That might've been true 20 years ago, but obviously not now. Dare to be (ahem) brave and annoy a SJW, and you can expect to be sued, fired, and have SWAT teams show up at your door at 3am. But hey, at least 1984 was a cautionary tale and not an instruction manual, amirite?
Heh, sorry, I wasn't complaining; I've encountered a few people who think that UAVs are evil but a manned jet is just peachy. I should have higher expectations for/.
As far as pilots being in danger, it's pretty unlikely given who we're currently after. Manned or unmanned, we're out of range of anything they have, with the exception of low-flying aircraft, like the A-10 or helos.
The US hasn't declared war since FDR. AUMFs, like them or not, are the "new normal." (That's not an argument in favor of drone strikes; merely saying that declaring war, or even saying the word "war," is politically unpopular.)
You should probably read the numerous articles about UAV pilots who have the added stress of compartmentalizing their work. When we're overseas, we get into a "deployment bubble" where, sure, we email and skype back home, but we're largely focused on the job. These guys don't have that and it's pretty rough to fly a mission and then pick up milk on the way home.
Also, as I asked another poster, how would this be different if a manned aircraft were used? Or do you not like air power at all?
I'd mod you back up if I had points left. Still, cue the shrieks of "it doesn't violate the first amendment unless the government throws you in jaaaail!"
True, although I wonder how much of that is due to a) many more cell phone owners than firearms owners (with much higher purchase frequency), b) many more firearms than cell phone manufacturers and c) none of the usual waivers (that I saw) for government officials and active/retired LEOs (eg the Glock 43 is available for sale to LEOs but not the general public in CA). There's a big difference between telling gun owners they can't buy a shiny new Colt and telling NYC hippies they can't have the new iPhone.
Slashdot Mirror
I think he was alluding to the mantra of "if you can't trust me with a choice..."
Maybe if we saw actual results from previous massive spending (*cough*stimulus*cough*) we wouldn't be so skeptical about more graft and cronyism.
Remember, kids, we have a legal system, not a justice system.
Because of the recent /. poll; if you're not For The ChildrenTM, then you're clearly a Catholic priest child-rapist apologist.
Which is why the appeals court exists.
By which time the defendant has likely used up all resources and funds; we've reached the point where the process is the punishment and, with respect to child port, the accusation is the conviction.
It's really only a matter of time before political enemies start throwing this around and we see random (read: republican) politicians eliminated. cf. Circle, The.
I'm pretty sure that, 50 years ago, someone said something to the effect of, "You can't be thoughtful or educated if you really believe that individuals should be able to sit in the front of the bus. Basic literacy precludes that idea." You should go back and retake high school civics, since you clearly didn't learn anything the first time around. Read a fucking book.
Exactly. Suicide is not "gun violence" any more than a fistful of ambien and a bottle of scotch is "just another night in Chappaqua."
In my 22 years in the navy, not once have I gone to a firearms training course (either combat skills or law enforcement) and told to do anything BUT center-mass. Head shots are fun at the range, if they let you do them (might damage the ceiling of the range), but dubious practice when the adrenaline is flowing. If you're drawing your firearm, it is to stop a threat against your life. "Shoot to wound" exists only in Hollywood and in the minds of urban elites who have likely never been to a range in their lives.
"Willing to consider" just means "tell me more." It in no way means "sure, sign me up!"
You say that now. Wait until they start enslaving us in their nut mines.
I eagerly await the day that SF/LA hippies are told they can't buy the new iPhone.
It actually gets you labeled a bigot. People only care about Republican bedrooms.
Pfft, what is this "democracy" of which you speak? We lost that when people decided that shaming and silencing was a splendid little strategy. These days, calling someone a bigot merely translates into, "'Shut up or I'll harass your boss until he fires you," and when someone says they "want a conversation," they really mean, "Shut up and agree with everything I say."
Considering the proposition passed, you're clearly ok with firing more than half of California.
Dude, what bearded-Spock version of "America" are you living in? That might've been true 20 years ago, but obviously not now. Dare to be (ahem) brave and annoy a SJW, and you can expect to be sued, fired, and have SWAT teams show up at your door at 3am. But hey, at least 1984 was a cautionary tale and not an instruction manual, amirite?
Mozilla lost all credibility when they got rid of Eich.
Well, that escalated quickly...
Heh, sorry, I wasn't complaining; I've encountered a few people who think that UAVs are evil but a manned jet is just peachy. I should have higher expectations for /.
As far as pilots being in danger, it's pretty unlikely given who we're currently after. Manned or unmanned, we're out of range of anything they have, with the exception of low-flying aircraft, like the A-10 or helos.
The US hasn't declared war since FDR. AUMFs, like them or not, are the "new normal." (That's not an argument in favor of drone strikes; merely saying that declaring war, or even saying the word "war," is politically unpopular.)
...says the teenager from his bedroom in his parents' Orange County mansion. Ingrate.
You should probably read the numerous articles about UAV pilots who have the added stress of compartmentalizing their work. When we're overseas, we get into a "deployment bubble" where, sure, we email and skype back home, but we're largely focused on the job. These guys don't have that and it's pretty rough to fly a mission and then pick up milk on the way home. Also, as I asked another poster, how would this be different if a manned aircraft were used? Or do you not like air power at all?
Well, no. They're not at all robots, just remotely-piloted aircraft. How would this be different if the aircraft were a F/A-18E instead?
I'd mod you back up if I had points left. Still, cue the shrieks of "it doesn't violate the first amendment unless the government throws you in jaaaail!"
Pretty much. I mean, why on earth would you be concerned with people throwing gays off rooftops when there's someone STILL saying "Bruce Jenner"??
True, although I wonder how much of that is due to a) many more cell phone owners than firearms owners (with much higher purchase frequency), b) many more firearms than cell phone manufacturers and c) none of the usual waivers (that I saw) for government officials and active/retired LEOs (eg the Glock 43 is available for sale to LEOs but not the general public in CA). There's a big difference between telling gun owners they can't buy a shiny new Colt and telling NYC hippies they can't have the new iPhone.
I love it when Democrats whine that Republicans are too zealous with police powers, then turn around and try to one-up them.