I believe it's a profession that gets a bad rap because there are plenty of abusive asses who are drawn to a job with the prospect of beating people down but I think there are many more who are drawn to the profession because they have an honest interest in serving and protecting.
When the video footage of the Marathon Bombing started to be played, I pointed out to my wife that the it was a perfect example of the difference between the "average cop" and many people's perception of the average cop - the cops were the ones running TOWARD the explosions while everyone else ran AWAY.
there are already background checks for firearm sales through dealers (just not gun shows or private sales)
Not quite correct.
When you go to a gunshow to buy a gun, the seller (if he's a dealer) has to do the same background check he'd do in his regular shop.
The so-called "gunshow loophole" is that you can buy a gun from a private citizen at a gunshow without a background check. Which you can do without going to a gunshow too - yes, it's legal for me to sell one of my guns to someone without running a background check.
90% was the percentage of the American people that thought reasonable background checks should have been passed.
Umm, no.
90%+ was the percentage of people polled in Pennsylvania that agreed that "requiring background checks for all gun buyers" was a good idea.
It was also the percentage of people polled in New Jersey and Virginia that agreed that "requiring background checks on people buying guns at gun shows".
Neither of which the bill in question did. It insisted on doing bunches of other things.
Note also that the people of New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Virginia are NOT a representative sample of the entire USA on something like gun control....
Since the gun background check bill died because it was believed it create a registry of gun owners (it didn't)
No, it died because it was believed that it MIGHT BE USED to create a gun owner database.
Interestingly, where they could have put a clause in saying "It shall be unlawful to use NCIS transactions to assemble a database of gun owners", they instead put in the rather more weaselly "this law shall not be construed as allowing a database of gun owners".
Note that there is a semantic difference between "I forbid you to do this" and "I do not give you permission to do this".
Note also that the original NCIS law didn't allow such a database to be constructed, but BATF had to be recalibrated on the issue several times, since they kept right on trying to do it by various means.
Also, did you actually READ that thing?? Lending my.30-06 to my best friend for a hunting trip would be a felony, but giving it to one of my wife's cousins (whom I've never met) would be perfectly fine?! And this makes sense to whom, exactly?
Good point about Iceland's naming conventions though - hadn't really thought about it, but if we used Ancient German Naming, I'd only know a couple of cousins were related if my Dad had told me so....
If you go back far enough, you'll find that you are related to Charlemagne, or Ghandi.
.
.
Well, unless you're part of the royal family, or in the deep south of the US, where family trees tend to be a lot... slimmer...
And oddly enough, I am both descended from Charlemagne (according to a great-aunt who did some genealogy research several decades ago), and from the Deep South (though I only lived there for one year before I was an adult - career military brat).
Long story short: After a very short conversation about relatives we found out that my mom and her dad were 1st cousins. Doh! I have never been so disappointed as I was then...:P
Second cousins, then. Biologically, that makes you basically complete strangers....
I'd like to argue this... but the whole walnut stock thing just defies sanity... Seriously???? Oh dear...that does weaken the logic of the assault weapon ban by quite a bit.
Seriously.
I understand that the reason for this is that back in 1994, when Congress last had a go at an Assault Weapon Ban, one of the major supporters of the Ban was asked by a reporter one weekend when he was home why he supported banning the rifle he was hunting with.
Congresscritter said "nonsense! Mini-14 isn't an "assault weapon". Reporter showed him law as written (which made the mini-14 an assault weapon). Congresscritter stuttered a bit, then went back to DC and added Mini-14 to "exempt" list.
So I expect that the mini-14 is still on the exempt list because entirely too many people (including some congresscritters) find it too useful to be a REAL assault weapon.
The synthetic stock version is on the assault weapon list (probably) because someone went to a gun store and made a list of every scary-looking rifle he saw, which included the mini-14 (which comes with several versions of synthetic stock, not even counting aftermarket stocks).
For your further amusement, it might be noted that the 1832 Colt Revolving Shotgun fits one of the definitions on that second list, so a four-shot frontloading black powder (it's not really a muzzleloader, since you load from the front of the cylinder, not the muzzle of the barrel) shotgun is an "assault weapon". On the other hand, my Browning semiauto shotgun is NOT an assault weapon.
It's not the politicians. Contrary to popular/. opinion, our politicians are not stupid.
I beg to differ.
The Assault Weapon Ban proposed earlier this year has a list of weapons considered to be "assault weapons".
Then it has a list of characteristics that make any weapon not listed an "assault weapon".
And then it has a list of weapons that CANNOT be considered "assault weapons".
The first list includes the Ruger Mini-14 (with synthetic stock).
The middle list includes a variety of things, such as a pistol-grip or muzzle-brake.
The last list includes the Ruger Mini-14 (with walnut stock).
Interestingly, I bought a Ruger Mini-14 many years ago (Gawd, I just realized my mini-14 must be 30 years old now!). A while later, I replaced the walnut stock with a synthetic stock (the walnut stock was too damn short for me to shoot comfortably, the synthetic was long enough to keep my wife from nagging me to let her use my mini-14), and later a new front-sight assembly (which included a muzzle-brake).
Is it an "assault weapon"? No, it is not! Because the serial number says it's on the exempt list!
Now, politicians who declare objects to be evil based on looks as opposed to functionality have never struck me as "not stupid".
But when they can't even recognize that they've put the same damn gun on the "evil assault weapon list" and on the "exempt from ever being an evil assault weapon list", they definitely confirm that the politicians in question (plus all the ones in favour of said bill (including Obama) are on the 'too stupid to be allowed to make decisions more important than "what color tie should I wear today" list....
In the unlikely event that a gunpowder ban was passed, within a couple of weeks there'd be ammunition on the market that used something other than gunpowder
The word "gunpowder" is pretty much synonymous with "black powder" (75% saltpeter, 15% charcoal, 10% sulfur for the most common US mix, most national armies back when gunpowder was used had their own recipes which were slight variations of the above).
It's not used in ANY ammunition, and hasn't been since smokeless powders were developed in the late 1800's. Though note that some countries took longer than others to abandon gunpowder in favour of smokeless (the USA was a bit behind the curve, for instance).
On the other hand, those of us with muzzleloaders will be a mite peeved if our muzzleloaders suddenly become completely useless. And I expect that most of the States that get revenue from muzzleloading hunting licenses will be a mite perturbed to lose that revenue.
.notice the big fat gaping hole in the logic? It automatically assumes that FTL drives are not only possible but that some intelligent races WILL be able to build these.
Umm, "interstellar travel" != "FTL drives".
Last I looked at the Fermi Paradox, it assumed STL (Slower Than Light) expansion across the galaxy/universe
Consider this, you have ã10,000 of debt, and are struggling to break even each month. A good friend starts a new business with a genuinely great idea and is looking for ã5,000 of investment. If you borrow ã5,000 and 2 years down the road his company has been successful such that you can cash in half your shares in the company for say, ã50,000 then is that ã15,000 of debt really very scary any more?
On the other hand, if two years down the line, your friend's new business has collapsed and your shares are worthless, you're pretty much screwed.
Note the old guy who drops; probably hit with shrapnel.
If you're talking about the runner who went down, watch the video closely, and you can clearly see something hitting him. Look for an indeterminate white object down near street level.
By the way, I think even the most idiotic gun nuts think we should have some legislation covering guns like, you know, background checks to weed out felons.
Luckily, we passed those laws a couple decades ago.
The question wasn't about whether you personally needed another AR-15 clone, but whether you "could" buy an "assault weapon" casually. You can. The posts indicating it's "illegal" to pick up an "assault weapon" with coke and chips are wrong.
No, it's illegal to do so at a 7-11, unless the cashier also holds an FFL, which makes him just another gun dealer.
Note also that one of the points *I* was making is that the difference between an "assault weapon" and a "Not assault weapon" is sometimes as small as the material the stock is made of.
It should also be noted that even if you buy a walnut-stocked Mini-14 (not an assault weapon), and then replace the stock with a synthetic stock with pistol grip, it is STILL NOT AN ASSAULT WEAPON!
The law is written specifying makes and models as "assault weapons" or "exempt weapons". Which you have, in the case of the mini-14, will be determined by the serial number of the piece (which won't change just because you replace the stock. Or the front sight. Or put a 35-rd magazine in the magazine well instead of the five rd magazine that comes with).
I've already got a Mini-14 (walnut stock), which is functionally identical to the AR-15 clone but without the bother of being considered an "assault weapon".
No, I don't have any 30 round magazines, alas. Closest I could find were 35-rd magazines....
Thinking you shouldn't be able to wander into a 7-11 and pick up an AK47 along with your coke and chips isn't being "anti-gun".
Luckily, that's already illegal.
Just remember, what the anti-gun crowd is all about is banning Ruger Mini-14's with black synthetic stocks as "assault weapons", while, in the same bill, they declare the Ruger Mini-14 with a walnut stock "exempt from being considered an assault weapon".
Frankly, I consider the ignorance of the anti-gunners to be the biggest reason to oppose their positions....
Adoption isn't a right. It's a privilege and for good reason.
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." -- U.S. Constitution, Ninth Amendment
The Ninth Amendment in no way implies that "adoption is a Right". It does imply that it is POSSIBLE that it's a Right.
As to whether it IS a Right is a matter for the Supremes or a Constitutional Amendment.
Note that the Tenth Amendment would tend to make the issue of adoption (sans a Supreme Court ruling to the contrary, or a Constitutional Amendment) a matter for the several States to decide on an individual basis.
George HW Bush campaigned on the conservative principle of getting out of the affairs of other nations. Then he invaded Iraq and Afghanistan.
Umm, no.
George HW Bush was elected in 1988. And had absolutely nothing to do with the invasion of Iraq or Afghanistan (other than being the father of the guy who actually ordered those two invasions).
Admittedly, Desert Storm (which HW did do) can be regarded as an invasion of Iraq (for about four days)....
Slashdot Mirror
Nope. On the other hand, it did cut down on repeat offenders.... ;-)
When the video footage of the Marathon Bombing started to be played, I pointed out to my wife that the it was a perfect example of the difference between the "average cop" and many people's perception of the average cop - the cops were the ones running TOWARD the explosions while everyone else ran AWAY.
Just something to keep in mind....
Not quite correct.
When you go to a gunshow to buy a gun, the seller (if he's a dealer) has to do the same background check he'd do in his regular shop.
The so-called "gunshow loophole" is that you can buy a gun from a private citizen at a gunshow without a background check. Which you can do without going to a gunshow too - yes, it's legal for me to sell one of my guns to someone without running a background check.
It is well known that an eager young bride can do in six months what takes a cow or countess nine....
Umm, no.
90%+ was the percentage of people polled in Pennsylvania that agreed that "requiring background checks for all gun buyers" was a good idea.
It was also the percentage of people polled in New Jersey and Virginia that agreed that "requiring background checks on people buying guns at gun shows".
Neither of which the bill in question did. It insisted on doing bunches of other things.
Note also that the people of New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Virginia are NOT a representative sample of the entire USA on something like gun control....
No, it died because it was believed that it MIGHT BE USED to create a gun owner database.
Interestingly, where they could have put a clause in saying "It shall be unlawful to use NCIS transactions to assemble a database of gun owners", they instead put in the rather more weaselly "this law shall not be construed as allowing a database of gun owners".
Note that there is a semantic difference between "I forbid you to do this" and "I do not give you permission to do this".
Note also that the original NCIS law didn't allow such a database to be constructed, but BATF had to be recalibrated on the issue several times, since they kept right on trying to do it by various means.
Also, did you actually READ that thing?? Lending my .30-06 to my best friend for a hunting trip would be a felony, but giving it to one of my wife's cousins (whom I've never met) would be perfectly fine?! And this makes sense to whom, exactly?
This word does not mean what you think it does...
Perhaps you meant "descendants"?
Good point about Iceland's naming conventions though - hadn't really thought about it, but if we used Ancient German Naming, I'd only know a couple of cousins were related if my Dad had told me so....
And oddly enough, I am both descended from Charlemagne (according to a great-aunt who did some genealogy research several decades ago), and from the Deep South (though I only lived there for one year before I was an adult - career military brat).
Second cousins, then. Biologically, that makes you basically complete strangers....
Seriously.
I understand that the reason for this is that back in 1994, when Congress last had a go at an Assault Weapon Ban, one of the major supporters of the Ban was asked by a reporter one weekend when he was home why he supported banning the rifle he was hunting with.
Congresscritter said "nonsense! Mini-14 isn't an "assault weapon". Reporter showed him law as written (which made the mini-14 an assault weapon). Congresscritter stuttered a bit, then went back to DC and added Mini-14 to "exempt" list.
So I expect that the mini-14 is still on the exempt list because entirely too many people (including some congresscritters) find it too useful to be a REAL assault weapon.
The synthetic stock version is on the assault weapon list (probably) because someone went to a gun store and made a list of every scary-looking rifle he saw, which included the mini-14 (which comes with several versions of synthetic stock, not even counting aftermarket stocks).
For your further amusement, it might be noted that the 1832 Colt Revolving Shotgun fits one of the definitions on that second list, so a four-shot frontloading black powder (it's not really a muzzleloader, since you load from the front of the cylinder, not the muzzle of the barrel) shotgun is an "assault weapon". On the other hand, my Browning semiauto shotgun is NOT an assault weapon.
I beg to differ.
The Assault Weapon Ban proposed earlier this year has a list of weapons considered to be "assault weapons".
Then it has a list of characteristics that make any weapon not listed an "assault weapon".
And then it has a list of weapons that CANNOT be considered "assault weapons".
The first list includes the Ruger Mini-14 (with synthetic stock).
The middle list includes a variety of things, such as a pistol-grip or muzzle-brake.
The last list includes the Ruger Mini-14 (with walnut stock).
Interestingly, I bought a Ruger Mini-14 many years ago (Gawd, I just realized my mini-14 must be 30 years old now!). A while later, I replaced the walnut stock with a synthetic stock (the walnut stock was too damn short for me to shoot comfortably, the synthetic was long enough to keep my wife from nagging me to let her use my mini-14), and later a new front-sight assembly (which included a muzzle-brake).
Is it an "assault weapon"? No, it is not! Because the serial number says it's on the exempt list!
Now, politicians who declare objects to be evil based on looks as opposed to functionality have never struck me as "not stupid".
But when they can't even recognize that they've put the same damn gun on the "evil assault weapon list" and on the "exempt from ever being an evil assault weapon list", they definitely confirm that the politicians in question (plus all the ones in favour of said bill (including Obama) are on the 'too stupid to be allowed to make decisions more important than "what color tie should I wear today" list....
The word "gunpowder" is pretty much synonymous with "black powder" (75% saltpeter, 15% charcoal, 10% sulfur for the most common US mix, most national armies back when gunpowder was used had their own recipes which were slight variations of the above).
It's not used in ANY ammunition, and hasn't been since smokeless powders were developed in the late 1800's. Though note that some countries took longer than others to abandon gunpowder in favour of smokeless (the USA was a bit behind the curve, for instance).
On the other hand, those of us with muzzleloaders will be a mite peeved if our muzzleloaders suddenly become completely useless. And I expect that most of the States that get revenue from muzzleloading hunting licenses will be a mite perturbed to lose that revenue.
Crisis: "A time of intense difficulty, trouble, or danger."
Crises: plural of "crisis".
Umm, "interstellar travel" != "FTL drives".
Last I looked at the Fermi Paradox, it assumed STL (Slower Than Light) expansion across the galaxy/universe
On the other hand, if two years down the line, your friend's new business has collapsed and your shares are worthless, you're pretty much screwed.
Apparently, he was doing something suspicious. Specifically, he was running away from the explosions.
Don't know about you, but I'm pretty sure running away from explosions is the NORMAL reaction, not a "suspicious activity".
Which is a roundabout way of saying "you're probably right, he looked too Muslim"....
If you're talking about the runner who went down, watch the video closely, and you can clearly see something hitting him. Look for an indeterminate white object down near street level.
Luckily, we passed those laws a couple decades ago.
Unlikely. The bullet is likely to blow right through the bird, and land somewhere over-thataway.
You don't actually get all that much ballistic info from the bullet hole....
Umm, no.
Gold has other uses than as money - jewelry, for instance. Or a superb conductor.
No, it's illegal to do so at a 7-11, unless the cashier also holds an FFL, which makes him just another gun dealer.
Note also that one of the points *I* was making is that the difference between an "assault weapon" and a "Not assault weapon" is sometimes as small as the material the stock is made of.
It should also be noted that even if you buy a walnut-stocked Mini-14 (not an assault weapon), and then replace the stock with a synthetic stock with pistol grip, it is STILL NOT AN ASSAULT WEAPON!
The law is written specifying makes and models as "assault weapons" or "exempt weapons". Which you have, in the case of the mini-14, will be determined by the serial number of the piece (which won't change just because you replace the stock. Or the front sight. Or put a 35-rd magazine in the magazine well instead of the five rd magazine that comes with).
Why??
I've already got a Mini-14 (walnut stock), which is functionally identical to the AR-15 clone but without the bother of being considered an "assault weapon".
No, I don't have any 30 round magazines, alas. Closest I could find were 35-rd magazines....
Luckily, that's already illegal.
Just remember, what the anti-gun crowd is all about is banning Ruger Mini-14's with black synthetic stocks as "assault weapons", while, in the same bill, they declare the Ruger Mini-14 with a walnut stock "exempt from being considered an assault weapon".
Frankly, I consider the ignorance of the anti-gunners to be the biggest reason to oppose their positions....
The Ninth Amendment in no way implies that "adoption is a Right". It does imply that it is POSSIBLE that it's a Right.
As to whether it IS a Right is a matter for the Supremes or a Constitutional Amendment.
Note that the Tenth Amendment would tend to make the issue of adoption (sans a Supreme Court ruling to the contrary, or a Constitutional Amendment) a matter for the several States to decide on an individual basis.
Umm, no.
George HW Bush was elected in 1988. And had absolutely nothing to do with the invasion of Iraq or Afghanistan (other than being the father of the guy who actually ordered those two invasions).
Admittedly, Desert Storm (which HW did do) can be regarded as an invasion of Iraq (for about four days)....