People are saying that certain guns should be banned because they have a high rate of fire that allow untrained psychos to kill large numbers of people. That is the adult discussion.
Hmm, last "assault weapon ban" included the MAK-90 (a semi-auto AK-47 clone), and SPECIFICALLY EXEMPTED the Ruger Mini-14 (a semi-auto clone of the M-14 using.223 instead of.308).
Both weapons had the same rate of fire (you pull the trigger, a bullet goes downrange), both used a standard military cartridge (the MAK-90 used the 7.62x39, the Mini-14 used the 5.56 NATO), both came with ten round magazines standard, but were capable of accepting larger (30 round magazines for both are common).
So, explain to me again how the one was banned for "good" reasons and the other was allowed?
It should also be noted that if the idiot at Newton could have done a much better job of killing people if he'd left the Bushmaster in the car and taken the shotgun inside - at short range, a shotgun is MUCH more lethal than any "assault weapon" ever made....
Pretty impossible to say if the planet is habitable, but at 4 times the Earth's mass it definitely isn't Earth-like. The search continues...
Hmm, four times the mass, assume same density, we get 1.6g. Certainly not beyond the bounds of survival.
That's probably the low end, assuming an "Earthlike" planet. High end is probably less than 2g, unless we're talking serious heavy-metal conncentrations, which would make it uninhabitable anyway.
Samsung is already doing really well in the market as it is, so why should they bother to try and limit what other devices companies can sell?
Given that Samsung asked for this injunction after Apple tried for a similar injunction in the USA (which, conveniently enough, was just denied), I would expect that this was just a tit-for-tat maneuver to convince Apple that the stakes were getting a bit high.
So now that Apple no longer has the injunction option in the USA, dropping the European one by Samsung just makes sense.
What the founders intended is that those that exercise their right to bear arms be members of a regulated militia. The meaning has been twisted over the years, but the original intent is obvious because it is literal.
Note, for the record, that back in 1791, "regulated" was a form of the word "regular", as in "regular army".
In other words, it meant, more or less "trained".
Note also that under the Militia Act, we're ALL members of the militia. And, under that act, required to own and be reasonably capable of using firearms....
Like as not, some fool has characterized a deer rifle as an "assault weapon", but he may well have been carrying an SKS or something.
It should be noted that an SKS makes a dandy deer rifle. It's about as powerful as a.30-30 (nowhere near as powerful as the 30-06 *I* use as a deer rifle), and light enough to lug around the woods all day with no problems.
Note also that the ONLY thing that would make it an "assault weapon" under the previous or soon-to-be-proposed legislation is the bayonet lug that the thing usually comes with. After all, it only holds ten rounds, which is the usual cutoff for "assault weapon".
Perhaps like, for instance, mentally-unstable individuals able to obtain semi-automatic assault riffle
There is no such thing as a "semi-automatic assault rifle". "Assault rifles", by definition, are selective-fire or fully automatic.
What you are perhaps thinking of is what the media and anti-gun nuts call an "assault weapon", which is functionally identical to a semi-automatic deer rifle...or a.22 LR, for that matter.
Note, by the by, that semi-automatic.22 LR is pistols are used in several Olympic sports....
Note further that if Butthead had not had any "semi-automatic assault rifles" to use, he could have used a pump-action 12 gauge shotgun, and done much MORE damage....
In a society where people can carry guns, can buy automatic guns
If by "automatic guns", you mean "fully automatic guns", then they're generally illegal here too. Takes a special license (which are, at best, a bitch to get), special taxes (high), etc....
If you mean "semi-automatic guns", then the difference between those evil "semi-automatic" guns" and a typical semi-auto hunting rifle (like, say, my.22 long rifle) is zero, effectively.
Here's the problem: Those laws/rules/loopholes/allowances etc were created by the money influences which are benefiting from them.
Hmm, so the "money influences" decided that the average taxpayer needed a "standard deduction", right?
Or a deduction for mortgage interest paid?
Or, at various State levels a "homestead exemption" to Property Taxes?
Just a few of the more obvious examples of LEGAL reductions in tax rates for the "average person". There are more, if you want to bother looking them up. Your tax software will even ask you about them when you get around to doing your income tax return(s)....
Every Friday I help out at my son's elementary school, and sometimes we talk about space. The kids are way more interested in Curiosity [wikipedia.org] and New Horizons [wikipedia.org] than they are about the ISS [wikipedia.org].
Of course, Curiousity is actually doing something other than just moving in a circle around the Earth.
Would the kids be more interested in Curiousity than they would be in six men on Mars?
If my math is right, a person talking on the phone for an hour per day is only a little over 4 gigs per year at typical cell phone bitrates. Are you saying that it is unrealistic for the phone company to keep 12 gigabytes of storage per customer for three years? If not, then voice recording is not unrealistic.
If you'd extended your math slightly, you'd have noticed that your example results in ~4 exabytes of required storage spread over the entire USA's telephone companies.
Not impossible, nor even improbable, I suppose, but a significant expenditure nonetheless....
There is no actual money in the SS Trust fund. Reagan took a bit of it, Clinton took most of it, and Bush Jr finished it off. There's only an IOU there with no economic value.
There is no actual money in the SS Trust Fund. There NEVER was any money in the SS Trust Fund.
First, the fund does not invest in T-Bills â" it holds special units. They look like treasury notes, they pay interest like treasury notes, and are backed by the full faith and credit of the US.
Not quite. Those intragovernmental t-bills that the SSA Trust Fund is made of of are Non-interest-bearing, like all inntragovernmental T-bills.
In other words, they're IOU's from the Congress to the SSA.
And will be about as worthwhile when the Congress has no money to pay the bills other than raise taxes or cut benefits....
The resulting crop failures when reality failed to match up to "worker's science" killed a huge fraction - possibly the majority - of the millions who died under those regimes.
The crop failures and "workers' science" were largely unrelated.
For the most part, the "crop failures" were a side-effect of a deliberate attempt to force the peasantry out of the fields and into collective farms and/or factories..
Never mind that it resulted in millions of deaths - that wasn't nearly as important as modernizing, right?
we americans are not in any urgency to return the US lands that were *stolen* from the american indians. totally 100% stolen in unfair wars that one side had a huge tech advantage in.
While I don't disagree with the general sense of this comment, it should be pointed out, for accuracy, that the "huge tech advantage" was not always enjoyed by the Whites.
As an example, King Philip's War (between the Puritans and the local Indians) had the Puritans using matchlock weapons (because that's what they brought with them), but the Indians were using flintlocks (because they made enough selling furs to afford "modern" firearms).
For that matter, most of the "Indian Wars" in the West involved US troops using single-shot rifles against Indians using whatever - including repeating rifles.
The real problem the Indians had wasn't the tech disadvantage, it was the numerical disadvantage - a semi-nomadic people just don't have the numbers to stand up against even an agrarian society.
Slashdot Mirror
Rule One is "the gun is ALWAYS loaded".
If you follow that rule plus the "don't point a loaded gun at people ever", you've pretty much got gun safety covered.
Hmm, last "assault weapon ban" included the MAK-90 (a semi-auto AK-47 clone), and SPECIFICALLY EXEMPTED the Ruger Mini-14 (a semi-auto clone of the M-14 using .223 instead of .308).
Both weapons had the same rate of fire (you pull the trigger, a bullet goes downrange), both used a standard military cartridge (the MAK-90 used the 7.62x39, the Mini-14 used the 5.56 NATO), both came with ten round magazines standard, but were capable of accepting larger (30 round magazines for both are common).
So, explain to me again how the one was banned for "good" reasons and the other was allowed?
It should also be noted that if the idiot at Newton could have done a much better job of killing people if he'd left the Bushmaster in the car and taken the shotgun inside - at short range, a shotgun is MUCH more lethal than any "assault weapon" ever made....
Hmm, four times the mass, assume same density, we get 1.6g. Certainly not beyond the bounds of survival.
That's probably the low end, assuming an "Earthlike" planet. High end is probably less than 2g, unless we're talking serious heavy-metal conncentrations, which would make it uninhabitable anyway.
Given that Samsung asked for this injunction after Apple tried for a similar injunction in the USA (which, conveniently enough, was just denied), I would expect that this was just a tit-for-tat maneuver to convince Apple that the stakes were getting a bit high.
So now that Apple no longer has the injunction option in the USA, dropping the European one by Samsung just makes sense.
No, you cannot do that!
The DEALER is required by law to perform the instant background check in order to sell a gun, even at a gunshow.
Well, no.
More like ten per day. Nearly 2/3 of which are suicides.
Note, for the record, that back in 1791, "regulated" was a form of the word "regular", as in "regular army".
In other words, it meant, more or less "trained".
Note also that under the Militia Act, we're ALL members of the militia. And, under that act, required to own and be reasonably capable of using firearms....
Strange but true.
It should be noted that an SKS makes a dandy deer rifle. It's about as powerful as a .30-30 (nowhere near as powerful as the 30-06 *I* use as a deer rifle), and light enough to lug around the woods all day with no problems.
Note also that the ONLY thing that would make it an "assault weapon" under the previous or soon-to-be-proposed legislation is the bayonet lug that the thing usually comes with. After all, it only holds ten rounds, which is the usual cutoff for "assault weapon".
Two 9mm? Yah, that's unstable alright. It's not like the 9mm is an especially good pistol round - I prefer the .40 S&W myself. Or a .45.
On the other hand, my wife has been an avid shooter for years - she has more than 2 9mm and a rifle.
There is no such thing as a "semi-automatic assault rifle". "Assault rifles", by definition, are selective-fire or fully automatic.
What you are perhaps thinking of is what the media and anti-gun nuts call an "assault weapon", which is functionally identical to a semi-automatic deer rifle...or a .22 LR, for that matter.
Note, by the by, that semi-automatic .22 LR is pistols are used in several Olympic sports....
Note further that if Butthead had not had any "semi-automatic assault rifles" to use, he could have used a pump-action 12 gauge shotgun, and done much MORE damage....
If by "automatic guns", you mean "fully automatic guns", then they're generally illegal here too. Takes a special license (which are, at best, a bitch to get), special taxes (high), etc....
If you mean "semi-automatic guns", then the difference between those evil "semi-automatic" guns" and a typical semi-auto hunting rifle (like, say, my .22 long rifle) is zero, effectively.
Hmm, so the "money influences" decided that the average taxpayer needed a "standard deduction", right?
Or a deduction for mortgage interest paid?
Or, at various State levels a "homestead exemption" to Property Taxes?
Just a few of the more obvious examples of LEGAL reductions in tax rates for the "average person". There are more, if you want to bother looking them up. Your tax software will even ask you about them when you get around to doing your income tax return(s)....
Of course, Curiousity is actually doing something other than just moving in a circle around the Earth.
Would the kids be more interested in Curiousity than they would be in six men on Mars?
If you'd extended your math slightly, you'd have noticed that your example results in ~4 exabytes of required storage spread over the entire USA's telephone companies.
Not impossible, nor even improbable, I suppose, but a significant expenditure nonetheless....
Yes, it is. And a perfectly valid reason to say "Thank you for removing your genes from the gene pool"
There is no actual money in the SS Trust Fund. There NEVER was any money in the SS Trust Fund.
Not quite. Those intragovernmental t-bills that the SSA Trust Fund is made of of are Non-interest-bearing, like all inntragovernmental T-bills.
In other words, they're IOU's from the Congress to the SSA.
And will be about as worthwhile when the Congress has no money to pay the bills other than raise taxes or cut benefits....
The crop failures and "workers' science" were largely unrelated.
For the most part, the "crop failures" were a side-effect of a deliberate attempt to force the peasantry out of the fields and into collective farms and/or factories..
Never mind that it resulted in millions of deaths - that wasn't nearly as important as modernizing, right?
"Intents and purposes"....
While I don't disagree with the general sense of this comment, it should be pointed out, for accuracy, that the "huge tech advantage" was not always enjoyed by the Whites.
As an example, King Philip's War (between the Puritans and the local Indians) had the Puritans using matchlock weapons (because that's what they brought with them), but the Indians were using flintlocks (because they made enough selling furs to afford "modern" firearms).
For that matter, most of the "Indian Wars" in the West involved US troops using single-shot rifles against Indians using whatever - including repeating rifles.
The real problem the Indians had wasn't the tech disadvantage, it was the numerical disadvantage - a semi-nomadic people just don't have the numbers to stand up against even an agrarian society.
Umm, no.
Bringing the government into it (in the form of a lawsuit) isn't "libertarian", it's "authoritarian".
Turducken....
So, now you get to define "combatant" in a way that can't be gamed by the combatants....
If I fire a missile, but am otherwise unarmed, will I be recognized as a "combatant"? Ditto if I'm 14?
A quick check with my calculator shows about 55% chance of a match with 8000 samples and .9999 accuracy on the match.
With a random sample....
The word you were desperately searching for when you found "walla" was "voila'....