That seems to be a limit on congress. Does that apply to states?
14th Amendment would have made it applicable to the individual States, even assuming CA didn't have such a provision in its own Constitution (which it does, Article 1, Section 9).
How likely do you believe it is that a particular dinosaur taxon survived a few million years after the extinction event, and what would be the implications of this occurring?
Last I heard, birds are a subset of dinosauria, and since I can see a couple of birds by looking over the top of my display, I'd say it was pretty much 100% certain that some dinosaurs survived that particular extinction event.
Did it not occur to you that perhaps the majority of people are actually in favour of gun control and it's not some "libreal" conspiracy?
By this logic, if 51% of the populace thought that Obama was doing a bad job, then the media should NEVER MENTION the things he does right.
Fact is, the majority of the people in control of the media in this country are anti-gun - which is why there is next to no reporting that even suggests that there might be a reasonable debate on the subject. It's just "pro gun-control == GREAT GUY" and "anti gun-control == EVIL NEANDERTAL"
"10. When an individual computer user types "Guy Hin... ", into the Google search engine as a search, the words "Guy Hingston Bankrupt" appears.
Along with "Guy Hingston", "Dr Guy Hingston", "Guy Hinton", "guy hints", "Guy Hindley", "guy Hindi meaning", and several more...
When the link(s) is clicked on, the article{s) to which the user is directed has absolutely nothing to do with a bankruptcy associated with Dr. Hingston. Dr. Hingston is not bankrupt. Any association with Dr. Hingston and a bankruptcy is in false light and/or defamatory. Dr. Hingston has directed numerous inquiries and made numerous requests, both oral and written, to Google for immediate action to resolve the foregoing issue to no avail."
Actually, when I click on "Guy Hingston bankrupt", I get pointed to a jillion articles about him suing Google over the "Guy Hingston bankrupt" autocomplete, so I guess it is technically true that the "article{s) to which the user is directed has absolutely nothing to do with a bankruptcy associated with Dr. Hingston"...
On the other hand, if this/. article hadn't come up, I'd never have bothered to look him up on Google, and even if I had, I'd probably have stopped at the first autocomplete that was offered ("Guy Hingston" - the second was "Dr Guy Hingston", then the bankrupt one came in third)....
Which would be great, if you leave your car in the garage all day. Most of us drive around, so if the panels aren't on the car to keep it charged they're utterly useless to us.
I can't decide whether this was a joke or not. For the benefit of those who might not take it that way, I'll point out that these cars have batteries that allow them to collect energy from their garages and (gasp!) drive around with it.
I can't decide whether this was a joke either.
For the benefit of those who might not take it that way, I'll point out that if you actually use your car in the daytime, it's not going to be in the garage charging while the sun is up, it's going to be...elsewhere....
While it is a fact that every male citizen at the right age has a gone and ammunition in case it is needed to defend their country, these guns are in no way available. There will be regular checks that these guns are _very_ safely looked away, that they haven't been used, and that all ammunition is there.
And noone in Switzerland would go bat-s*&t crazy and decide to see how many people he could blow away, starting just AFTER his "regular inspection"?
There are more than good and sufficient reasons that violent crime is low in Switzerland without inventing something like "They'd never DARE to use their fully automatic weapons because the regular inspections scare them too much."
This is absolutely scandalous yet the majority of US citizens seem more concerned with retaining the ability to obtain unlicensed semi-automatic weapons or the Kardashian foibles rather than making a fuss about the current Administration's assault on Free Speech (eg. the US military now has a list of words it may not use, like "Islamic terrorism" etc).
So the current administration is assaulting the First Amendment AND the Second Amendment?
When you decide that the Second is as important as the First, I'll consider caring about what Hillary and Obama are saying....
The weapons you are describing are military derivative firearms and by all rights, SHOULD be banned IMO.
Why? Many guns, including traditional-looking hunting guns, are derivatives of military design. Why does that matter in any way?
Virtually all bolt-action rifles (the overwhelming majority of hunting rifles around the world) are based on the Mauser bolt-action. Which was originally developed as a military weapon (and was used as such by pretty much every country in the world, including the USA, as the standard for service rifles from the 1890's to post-ww2 [note an exception for the British Empire, which used the Lee-Enfield and variants, which were not Mauser-based designs, but were better in some ways]).
Most of the remaining hunting rifles are either semi-automatic (and thus "EVIL!!" to the gun-banners), or single-shot. Virtually all single-shot rifles are based on a handful of designs, all of which were originally developed as military weapons (note the Ruger Number One as an example - it uses essentially the same action as the Sharps Rifle, a Civil War era military firearm).
By the definition of "military derivative firearms and by all rights, SHOULD be banned", you basically cover EVERY firearm ever made...
Which, I assume, was your point - there are people who won't be happy until there are no guns outside government control anywhere.
Next they'll be calling those hunting rifles "Sniper Rifles." Disarmament advocates are never satisfied.
Considering that most real "sniper rifles" are, in fact, civilian model hunting rifles (for a long time, the US Army used the Remington 700 bolt-action as its sniper rifle), that wouldn't be too much of a stretch for the hoplophobes....
The problem with this is that the majority of handguns have magazines that hold more than that. The ones that don't are either really tiny for concealed carry or fire very large rounds like.45ACP.
The previous "assault weapon ban" instituted the ten-round magazine limit.
One of the interesting side-effects of that limit was the near-disappearance of what were then called "wonder-nines" from the market, and their replacement by weapons of.40 or.45 caliber (after all, if you can only have 10 rounds, and your gun is designed for 15+, might as well retool to use a larger cartridge while you're retooling to limit magazine size).
As an example, my Browning Hi-power (which isn't very "high powered") had a 13 round magazine in 9mm) was redesigned as a 0.40 caliber pistol with a ten round magazine.
Net result of ban - more powerful handguns on the market.
With a seven-round limit, I expect that.45 will become the de-facto standard for handguns in NY....
I have a feeling gun shops will hoard "assault weapons" and higher cap clips before the law goes into effect
Why would they do that? It'll be illegal to sell those "hoarded" guns/magazines, which will leave the gun shops stuck with inventory they can't sell.
Besides, as the other respondent pointed out, the things are flying off the shelves now - you can't keep them in stock.
Speaking of which, I need to go buy an AR-15 clone if Obama decides to go this route too. I skipped buying one last time this particular hysteria hit, but I won't this time....
The 2nd Amendment guarantees that you can bear arms. It certainly doesn't guarantee you assault rifles or high-capacity clips. You're guaranteed the right to bear arms, alright. So lets restrict the definition of "arms" to muzzle-loading black powder long rifles.
The First Amendment guarantees you Free Speech and Free Press. It certainly doesn't guarantee you an uncensored Internet. So let's restrict the definition of "free press" to manually typeset and operated printing presses, and "free speech" to anything you can say with NO artificial aids (no loudspeakers, no radio, no telephone, no tv, no internet).
I don't understand why weapons that can fire in a burst are illegal. What is the rational for this?
"St. Valentine's Day Massacre" is the phrase you're looking for. It was the excuse FDR used to make fully automatic weapons largely illegal.
Before that, owning a real, mil-spec BAR was perfectly fine, and as simple as mail-ordering it from Browning, Inc.
Note, for the record, that the St. Valentine's Day Massacre could have been duplicated quit easily with cap and ball revolvers from the Civil War (if each shooter had had two revolvers, it would have taken them less than 30 seconds to empty them)....
I think this would be an interesting science experiment, both the biology of "is a space sickness adjusted human vulnerable to wobbly walls" and the science experiment of repetitive strain failure modes of flex materials (the skin doesn't bend twice, once when made and once when inflated in space, it bends at say 1 Hz continuous while deployed if the structure wobbles.
As far as the repetitive strain failure goes, there have been two testbeds of the inflatable module in space for five or so years each, neither of which failed that way.
And given the pressure differential involved, I suspect that the walls would seem as rigid as steel - 15cm thick, supported by 14.7psi (yes, I'm mixing measurement systems shamelessly) internal pressure isn't going to allow much room for "wobbly walls"....
Mm, but a tyre has 15 PSI (1 standard atmosphere) on the outside to counteract the 35 PSI on the inside.
This'll have 15 PSI on the inside, close to zero on the outside.
Accepting your numbers as valid (they aren't - the 35 psi in your tires is relative to atmospheric pressure, not absolute), that means a pressure differential on this module of 15 psi, as opposed to the 20 psi pressure differential on the tire.
Do you see a lot of tires exploding due to the pressure differential where you live?
I'm curious about pressure though. In the vacuum of space, if it's inflated to human-habitable pressures, won't the pressure difference between inside and outside put an enormous strain on the fabric?
Note that the Genesis testbeds have been in orbit for years with no problems.
Admittedly, Genesis was only inflated to 10 psi or so, and the ISS is pressurized to 14.7psi. But 14.7 psi is, presumably, well within the design specs of the module, since it was originally designed to handle a standard atmosphere of internal pressure.
Hmm, ion engine Isp of 20000, say. Thrust of 10 newtons. All-up spacecraft mass of 75 tons.
Time to escape speed from LEO, about 22 months.
NERVA, Isp = 800, say. Thrust of 300,000 newtons. All-up spacecraft mass of 100 tons.
Time to escape speed from LEO, about 18 MINUTES.
NERVA isn't a replacement for an ion drive on a deep-space probe, it's a replacement for a chemical rocket on a (large) manned spacecraft going from LEO (or higher) to a similar orbit around the moon/mars/venus/wherever.
Slashdot Mirror
14th Amendment would have made it applicable to the individual States, even assuming CA didn't have such a provision in its own Constitution (which it does, Article 1, Section 9).
So, where's the ex post facto law in this case?
While I consider CA's behaviour slightly sleazy (though predictable), I can't see anything unconstitutional here.
No low is being made retroactive.
An old law is being declared unconstitutional, and therefore all the benefits and penalties under the old law were invalid in the first place.
Last I heard, birds are a subset of dinosauria, and since I can see a couple of birds by looking over the top of my display, I'd say it was pretty much 100% certain that some dinosaurs survived that particular extinction event.
By this logic, if 51% of the populace thought that Obama was doing a bad job, then the media should NEVER MENTION the things he does right.
Fact is, the majority of the people in control of the media in this country are anti-gun - which is why there is next to no reporting that even suggests that there might be a reasonable debate on the subject. It's just "pro gun-control == GREAT GUY" and "anti gun-control == EVIL NEANDERTAL"
Please note that murder (and all its variants) are State-level crimes (unless performed on a Federal agent/employee).
As a result, the death penalty for murder only applies in those States which have death penalties.
And even in those States, the death penalty applies much less often than one might think....
Along with "Guy Hingston", "Dr Guy Hingston", "Guy Hinton", "guy hints", "Guy Hindley", "guy Hindi meaning", and several more...
Actually, when I click on "Guy Hingston bankrupt", I get pointed to a jillion articles about him suing Google over the "Guy Hingston bankrupt" autocomplete, so I guess it is technically true that the "article{s) to which the user is directed has absolutely nothing to do with a bankruptcy associated with Dr. Hingston"...
On the other hand, if this /. article hadn't come up, I'd never have bothered to look him up on Google, and even if I had, I'd probably have stopped at the first autocomplete that was offered ("Guy Hingston" - the second was "Dr Guy Hingston", then the bankrupt one came in third)....
Yeah, the teachers don't really need them anyway.
Or did you mean "principles", perhaps?
I can't decide whether this was a joke either.
For the benefit of those who might not take it that way, I'll point out that if you actually use your car in the daytime, it's not going to be in the garage charging while the sun is up, it's going to be...elsewhere....
And noone in Switzerland would go bat-s*&t crazy and decide to see how many people he could blow away, starting just AFTER his "regular inspection"?
There are more than good and sufficient reasons that violent crime is low in Switzerland without inventing something like "They'd never DARE to use their fully automatic weapons because the regular inspections scare them too much."
So the current administration is assaulting the First Amendment AND the Second Amendment?
When you decide that the Second is as important as the First, I'll consider caring about what Hillary and Obama are saying....
Virtually all bolt-action rifles (the overwhelming majority of hunting rifles around the world) are based on the Mauser bolt-action. Which was originally developed as a military weapon (and was used as such by pretty much every country in the world, including the USA, as the standard for service rifles from the 1890's to post-ww2 [note an exception for the British Empire, which used the Lee-Enfield and variants, which were not Mauser-based designs, but were better in some ways]).
Most of the remaining hunting rifles are either semi-automatic (and thus "EVIL!!" to the gun-banners), or single-shot. Virtually all single-shot rifles are based on a handful of designs, all of which were originally developed as military weapons (note the Ruger Number One as an example - it uses essentially the same action as the Sharps Rifle, a Civil War era military firearm).
By the definition of "military derivative firearms and by all rights, SHOULD be banned", you basically cover EVERY firearm ever made...
Which, I assume, was your point - there are people who won't be happy until there are no guns outside government control anywhere.
Considering that most real "sniper rifles" are, in fact, civilian model hunting rifles (for a long time, the US Army used the Remington 700 bolt-action as its sniper rifle), that wouldn't be too much of a stretch for the hoplophobes....
The previous "assault weapon ban" instituted the ten-round magazine limit.
One of the interesting side-effects of that limit was the near-disappearance of what were then called "wonder-nines" from the market, and their replacement by weapons of .40 or .45 caliber (after all, if you can only have 10 rounds, and your gun is designed for 15+, might as well retool to use a larger cartridge while you're retooling to limit magazine size).
As an example, my Browning Hi-power (which isn't very "high powered") had a 13 round magazine in 9mm) was redesigned as a 0.40 caliber pistol with a ten round magazine.
Net result of ban - more powerful handguns on the market.
With a seven-round limit, I expect that .45 will become the de-facto standard for handguns in NY....
Why would they do that? It'll be illegal to sell those "hoarded" guns/magazines, which will leave the gun shops stuck with inventory they can't sell.
Besides, as the other respondent pointed out, the things are flying off the shelves now - you can't keep them in stock.
Speaking of which, I need to go buy an AR-15 clone if Obama decides to go this route too. I skipped buying one last time this particular hysteria hit, but I won't this time....
Could be tricky, since selling them out-of-State is a violation of Federal law.
Well, most of them had their guns in their cars, since it was illegal at that time and place to carry concealed.
Murder rate Mexico: 22.7
Or didn't you know that Mexico has much more restrictive gun control than the USA?
Matter of fact, they already make it illegal to own "assault weapons" (as well as assault rifles).
And yet, they have nearly five times the murder rate - how is that possible??
The First Amendment guarantees you Free Speech and Free Press. It certainly doesn't guarantee you an uncensored Internet. So let's restrict the definition of "free press" to manually typeset and operated printing presses, and "free speech" to anything you can say with NO artificial aids (no loudspeakers, no radio, no telephone, no tv, no internet).
That work for you?
"St. Valentine's Day Massacre" is the phrase you're looking for. It was the excuse FDR used to make fully automatic weapons largely illegal.
Before that, owning a real, mil-spec BAR was perfectly fine, and as simple as mail-ordering it from Browning, Inc.
Note, for the record, that the St. Valentine's Day Massacre could have been duplicated quit easily with cap and ball revolvers from the Civil War (if each shooter had had two revolvers, it would have taken them less than 30 seconds to empty them)....
Think six inches, not car tire.
And material stronger than kevlar, not vulcanized rubber.
As far as the repetitive strain failure goes, there have been two testbeds of the inflatable module in space for five or so years each, neither of which failed that way.
And given the pressure differential involved, I suspect that the walls would seem as rigid as steel - 15cm thick, supported by 14.7psi (yes, I'm mixing measurement systems shamelessly) internal pressure isn't going to allow much room for "wobbly walls"....
Accepting your numbers as valid (they aren't - the 35 psi in your tires is relative to atmospheric pressure, not absolute), that means a pressure differential on this module of 15 psi, as opposed to the 20 psi pressure differential on the tire.
Do you see a lot of tires exploding due to the pressure differential where you live?
Note that the Genesis testbeds have been in orbit for years with no problems.
Admittedly, Genesis was only inflated to 10 psi or so, and the ISS is pressurized to 14.7psi. But 14.7 psi is, presumably, well within the design specs of the module, since it was originally designed to handle a standard atmosphere of internal pressure.
Hmm, ion engine Isp of 20000, say. Thrust of 10 newtons. All-up spacecraft mass of 75 tons.
Time to escape speed from LEO, about 22 months.
NERVA, Isp = 800, say. Thrust of 300,000 newtons. All-up spacecraft mass of 100 tons.
Time to escape speed from LEO, about 18 MINUTES.
NERVA isn't a replacement for an ion drive on a deep-space probe, it's a replacement for a chemical rocket on a (large) manned spacecraft going from LEO (or higher) to a similar orbit around the moon/mars/venus/wherever.