It is legal to produce guns for your own personal use. It is also legal to sell those guns. It is illegal to produce & sell guns on a commercial basis.
The law is not quantitative on this issue, it is qualitative. So, if you make and sell, say, for instance 5 guns, you could be charged and convicted for unlicensed commercial production and sale, or you could just as easily be no-billed. It depends upon how bad they want you and who the judge is, and, of course, whether or not you have the resources to appeal.
Making and later selling 1 gun is extremely unlikely to result in any charges.
Yes, they are - dangerous to the shooter, not the target!
It's going to be a looonngggg time before a gun can be made completely by a 3D printer and be safe to the user, muchless approach any semblance of firing accurately. Non-metallic components just can't put up with the stresses of containing nearly explosive charges of propellent nor can they deal with the stress involved in the engraving of a bullet by the rifling. It is far simpler and safer to make a firearm out of iron pipe.
In the meantime, I'll seek out 100 year old machine tools if I want to make a gun.
And say that availability of alcohol has a vastly higher effect than 5%.
I doubt it. People who smoke pot tend to get high on a daily basis. However, even people who drink on a daily basis don't usually get drunk on a daily basis.
All you have to do is look at the results of the Medieval Warming Period.
Google some pictures of the Canadian Shield. I see LOTS of trees. Lots of water. Your entire post is hysterical ranting with a bunch of (incorrect) opinion and guessing.
I guess Ice Ages are easy to frivolously dismiss when you live in a place like Rio.
However, at our stage of understanding the system, climate engineering is probably not such a good thing to be doing. The planet isn't an experiment that we can easily clean up after we make a mess. We can't 'nuke it from orbit' just to make sure.
That is a major issue with the carbon sequesters and everybody else. We're really running in the dark. We need to put quite a bit more energy (pun intended) into understanding the system before we blithely go and tinker with it (like we are doing at present).
I think we agree on that point - that carbon legislation is not a good idea and that we should allow the economy to naturally evolve beyond the use of carbon. Not that legislation would work anyway, only the lowest emitters would sign on.
The real argument is legislative - Given that developing nations will overshadow developed nations in CO2 emissions, legislation will do nothing except harm the World economy.
We can argue about whether or not the Earth is warming/cooling and whether that warming/cooling is due to man, but the AGW Alarmist arguments totally break down when they get into value judgements about the supposed facts.
The only real fact is that a person's opinion that warming and adding CO2 is beneficial is every bit as valid as someone saying it's not.
If we were to engage in climate engineering, warming things up and adding a little CO2 is exactly what we'd want to do. It would increase the range of latitudes for food production and mitigate future ice ages, which are much more catastrophic than any effects from warming.
People will just proclaim this manuscript as some gnostic heresy, and continue as if nothing happened.
You wouldn't say that if you understood what Gnosticism is. Scientology, for example, is a modern Gnostic system. Gnosticism is rightly recognized by most for the fraud that it is.
Sure, we lost a lot of great works to book burning, at least at Alexandria. But of the purposeful acts that destroyed manuscripts, I'd have to say that recycling took a far greater toll.
Paper and parchment was expensive in the ancient world so people would simply erase works they couldn't translate and reuse the paper for their own manuscripts or records.
Slashdot Mirror
-1 Troll
be replaced by a cheap immigrant!
It is legal to produce guns for your own personal use. It is also legal to sell those guns. It is illegal to produce & sell guns on a commercial basis.
The law is not quantitative on this issue, it is qualitative. So, if you make and sell, say, for instance 5 guns, you could be charged and convicted for unlicensed commercial production and sale, or you could just as easily be no-billed. It depends upon how bad they want you and who the judge is, and, of course, whether or not you have the resources to appeal.
Making and later selling 1 gun is extremely unlikely to result in any charges.
Yes, they are - dangerous to the shooter, not the target!
It's going to be a looonngggg time before a gun can be made completely by a 3D printer and be safe to the user, muchless approach any semblance of firing accurately. Non-metallic components just can't put up with the stresses of containing nearly explosive charges of propellent nor can they deal with the stress involved in the engraving of a bullet by the rifling. It is far simpler and safer to make a firearm out of iron pipe.
In the meantime, I'll seek out 100 year old machine tools if I want to make a gun.
Kept burning fossil fuels and caused Island Warming and a drought!
Rename the school of fashion design to "Fashion Engineering" and include it in the stats.
Persians (a.k.a. Iranians) are much better than Arabs (i.e., Islamic pigs)!
That's not saying much.
that cyberattacks came from a country whose leaders yell "Death to America"?
Utilities are forced to buy excess energy from home-generators anyway.
It's a stupid idea that could only happen because of a law.
And figure out how to route the money directly to their drug/alcohol dealers.
Submitting climate change alarmism papers?
How do you explain the South Pole then?
It only gets about 6.5" of precip per year. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_of_Antarctica)
And say that availability of alcohol has a vastly higher effect than 5%.
I doubt it. People who smoke pot tend to get high on a daily basis. However, even people who drink on a daily basis don't usually get drunk on a daily basis.
One thing I despise is working on code that was written by a poor speller - you never know how a variable name was spelled!
Tim Cook is protesting a law that gives businesses the freedom to boycott customers by....
boycotting customers.
Now THAT is truly hypocritical!
All you have to do is look at the results of the Medieval Warming Period.
Google some pictures of the Canadian Shield. I see LOTS of trees. Lots of water. Your entire post is hysterical ranting with a bunch of (incorrect) opinion and guessing.
I guess Ice Ages are easy to frivolously dismiss when you live in a place like Rio.
Even at 30 years, it's all noise.
However, at our stage of understanding the system, climate engineering is probably not such a good thing to be doing. The planet isn't an experiment that we can easily clean up after we make a mess. We can't 'nuke it from orbit' just to make sure.
That is a major issue with the carbon sequesters and everybody else. We're really running in the dark. We need to put quite a bit more energy (pun intended) into understanding the system before we blithely go and tinker with it (like we are doing at present).
I think we agree on that point - that carbon legislation is not a good idea and that we should allow the economy to naturally evolve beyond the use of carbon. Not that legislation would work anyway, only the lowest emitters would sign on.
It's been suggested that we could ALREADY be in an ice age if it weren't for the extra CO2.
http://www.skepticalscience.co...
The real argument is legislative - Given that developing nations will overshadow developed nations in CO2 emissions, legislation will do nothing except harm the World economy.
We can argue about whether or not the Earth is warming/cooling and whether that warming/cooling is due to man, but the AGW Alarmist arguments totally break down when they get into value judgements about the supposed facts.
The only real fact is that a person's opinion that warming and adding CO2 is beneficial is every bit as valid as someone saying it's not.
If we were to engage in climate engineering, warming things up and adding a little CO2 is exactly what we'd want to do.
It would increase the range of latitudes for food production and mitigate future ice ages, which are much more catastrophic than any effects from warming.
you got more government.
Amen.
People will just proclaim this manuscript as some gnostic heresy, and continue as if nothing happened.
You wouldn't say that if you understood what Gnosticism is.
Scientology, for example, is a modern Gnostic system. Gnosticism is rightly recognized by most for the fraud that it is.
Sure, we lost a lot of great works to book burning, at least at Alexandria. But of the purposeful acts that destroyed manuscripts, I'd have to say that recycling took a far greater toll.
Paper and parchment was expensive in the ancient world so people would simply erase works they couldn't translate and reuse the paper for their own manuscripts or records.