Without my copy handy it's hard to be sure if it says that directly, it certainly implies it to a certain degree, but it most certainly doesn't define all the rights we have (says so in the bill of rights).
I'm not sure but if your point is that to some extent rights are arbitrary as in the moment sufficient force and will exists to deny them they are for all practical reasons gone I would agree, in fact that's why we MUST be aware and ready to protect them.
If your making a point about theory of governance I'm curious and will be interested to hear what you say.
In the meantime I'm up a bit late as it is and this is my 3rd day running on low sleep. (just finalized sale of some property I had, 110 miles from where I now live). This is why I didn't google and re-read the constitution (or recall it more clearly for that matter) to give you a better response, sorry.
Gee I dunno then, I guess there no point in doing somthing if it don't benifit me TODAY after going to a job is so stupid if I have wait till later for my paycheck.
I thought California HAD leagalized medical Marijuana, of course because a the feds are ingoring 'denied it by the states' and stretching the interstate comerce clause unrecognizably it's hard to follow through on that.
Not always, on rare occasion someone enters politics to make a change for the better, the good ones in this group are the most rare of things, a true statesman. How we ever got so many at once to start this country is nothing short of amazing.
I know this may seem a nitpick, but I see it as important, at least as much so as the distiction between republic and democracy.
But you said "The constitution does in fact grant rights..." when with respect to individuals it doesn't grant, but rather protects.
Given you also said "Rights cannot be stripped of an individual." I suspect you are aware of the difference and didn't do so deliberately, but people keep saying granted which makes it seem as if we're beholden to some authority for are rights as if they were privillages which makes it much less objectionable should they then be taken.
Really? Thier plan is to get into the debates that is an odd thing considering what was done to them in 92. The libertarians had the target to get into the debates moved at least three times IIRC, each time they met the new goals the two parties moved then, the last time refusing to tell them the goals. I still remember going to the protest outside Wash U. here in St. Louis after hearing about that. I figured any party the two majors feared that much was worth finding out about.
What I'd like to know what has changed to make them believe the two majors would let them into the debates and not play shell games with the rules like they did in 1992 to shut them out of the debates.
Well you certainly deserved the mod up(it is an interesting idea), but that last line needs it's own +4 funny. At least I laughed.
Just the other day I heard a guy on the radio say somthing that ended " then he could tell the guy to go Chenny himself".
FWIW there is a subgroup of republicans that are basically that, they agree with most of the libertarian ideals, with some republican stuff thrown in.
Ehh, in my experience it's the left that tend emotional arguments over fact and rationality.
For example the assumption usually put with info like you provided is that if one man is richer than another it's somehow wrong.
If in country A incomes range from 10K to 11K and in country b they range from 10K to 40K, which country has the largest gap between 'rich' and 'poor'? And all other things equal which would you rather live in?
If you have a system that guarantees most people have about the same income no matter how hard they work or don't, generally you have a system where no one is motivated to work much.
If a's situation is artificial then in time a will be luck to stay at it's levels if not drop while b will tend to see both it's numbers rise.
Significant gap between the bottom and top earners in a society isn't bad, in fact it's good if economic mobility isn't constrained somehow.
Because Joe then buys somthing with that money wich then becomes someone elses paycheck. Or joe saves that money which the bank can then lend out to fred to buy somthing or start a bussiness with.
The more stuff bought the more workers are needed to make and sell stuff and the more people have jobs and the more they get paid as employers have to raise wages to get the good employees.
Now if this were a zero sum game this would create issues, but fortunately it's not a zero sum game.
The higher the taxes the less this system works as money is effectively removed from the competitive part of the economy and largly wasted on $300 dollar hammers and no-bid contract et al. vs the open market where if somone wants to charge $300 for a hammer every buys the $2 hammer next door.
The benifit for the home user is that he has a larger selection of software he might want to use available.(and for joe average if you have to play dependancy games, and config games et al it's broken)
The benifit for the open source developer is MORE people see his work and he gets more kudo's and he has an easier time getting his work to work without tracking down all the different ways it can break on the various distro's and having to fix THAT rather than write what he wants.
The benifit is interoperability and less headache running something other than what came on the cd(s).
The benifit to distros is wider adoption because thier distro becomes MUCH more flexible when the base of useable apps, both open and closed, devolped for any other compliant distro 'just works'.
Some sort of standard that can be targetted by those that make software rather than having to compensate for even a handfull of the most popular distros is not just good, but mandatory for linux to ever make significant progress at the home user level. Unless you want to wait till distro's come with built in AI's that figure out how to make apps set up for some random distro work natively and solve all the filesytem and dependancy hells.
There are other issues Linux needs to deal with IMHO for going mainsteam with joe six-pack, but having a standard base to build apps to is the major one.
Now whether LSB2.0 is a good standard base or not would be a good discussion.
"Firemen and police (usually) announce themselves before entering. And perhaps a few dead policemen who didn't would be a good wake-up call about no-knock warrants."
I'm personally of the opinion that no-knock warrents are stupid idea. If someone kicks in my door and comes running in holding a weapon I'm forced to assume they mean me harm untill proven otherwise.
Without properly identifying themselves how do you know who they are. And NO a uniform doesn't do that as any idiot can buy a black windbreaker with DEA or FBI or even CIA printed in bold yellow letters, not mention other 'hard' clothes, and I wouldn't put it past a clever bunch of crooks from doing exactly that.
And frankly I don't care what the law or a judge says about it, when face with get shot dead or face a trial I know wich I consider worse. The saying goes 'better to be tried by twelve than carried by six'.
umm, excusse me he said WARN, then kill if you don't leave, you even quoted it. If someone is stupid enough not leave uppon hearing 'This is my house get out now I have a gun' then thier probably stupid enough to try and read the liscence plate of a moving buss by crouching in front of it.
Also empty the clip is what many police are trained to do.
He's not an idiot (unless you count potentially giving the other guy a chance to shoot first), he's if anything more kind to potentially armed intruders than necessary (except in some states).
Landmines that go boomb suck, but how about a trap system that mearly sprays the would be burglar with a nice bright dayglow paint(hot pink, neon yellow, use your imagination)? Use a safe, non-toxic, bio-degradeable, no-tears, anti-alergenic, LONG LASRING paint of course.
Actually traps of any-sort are right out, what if there were a fire, or the gate closed on his head.
As far as the idiot who shot his own son the judge should have drop kicked the case out the door and asked the prossecuting attorney to look into charges against the father for causing the death of his son while commiting a crime (tresspass) with a gun. But lately the only time judges show any balls is when they're re-writing the laws.
Not exactly, if you bought the goods in 'good faith' then all that happens is you loose the goods as the original owner gets them back, and of course your out whatever you paid for them.
Somthing like this happened to friend, he had bought a collectable pistol from his dad's estate and had it for 3 years untill there was a reason to run a check on it's history. It turned out to have been stolen. My friend still had documentation of his purchase and his dad's purchase in a pawn shop on the east coast. He lost the gun, but that is it. As an only child he inherited the bulk of his dad's estate later on his 21st birthday, so he got the money back.
"I think the excuse that users lose their keys and use ones listed on the internet is entirely BS, as well. I have never lost a single CD key."
Then you are eigther a) lucky b) <18 and still living at home or c) obsessive compuslive.
Odds are your A even one or both of the others is true. Other options may apply, but your case is not likely the norm.
Fact is people DO loose things, it's life and it happens, somtimes those things are cd keys.
It has happened to me, though the publisher was kind enough to put a good key on thier website as they had screwed up on one print run of the game such that the key included didn't work when entered.
Except this also has issues. I bought a rather expensive book with a full featured demo of a rather expensive app. The demo is supposed to stop working after 30days, only thing is some other software and it conflicted and that required uninstalling both and re-installing the trial software. The trial software refused to run having detected a previous install of itself. Well a week or two later I did a system upgrade and did a full format and re-install of windows. Figuring I was still owed that 30 days I never got to use I re-installed the trial software, same results. I wound up finding out what did this crap (c-dilla, forgot the pr name, just the executables names stuck) and how to go around it and got my trial period, could have kept using it forever if I wanted. Thier brain-dammaged attempt to prevent 'un-authorized use' resulted in me having the option of unlimited use.
It also turns out the apps themselves work fine on the same machine, it's just the copy protection crap that created the issues.
Bottom line is if your using anything other than quality and functionality at reasonable price to assure your sales, your actually hurting them.
Maybe it's just me, but I would think if the protection system that sure, wouldn't the crackers just patch around it? I've seen no-cd software that does just that.
The only way to make shure it isn't patched around is to have it intermingle so much with the other code as to degrade that codes performance (i.e. every function call by way of one of MANY internal checks). That and the re-aranging for EVERY releas you talk about means download the WHOLE pakage for even a minor bug fix, that's just too much hassle to pay for even at $50 for a supposed photoshop killer, esp with gimp costing $0 and PSP <$100 just to name two I know of.
And even that's only so usefull unless you require your products users to re-enter thier cd key while online everytime they use it, yet more unwanted hassle.
Treat your customers like thieves by default and they'll likely go elswhere, low price or not.
"ooh, I lost my car keys, I'll just steal this one instead"
Actually it's more like 'I lost my car keys and the dealer/manufacturer won't sell me a replace for less than the cost of the whole car so I guess I'll have to just hotwire my own car"
As far as using an online found key screwing the one guy who bought a copy with that key, well that's the fault of the game maker for using such a system and NOT printing the key on the cd at least.
I've learned to copy my keys both into a blank book I bought and on the cd.
I have one game I can't play because the key is missing, the funny thing is I lost it twice (my screw up) because after loosing the first time I went online for clues and found out the publisher had screwed up the cd key system on the release of the 'gold' edition with extras and had put up a key that worked on thier website in plain view for anyone who followed any one of many links. then a few months later win98 had one of it's classic total meltdowns and I lost it again during re-install. This is what taught me about cd keys on the CD itself, and backed up somewhere else just in case.
While Joe cracker might not start a lawsuit 'hey I used an illeagle copy of your software and it killed my pc'. What happens when innocent guy who bought a copy with a valid number, when it was shipped, but has since been generated and used by a crack program gets HIS files deleted (or maybe the protection software mistakenly thinks his serial is bad).?
I'd be suprised if he didn't get into trouble there.
Thanks, I couldn't remember the exact numbers. Movie film is a bit higher than consumer 35mm films, (thus the bright lights), but hardly 'atomic' like that guy was implying.
"...becuase it has no 'pixel' resolution, beyond the atomic structure of the film..."
And this does make sense? He made fairly good sense and you don't sound like you understand how film, or the sfx of the original trillogy, work.
Now admitedly I don't know most of the details on the sfx end, but try watching the extra's on the SE vhs tapes for starters. In on of them they talk about some of the same issues the person you responded to, and said simular things.
Film DOSE have a 'pixel' like structure, the individual grains of light sensitive material, and they are quite a bit bigger than 'atomic' would imply. Thier a bit irregular as well.
The problems he was talking about showing up in part are due, in part, to how many sfx were done then, which involved the film itself and led to minor glitches of all sorts. Now these glitches et. al. aren't very visible on theatre screen or ld tv, but once things get higher resolutions and greater sharpnes you start to notice things like the fact that the cockpit frame is slightly transparent as they showed in the extra's on the SE vhs tapes.
Actually it is leagle to own many fully automatic rifles and guns, it's just that you have to fill out reams of paperwork and background checks and that sort of crap then pay some huge fee for the liscense.
To actually make them illeagle would be a violation of the constitution and in the 30's the Supreme court might even have followed the constitution.
The Militia was only part of the founding fathers reasoning. Hunting was another. And the militia was intended to help protect us against ANY army (including a federal one if need be, remember these guys just staged a rebellion), self defence, and others. Also it isn't a right limited to handguns, shotguns and some rifles, but to all individual arms. "every sword of the soldier, however terrible" is what the author of the second answered when he was asked what 'arms' meant.
And the theory that small arms are useless against a modern army, even the US armed forces, is bunk.
In WWII we drop loads of cheap.45's for the french resistance that made a zip gun look like a match grade pistol. It was fire once, then break open, use a wooden rod to eject the casing, put in new round, close, re-use. Civil war muzzle loaders were as fast. And the accuracy was so bad your best bet was to make shure you were within 5 feet (1.5 meters) before use.
The point was to load this gun in private and hide it on yourself. Then approach a lone german soldier at night on some pretext and shoot him at point blank range. Then steal his weapon and pass the.45 off to a friend to do the same.
And this is just one tactic to use. Want more? just look at any geurilla action against a modern army. Some of these tactics are even being used against the US army in Afgahnistan and Iraq.
Slashdot Mirror
Without my copy handy it's hard to be sure if it says that directly, it certainly implies it to a certain degree, but it most certainly doesn't define all the rights we have (says so in the bill of rights).
I'm not sure but if your point is that to some extent rights are arbitrary as in the moment sufficient force and will exists to deny them they are for all practical reasons gone I would agree, in fact that's why we MUST be aware and ready to protect them.
If your making a point about theory of governance I'm curious and will be interested to hear what you say.
In the meantime I'm up a bit late as it is and this is my 3rd day running on low sleep. (just finalized sale of some property I had, 110 miles from where I now live). This is why I didn't google and re-read the constitution (or recall it more clearly for that matter) to give you a better response, sorry.
Mycroft
Gee I dunno then, I guess there no point in doing somthing if it don't benifit me TODAY after going to a job is so stupid if I have wait till later for my paycheck.
Mycroft
I thought California HAD leagalized medical Marijuana, of course because a the feds are ingoring 'denied it by the states' and stretching the interstate comerce clause unrecognizably it's hard to follow through on that.
Mycroft
Not always, on rare occasion someone enters politics to make a change for the better, the good ones in this group are the most rare of things, a true statesman. How we ever got so many at once to start this country is nothing short of amazing.
Mycroft
I know this may seem a nitpick, but I see it as important, at least as much so as the distiction between republic and democracy.
But you said "The constitution does in fact grant rights..." when with respect to individuals it doesn't grant, but rather protects.
Given you also said "Rights cannot be stripped of an individual." I suspect you are aware of the difference and didn't do so deliberately, but people keep saying granted which makes it seem as if we're beholden to some authority for are rights as if they were privillages which makes it much less objectionable should they then be taken.
Mycroft
The problem here is the false belief that you have any inherent rights to the hard work and money and time and skills of others without earning it.
Mycroft
Really? Thier plan is to get into the debates that is an odd thing considering what was done to them in 92. The libertarians had the target to get into the debates moved at least three times IIRC, each time they met the new goals the two parties moved then, the last time refusing to tell them the goals. I still remember going to the protest outside Wash U. here in St. Louis after hearing about that. I figured any party the two majors feared that much was worth finding out about.
What I'd like to know what has changed to make them believe the two majors would let them into the debates and not play shell games with the rules like they did in 1992 to shut them out of the debates.
The above paragraph is my suggested question.
Well you certainly deserved the mod up(it is an interesting idea), but that last line needs it's own +4 funny. At least I laughed.
Just the other day I heard a guy on the radio say somthing that ended " then he could tell the guy to go Chenny himself".
FWIW there is a subgroup of republicans that are basically that, they agree with most of the libertarian ideals, with some republican stuff thrown in.
Mycroft
Ehh, in my experience it's the left that tend emotional arguments over fact and rationality.
For example the assumption usually put with info like you provided is that if one man is richer than another it's somehow wrong.
If in country A incomes range from 10K to 11K and in country b they range from 10K to 40K, which country has the largest gap between 'rich' and 'poor'? And all other things equal which would you rather live in?
If you have a system that guarantees most people have about the same income no matter how hard they work or don't, generally you have a system where no one is motivated to work much.
If a's situation is artificial then in time a will be luck to stay at it's levels if not drop while b will tend to see both it's numbers rise.
Significant gap between the bottom and top earners in a society isn't bad, in fact it's good if economic mobility isn't constrained somehow.
Mycroft
Because Joe then buys somthing with that money wich then becomes someone elses paycheck. Or joe saves that money which the bank can then lend out to fred to buy somthing or start a bussiness with.
The more stuff bought the more workers are needed to make and sell stuff and the more people have jobs and the more they get paid as employers have to raise wages to get the good employees.
Now if this were a zero sum game this would create issues, but fortunately it's not a zero sum game.
The higher the taxes the less this system works as money is effectively removed from the competitive part of the economy and largly wasted on $300 dollar hammers and no-bid contract et al. vs the open market where if somone wants to charge $300 for a hammer every buys the $2 hammer next door.
Mycroft
The benifit for the home user is that he has a larger selection of software he might want to use available.(and for joe average if you have to play dependancy games, and config games et al it's broken)
The benifit for the open source developer is MORE people see his work and he gets more kudo's and he has an easier time getting his work to work without tracking down all the different ways it can break on the various distro's and having to fix THAT rather than write what he wants.
The benifit is interoperability and less headache running something other than what came on the cd(s).
The benifit to distros is wider adoption because thier distro becomes MUCH more flexible when the base of useable apps, both open and closed, devolped for any other compliant distro 'just works'.
Some sort of standard that can be targetted by those that make software rather than having to compensate for even a handfull of the most popular distros is not just good, but mandatory for linux to ever make significant progress at the home user level. Unless you want to wait till distro's come with built in AI's that figure out how to make apps set up for some random distro work natively and solve all the filesytem and dependancy hells.
There are other issues Linux needs to deal with IMHO for going mainsteam with joe six-pack, but having a standard base to build apps to is the major one.
Now whether LSB2.0 is a good standard base or not would be a good discussion.
Mycroft
"Firemen and police (usually) announce themselves before entering. And perhaps a few dead policemen who didn't would be a good wake-up call about no-knock warrants."
I'm personally of the opinion that no-knock warrents are stupid idea. If someone kicks in my door and comes running in holding a weapon I'm forced to assume they mean me harm untill proven otherwise.
Without properly identifying themselves how do you know who they are. And NO a uniform doesn't do that as any idiot can buy a black windbreaker with DEA or FBI or even CIA printed in bold yellow letters, not mention other 'hard' clothes, and I wouldn't put it past a clever bunch of crooks from doing exactly that.
And frankly I don't care what the law or a judge says about it, when face with get shot dead or face a trial I know wich I consider worse. The saying goes 'better to be tried by twelve than carried by six'.
Mycroft
umm, excusse me he said WARN, then kill if you don't leave, you even quoted it. If someone is stupid enough not leave uppon hearing 'This is my house get out now I have a gun' then thier probably stupid enough to try and read the liscence plate of a moving buss by crouching in front of it.
Also empty the clip is what many police are trained to do.
He's not an idiot (unless you count potentially giving the other guy a chance to shoot first), he's if anything more kind to potentially armed intruders than necessary (except in some states).
Mycroft
Landmines that go boomb suck, but how about a trap system that mearly sprays the would be burglar with a nice bright dayglow paint(hot pink, neon yellow, use your imagination)? Use a safe, non-toxic, bio-degradeable, no-tears, anti-alergenic, LONG LASRING paint of course.
Mycroft
Actually traps of any-sort are right out, what if there were a fire, or the gate closed on his head.
As far as the idiot who shot his own son the judge should have drop kicked the case out the door and asked the prossecuting attorney to look into charges against the father for causing the death of his son while commiting a crime (tresspass) with a gun. But lately the only time judges show any balls is when they're re-writing the laws.
Mycroft
Not exactly, if you bought the goods in 'good faith' then all that happens is you loose the goods as the original owner gets them back, and of course your out whatever you paid for them.
Somthing like this happened to friend, he had bought a collectable pistol from his dad's estate and had it for 3 years untill there was a reason to run a check on it's history. It turned out to have been stolen. My friend still had documentation of his purchase and his dad's purchase in a pawn shop on the east coast. He lost the gun, but that is it. As an only child he inherited the bulk of his dad's estate later on his 21st birthday, so he got the money back.
Mycroft
"I think the excuse that users lose their keys and use ones listed on the internet is entirely BS, as well. I have never lost a single CD key."
Then you are eigther a) lucky b) <18 and still living at home or c) obsessive compuslive.
Odds are your A even one or both of the others is true. Other options may apply, but your case is not likely the norm.
Fact is people DO loose things, it's life and it happens, somtimes those things are cd keys.
It has happened to me, though the publisher was kind enough to put a good key on thier website as they had screwed up on one print run of the game such that the key included didn't work when entered.
Mycroft
Except this also has issues. I bought a rather expensive book with a full featured demo of a rather expensive app. The demo is supposed to stop working after 30days, only thing is some other software and it conflicted and that required uninstalling both and re-installing the trial software. The trial software refused to run having detected a previous install of itself. Well a week or two later I did a system upgrade and did a full format and re-install of windows. Figuring I was still owed that 30 days I never got to use I re-installed the trial software, same results. I wound up finding out what did this crap (c-dilla, forgot the pr name, just the executables names stuck) and how to go around it and got my trial period, could have kept using it forever if I wanted. Thier brain-dammaged attempt to prevent 'un-authorized use' resulted in me having the option of unlimited use.
It also turns out the apps themselves work fine on the same machine, it's just the copy protection crap that created the issues.
Bottom line is if your using anything other than quality and functionality at reasonable price to assure your sales, your actually hurting them.
Mycroft
Maybe it's just me, but I would think if the protection system that sure, wouldn't the crackers just patch around it? I've seen no-cd software that does just that.
The only way to make shure it isn't patched around is to have it intermingle so much with the other code as to degrade that codes performance (i.e. every function call by way of one of MANY internal checks). That and the re-aranging for EVERY releas you talk about means download the WHOLE pakage for even a minor bug fix, that's just too much hassle to pay for even at $50 for a supposed photoshop killer, esp with gimp costing $0 and PSP <$100 just to name two I know of.
And even that's only so usefull unless you require your products users to re-enter thier cd key while online everytime they use it, yet more unwanted hassle.
Treat your customers like thieves by default and they'll likely go elswhere, low price or not.
Mycroft
"ooh, I lost my car keys, I'll just steal this one instead"
Actually it's more like 'I lost my car keys and the dealer/manufacturer won't sell me a replace for less than the cost of the whole car so I guess I'll have to just hotwire my own car"
As far as using an online found key screwing the one guy who bought a copy with that key, well that's the fault of the game maker for using such a system and NOT printing the key on the cd at least.
I've learned to copy my keys both into a blank book I bought and on the cd.
I have one game I can't play because the key is missing, the funny thing is I lost it twice (my screw up) because after loosing the first time I went online for clues and found out the publisher had screwed up the cd key system on the release of the 'gold' edition with extras and had put up a key that worked on thier website in plain view for anyone who followed any one of many links. then a few months later win98 had one of it's classic total meltdowns and I lost it again during re-install. This is what taught me about cd keys on the CD itself, and backed up somewhere else just in case.
Mycroft
While Joe cracker might not start a lawsuit 'hey I used an illeagle copy of your software and it killed my pc'. What happens when innocent guy who bought a copy with a valid number, when it was shipped, but has since been generated and used by a crack program gets HIS files deleted (or maybe the protection software mistakenly thinks his serial is bad).?
I'd be suprised if he didn't get into trouble there.
Mycroft
Thanks, I couldn't remember the exact numbers.
Movie film is a bit higher than consumer 35mm films, (thus the bright lights), but hardly 'atomic' like that guy was implying.
Mycroft
"...becuase it has no 'pixel' resolution, beyond the atomic structure of the film..."
And this does make sense? He made fairly good sense and you don't sound like you understand how film, or the sfx of the original trillogy, work.
Now admitedly I don't know most of the details on the sfx end, but try watching the extra's on the SE vhs tapes for starters. In on of them they talk about some of the same issues the person you responded to, and said simular things.
Film DOSE have a 'pixel' like structure, the individual grains of light sensitive material, and they are quite a bit bigger than 'atomic' would imply. Thier a bit irregular as well.
The problems he was talking about showing up in part are due, in part, to how many sfx were done then, which involved the film itself and led to minor glitches of all sorts. Now these glitches et. al. aren't very visible on theatre screen or ld tv, but once things get higher resolutions and greater sharpnes you start to notice things like the fact that the cockpit frame is slightly transparent as they showed in the extra's on the SE vhs tapes.
Mycroft
Actually it is leagle to own many fully automatic rifles and guns, it's just that you have to fill out reams of paperwork and background checks and that sort of crap then pay some huge fee for the liscense.
To actually make them illeagle would be a violation of the constitution and in the 30's the Supreme court might even have followed the constitution.
Mycroft
The Militia was only part of the founding fathers reasoning. Hunting was another. And the militia was intended to help protect us against ANY army (including a federal one if need be, remember these guys just staged a rebellion), self defence, and others. Also it isn't a right limited to handguns, shotguns and some rifles, but to all individual arms. "every sword of the soldier, however terrible" is what the author of the second answered when he was asked what 'arms' meant. .45's for the french resistance that made a zip gun look like a match grade pistol. It was fire once, then break open, use a wooden rod to eject the casing, put in new round, close, re-use. Civil war muzzle loaders were as fast. And the accuracy was so bad your best bet was to make shure you were within 5 feet (1.5 meters) before use. .45 off to a friend to do the same.
And the theory that small arms are useless against a modern army, even the US armed forces, is bunk.
In WWII we drop loads of cheap
The point was to load this gun in private and hide it on yourself. Then approach a lone german soldier at night on some pretext and shoot him at point blank range. Then steal his weapon and pass the
And this is just one tactic to use. Want more? just look at any geurilla action against a modern army. Some of these tactics are even being used against the US army in Afgahnistan and Iraq.
Mycroft