Europe is not the US. Forces seeking an end to Constitutional government would not fare well here.
There are highly abusive police forces in the US that don't face significant armed resistance.
That's not really analogous. People can escape to other cities or take other actions to mitigate abusive police. Ending Constitutional government is not something that can be undone, and national borders are harder to escape. Also, ending Constitutional government has no limiting principle — making it an existential threat, so resistance motivation would be very high. And the other side would not be able to maintain their own motivation.
But that's enough talk from me about something that won't happen. I think an armed populace makes it less likely. It's ok with me if you don't agree.
Dollar store batteries work good. I would guess they're less than half as much on a price/performance basis. But that's just a guess. I have no complaints. People who pay up for Duracells often complain about the price.
Yeah, I didn’t study it. But Duracells and Energizers spent a bunch of money on ads and make a huge effort to get specific placements and price points in stores. And the generics seen fine. So I sincerely doubt the high priced batteries are competitive on price/performance.
The oppressors would lose on their own schedule. Occupying armies get tired after a year or three. The people defending Constitutional government would win by not submitting to oppression.
You can get 8 AA or AAA batteries for $1 at the dollar store. Eight Eneloops with charger(s) is like $30. That's a very, very long payback time for the Eneloops. Can you even charge them 30 times before they fail?
If agents of the government wanted to violate your Constitutional rights, the AR-15 isn't going to be of any more use than a stick of chewing gum.
Incorrect. It will make them think and rethink whether they really want to go ahead with that. Oppressing a well-armed population is a hell of a lot harder than oppressing an unarmed one.
And ultimately, why would the guys on the ground risk it? They don't need to shoot it out with the local farmers or the owner of the hardware store for the benefit of some politician’s hate campaign. A war at home is a war near their home, where they live with their families. Why start one of those?
I asked you to remind us why a specific police detachment was on specific call that night. Not a general discussion of whether or not Kansas police departments are over-militarized.
Are you the discussion police?
This matters, because if I were being held hostage by a hard right wing fanatic I would certainly want my local police to mobilize their SWAT team in hopes of rescuing me.
Make up some more ridiculous stories. What kind of police would you want if vampires had you caged up in their lair, saving you to drink your blood when they got hungry? How about if space aliens were probing you on the hood of your car? What are the right sort of police for that?
So again, explain what the root cause of this specific incident in Kansas was.
The SWATing call happened because the SWAT team existed. The SWATer knew exactly what to say to produce the specific type of police response he wanted. The existence of the SWAT team (and SWAT teams in general) made this happen. That's why SWATing is a thing at all.
But it isn't. You didn't need to write your comment, but regardless of that, the government can't censor it. See how need is irrelevant?
Rights are not limitless.
But they aren't subject to your whims either.
... if rational people would be willing actually try to work on the problem and stop screaming about it.
What problem? The problem where the FBI and local law enforcement both get specific tips about a guy with a long, long history of violence and legal trouble going to shoot up a school and neither the FBI nor local law enforcement can be bothered to follow up?
The problem where a shooter opens fire in a school with a law enforcement officer on the scene and the law enforcement officer hides instead of protecting people?
When law enforcement is so utterly, completely useless, individual citizens need capable firearms to protect themselves.
An yes, I know what I'm talking. I grew up hunting. To hunt most common game you don't need anything but a bolt action rifle or a pump shotgun. In very few cases, like wild pig extermination, do you need a semi automatic anything.
Hunting is irrelevant. "Need" is irrelevant. Rights are rights. They do not depend on your opinion of what someone "needs" or your opinion of what they need it for. Free speech doesn't depend on you being happy with what someone says either.
The fact that people want to lawlessly and casually infringe Constitutional rights is more than reason enough to have an AR-15. A lawless society ruled by lawless individuals is exactly the kind of society where citizens should be armed.
If any non-police gunman had shot this guy, the shooter would be on trial for murder. Non-police gun owners know this, so they tend to be a lot more careful pulling the trigger.
You train and equip a SWAT team, you end up using that SWAT team. For something. If not that night, then some other night. If not that house, some other house. If not a fake hostage situation, then serving a warrant for unpaid child support. Or whatever. The SWAT team exists, therefore someone eventually gets shot by them.
Why a SWAT team? Because Kansas is boring. Voters watch too much TV news and too many TV dramas and mistake those stories as meaningful to their lives. Politicians need something to sell to voters and drama sells. (Now you're seeing the other side of it — dramatic stories where the police hurt the innocent.)
The thing that needs to change is the police. Crime is way down. The need for aggressive police is way down. People are less and less tolerant of police abuse as they see the relative risk of becoming a crime victim fall versus the risk of being a victim of police.
Cops do not wake up with the ideal, "Hey I'm going to go shoot someone."
No, that would be intent. Cops wake up with the ideal that police need to be protected, first, last, and always, and if that results in non-police getting killed, then that's acceptable. Even if the people killed are innocent. Even if police are only being protected from "potential" harm or fear of harm rather than actual harm.
It's like our cities have been invaded by a foreign army who think of us as cattle to be milked for taxes and traffic fines.
The root cause is that police are dangerous and willing to shoot people without knowing what's going on. SWATing just points them in a particular direction.
Until police lose their reckless indifference to non-police lives, non-police lives will continue to be at grave risk whenever police are present.
The "I didn't know what was going on; I was afraid" defense is absolute and guaranteed to work. But only if the officer opens fire right away, without waiting to know anything about the situation.
Look for this to happen more and more because that's what's being incentivized.
Note how "talk" and "fear" are headlined in the stories while actual concrete facts might get a brief mention somewhere near the end. Or they might not.
Your should read the news then. The reported news isn't that there is a trade war. It's that there is fear and talk of trade war. You need to ignore this nuance to make the point you wish you could make.
Not. There aren't even any tariffs except on steel and aluminum, and those don’t apply to some of the biggest US trading partners. Talk is not a tariff. A tariff is not a "trade war".
News media should report the news when it happens, not before it happens — as they imagine it might someday happen.
Intel has been half-assing GPU capabilities for decades now. Why would anyone believe they'll do a good job on this chip? Are they giving the new guy everything he wants?
Intel has a history of programs that exist because "Intel needs to sell chips in [whatever market]". Not at all based on what customers want. They tried it for phones. Customers continued not to want Intel's offerings. Intel eventually gave up trying to push on that rope.
I don't think Hillary should have been locked up. I think she should have had to plead guilty to some misdemeanor, pay a fine, and agree never to handle any classified documents ever again. The thing she did could have endangered lives though. It's serious.
You guys can dish it out but you can't take it, which is pretty damn sad.
Thanks. Now we know you're an unprincipled partisan hack. Clearly you're happy when the people on your team are above the law.
. . . the press has found evidence suggesting collusion . . . the circumstantial evidence hints towards a corrupt motive IMO, and may possibly rise to witness tampering or witness retaliation...
—
-Phony "conspiracy against the United States charges": I think you are just arguing based on ignorance here, and you don't know what those laws mean.
Means they couldn't even find a way to charge based on foreign influence on elections laws.
The charges against Manafort look remarkably strong from what I've read and heard about it.
Those charges have zero to do with Trump or the campaign. It's a totally unrelated paperwork matter.
The president is not above the law, and we aren't going to remain a democratic republic for very long if we put him above the law.
Hillary was above the law when she got away with intentionally (or negligently) mishandling classified documents, a felony.
Prosecutors can charge almost anyone with crimes. There are tens of thousands of laws and no one spends their entire life from birth to death without breaking one of them at least once. When partisan prosecutors and the press give their side a pass and enforce the laws to the max on the other side, the democratic republic is already circling the drain.
Slashdot Mirror
Europe is not the US. Forces seeking an end to Constitutional government would not fare well here.
There are highly abusive police forces in the US that don't face significant armed resistance.
That's not really analogous. People can escape to other cities or take other actions to mitigate abusive police. Ending Constitutional government is not something that can be undone, and national borders are harder to escape. Also, ending Constitutional government has no limiting principle — making it an existential threat, so resistance motivation would be very high. And the other side would not be able to maintain their own motivation.
But that's enough talk from me about something that won't happen. I think an armed populace makes it less likely. It's ok with me if you don't agree.
Dollar store batteries work good. I would guess they're less than half as much on a price/performance basis. But that's just a guess. I have no complaints. People who pay up for Duracells often complain about the price.
Yeah, I didn’t study it. But Duracells and Energizers spent a bunch of money on ads and make a huge effort to get specific placements and price points in stores. And the generics seen fine. So I sincerely doubt the high priced batteries are competitive on price/performance.
The oppressors would lose on their own schedule. Occupying armies get tired after a year or three. The people defending Constitutional government would win by not submitting to oppression.
Duracells and Energizers are hugely overpriced. Stop buying them. You can get 8 AA or AAA batteries for $1 at the dollar store. They work fine.
You can get 8 AA or AAA batteries for $1 at the dollar store. Eight Eneloops with charger(s) is like $30. That's a very, very long payback time for the Eneloops. Can you even charge them 30 times before they fail?
If agents of the government wanted to violate your Constitutional rights, the AR-15 isn't going to be of any more use than a stick of chewing gum.
Incorrect. It will make them think and rethink whether they really want to go ahead with that. Oppressing a well-armed population is a hell of a lot harder than oppressing an unarmed one.
And ultimately, why would the guys on the ground risk it? They don't need to shoot it out with the local farmers or the owner of the hardware store for the benefit of some politician’s hate campaign. A war at home is a war near their home, where they live with their families. Why start one of those?
Wow, great point. Especially because I'm totally a defense council on a legal team trying to get my client off.
Man, how did I ever pass the Bar Exam? :(
I asked you to remind us why a specific police detachment was on specific call that night. Not a general discussion of whether or not Kansas police departments are over-militarized.
Are you the discussion police?
This matters, because if I were being held hostage by a hard right wing fanatic I would certainly want my local police to mobilize their SWAT team in hopes of rescuing me.
Make up some more ridiculous stories. What kind of police would you want if vampires had you caged up in their lair, saving you to drink your blood when they got hungry? How about if space aliens were probing you on the hood of your car? What are the right sort of police for that?
So again, explain what the root cause of this specific incident in Kansas was.
The SWATing call happened because the SWAT team existed. The SWATer knew exactly what to say to produce the specific type of police response he wanted. The existence of the SWAT team (and SWAT teams in general) made this happen. That's why SWATing is a thing at all.
There was no reason for anyone to knock on his door.
Need should be relevant,
But it isn't. You didn't need to write your comment, but regardless of that, the government can't censor it. See how need is irrelevant?
Rights are not limitless.
But they aren't subject to your whims either.
... if rational people would be willing actually try to work on the problem and stop screaming about it.
What problem? The problem where the FBI and local law enforcement both get specific tips about a guy with a long, long history of violence and legal trouble going to shoot up a school and neither the FBI nor local law enforcement can be bothered to follow up?
The problem where a shooter opens fire in a school with a law enforcement officer on the scene and the law enforcement officer hides instead of protecting people?
When law enforcement is so utterly, completely useless, individual citizens need capable firearms to protect themselves.
An yes, I know what I'm talking. I grew up hunting. To hunt most common game you don't need anything but a bolt action rifle or a pump shotgun. In very few cases, like wild pig extermination, do you need a semi automatic anything.
Hunting is irrelevant. "Need" is irrelevant. Rights are rights. They do not depend on your opinion of what someone "needs" or your opinion of what they need it for. Free speech doesn't depend on you being happy with what someone says either.
The fact that people want to lawlessly and casually infringe Constitutional rights is more than reason enough to have an AR-15. A lawless society ruled by lawless individuals is exactly the kind of society where citizens should be armed.
If any non-police gunman had shot this guy, the shooter would be on trial for murder. Non-police gun owners know this, so they tend to be a lot more careful pulling the trigger.
Remind us why the police were at a house.
You train and equip a SWAT team, you end up using that SWAT team. For something. If not that night, then some other night. If not that house, some other house. If not a fake hostage situation, then serving a warrant for unpaid child support. Or whatever. The SWAT team exists, therefore someone eventually gets shot by them.
Why a SWAT team? Because Kansas is boring. Voters watch too much TV news and too many TV dramas and mistake those stories as meaningful to their lives. Politicians need something to sell to voters and drama sells. (Now you're seeing the other side of it — dramatic stories where the police hurt the innocent.)
The thing that needs to change is the police. Crime is way down. The need for aggressive police is way down. People are less and less tolerant of police abuse as they see the relative risk of becoming a crime victim fall versus the risk of being a victim of police.
Cops do not wake up with the ideal, "Hey I'm going to go shoot someone."
No, that would be intent. Cops wake up with the ideal that police need to be protected, first, last, and always, and if that results in non-police getting killed, then that's acceptable. Even if the people killed are innocent. Even if police are only being protected from "potential" harm or fear of harm rather than actual harm.
It's like our cities have been invaded by a foreign army who think of us as cattle to be milked for taxes and traffic fines.
The root cause is that police are dangerous and willing to shoot people without knowing what's going on. SWATing just points them in a particular direction.
Until police lose their reckless indifference to non-police lives, non-police lives will continue to be at grave risk whenever police are present.
Wait until you actually SEE a fucking gun...
The "I didn't know what was going on; I was afraid" defense is absolute and guaranteed to work. But only if the officer opens fire right away, without waiting to know anything about the situation.
Look for this to happen more and more because that's what's being incentivized.
Congrats on arguing for lying to people. No one will want to be called out as an "apologist" by focusing on mere facts.
Note how "talk" and "fear" are headlined in the stories while actual concrete facts might get a brief mention somewhere near the end. Or they might not.
Your should read the news then. The reported news isn't that there is a trade war. It's that there is fear and talk of trade war. You need to ignore this nuance to make the point you wish you could make.
The nuance is opposite the facts.
Not. There aren't even any tariffs except on steel and aluminum, and those don’t apply to some of the biggest US trading partners. Talk is not a tariff. A tariff is not a "trade war".
News media should report the news when it happens, not before it happens — as they imagine it might someday happen.
They're the Taco Bell of graphics chips.
Intel has been half-assing GPU capabilities for decades now. Why would anyone believe they'll do a good job on this chip? Are they giving the new guy everything he wants?
Intel has a history of programs that exist because "Intel needs to sell chips in [whatever market]". Not at all based on what customers want. They tried it for phones. Customers continued not to want Intel's offerings. Intel eventually gave up trying to push on that rope.
I don't think Hillary should have been locked up. I think she should have had to plead guilty to some misdemeanor, pay a fine, and agree never to handle any classified documents ever again. The thing she did could have endangered lives though. It's serious.
You guys can dish it out but you can't take it, which is pretty damn sad.
Thanks. Now we know you're an unprincipled partisan hack. Clearly you're happy when the people on your team are above the law.
. . . where is the presumption of guilt?
Here:
. . .
the press has found evidence suggesting collusion . . . the circumstantial evidence hints towards a corrupt motive IMO, and may possibly rise to witness tampering or witness retaliation...
—
-Phony "conspiracy against the United States charges": I think you are just arguing based on ignorance here, and you don't know what those laws mean.
Means they couldn't even find a way to charge based on foreign influence on elections laws.
The charges against Manafort look remarkably strong from what I've read and heard about it.
Those charges have zero to do with Trump or the campaign. It's a totally unrelated paperwork matter.
The president is not above the law, and we aren't going to remain a democratic republic for very long if we put him above the law.
Hillary was above the law when she got away with intentionally (or negligently) mishandling classified documents, a felony.
Prosecutors can charge almost anyone with crimes. There are tens of thousands of laws and no one spends their entire life from birth to death without breaking one of them at least once. When partisan prosecutors and the press give their side a pass and enforce the laws to the max on the other side, the democratic republic is already circling the drain.