No, why would there be? Was there a white equivalent of slavery in the US?
Our histories are parallel and intertwined, but not equal. Without injustice, the NAACP would not be necessary. The NAACP was started in the early 1900s, when blacks often couldn't vote or stay in the same hotel or use the same drinking fountain. The NAACP is a demonstration of exactly what I'm talking about - we still haven't healed.
And the NAACP intends to make damned sure we don't. If nobody believed there was a problem, they'd have to find honest work. Much easier to fan the flames and make sure that everybody knows how big the problem is so that race-baiters will continue to have power.
Because, absent any risk of actual failure, the banks have no incentive not to go down the same destructive path next week.
If failure carried serious negative outcomes--like the risk of bankruptcy--banks would have a reason to be far more cautious. A few people are better off in the short term, but all of us are worse off in the long run.
Banning links to copyrighted material is plainly asinine.
Banning links to copyrighted material would result in the legal destruction of the internet, at least in the US.
Under US copyright law, copyrights for all material are held by the author (with certain limited exceptions). The vast majority of works never have their copyrights registered, but registration is not necessary for copyright to apply. "Banning links to copyrighted material" is thus redundant, and can be shortened to simply "banning links."
Monopoly doesn't mean "I want this specific product, and only one company makes it;" rather, it applies to an entire broad category of goods that are generally related. Or do you think that Nikon holds a monopoly on 70-200mm f/2.8 vibration-reducing lenses that fit Nikon bodies?
Actually, he did answer the question, if you're sharp enough to catch it.
The current administration--along with the Congressional leadership--has shown itself to be hostile to the idea of us mere citizens owning firearms. Demand is through the roof as some of us--the ones who believe that the government is answerable to its people--are stocking up in case of future interruptions in supply. Modern marketing methods include the "just-in-time" supply chain; with the incredible spike in demand, not only are the ammo manufacturers unable to keep up, but their suppliers are unable to keep up with their demand. Metals suppliers--lead, copper, zinc--chemical suppliers--powder and priming compounds--etc. The entire supply chain is thin right now.
Now, the ammo manufacturers are doing the best they can. By raising prices, they're able to pay higher prices to their suppliers, increasing the quantity of raw materials supplied. By doing so, they have been able to increase production somewhat, but that has limits. The factories are running at full capacity. The only way to increase production past that point, assuming the availability of input materials, is to expand the production line. That would require the manufacturers to take out loans. Unfortunately, due to the aforementioned "leaders" running the show, it's by no means certain that the manufacturers would be able to sell enough ammunition to pay back those loans; said "leaders" are working on any number of laws to restrict ammunition sales (see, for example, microstamping, limitations on purchase quantities, and so forth). Considering the political risk, banks are (quite wisely) reticent to loan large sums of money to engage in such ventures. Throw in the fact that everybody knows it's a bubble, and will inevitably burst, and even if the manufacturers could get the money, they know that the increased demand probably wouldn't last through the payback period on the expansion. In fact, this is already starting to happen, proving the wisdom of riding the storm out without expanding facilities.
Not if he does it voluntarily. Then it's altruism, which is entirely different.
The moral problem with communism is that you don't donate, but rather have resources taken from you at the (implied) point of a gun. There's nothing wrong--and, in fact, everything right--with choosing to donate to the benefit of others.
Disclaimer: I don't own a single firearm, bullet, or even an axe.
Well, I can see where that would qualify you to speak on the topic.
Speaking as somebody who does own firearms, and who is in the process of buying a suppressor, let me correct the record.
A) The "Class 3" refers to the license a dealer has to have to transfer a suppressor (or other item regulated by the National Firearms Act of 1934). It refers to the class of Special Occupation Taxpayer (SOT) license he has to deal in firearms. There is no license per se required for mere ownership.
B) There is a $200 transfer fee per NFA item. They are "shall-issue" at the Federal level: if you have no criminal record, and what you propose to buy is legal in your jurisdiction, your application will be granted. Most things are legal in most places; some states have more restrictive laws on one or more of the general categories under the NFA (machine guns, short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, suppressors, destructive devices, "any other weapon"). If your state forbids them, the Feds will deny the transfer.
Note that "high capacity firearm" and "armor-piercing ammunition" are not on that list. The former are not subject to special regulation at the Federal level since the expiry of the "Assault Weapons" ban in 2004, and the latter is regulated for pistols, but there isn't a transfer tax or such, just a restriction on manufacture or import.
C) Holding fee? What are you talking about? And the sheriff doesn't have to do a background check, at least not according to the Feds (some states may require it). In fact, as far as the Feds are concerned, you're not necessarily even required to talk to you local law enforcement: you can either get a signature from your Chief Law Enforcement Officer, or you can form a trust or corporation to own the NFA item, bypassing the CLEO entirely. This option is getting more popular.
Do you think it would be more of a shame if he accidentally cut his throat while shaving, slipped and fell down three flights of stairs, or tripped and hit his head on a bullet?
It's an airplane so you land at a designated airport just like every other airplane in existence. It must not be that obvious if you can't figure that out. The FARs(US Federal Air Regulations) and the CAR(Canadian Air Regulations) clearly state any aircraft is not to attempt take off or landing on any surface unless that surface is a designated airport or aerodrome.
Cite? I'm looking through the FARs, but I don't see that regulation, and frankly, given the number of people who operate off of a mowed strip on their private farms, I think you may be misinterpreting a regulation.
... You can get a private pilot's license, good for light aircraft and night flying, for about $5,000, with about 100 hours logged. Simulator time counts.
Where are you getting your training for $50/hr? I charge half that just for my time as a CFI, and I don't know anything short of a Champ or Cub that only burns $25/hr in gas, to say nothing of maintenance, insurance, etc.
My real question is what kind of fuel it runs on. There aren't a lot of aircraft that'll run well on less than avgas, and avgas is very expensive. (The aircraft I trained on was a Diamond Eclipse, which *will* run on premium unleaded, but runs a lot better on avgas....)
At only 100BHP, it's probably an engine that runs well enough on auto gas. It's not that hard to get low-horsepower engines to run on auto gas due to their lower compression. High-power engines (over about 160 BHP) get tougher.
Because of this, it's even hard to say that Obama really supported (himself, as opposed to part of his platform) the bill that he voted for, since he could have easily been worried that voting against the bill would have hurt him in the election if he was portrayed as even weaker on national security than he was.
So...your argument is that he didn't really believe in what he was doing, he just sold out his principles to get elected?
3. Robber does get shot, is otherwise a good person who was short on luck and made a mistake.
See, here's the disconnect: "good people" don't go around robbing people. Damn skippy he made a mistake, but some mistakes have serious consequences. Death-by-intended-victim is one of the known risks of engaging in robbery.
The victim now has to deal with the reality of having killed another person.
He'll live. Quite literally: he'll only have to deal with that reality because he is still alive. I count that as a positive thing; you're certainly free to disagree.
Kudos, by the way, for correctly identifying the victim. A lot of people think it would have been the robber.
"Gauge" is defined as the number of pure lead balls, the diameter of the barrel, required to make a pound. A 12-ga, therefore, requires twelve pure lead spheres of bore diameter to equal a pound.
Guns have commonly been built as large as 4-ga (often termed "elephant guns). And yes, they do pack a hell of a wallop. Or so I'm told; I've never been offered the chance.
I know not a single Dem who wanted more airport security.
"You don't professionalize unless you Federalize."
--Tom Daschle, D-SD, who was the Senate Majority Leader at the time he said it. Not just any Democrat, mind you, but the most powerful Democrat in the government at that time. I'm sure I can find others, if you like.
Not that the Republicans are any better on security, but claiming the Democrats didn't want more airport security is absolutely false.
The problem is that this isn't prima facie evidence. Since you draw parallels to a rape accusation, the most appropriate analogy would probably be the Duke rape case. You may recall that the defense's argument wasn't "she had it coming," but "your so-called evidence doesn't pan out." They challenged the validity of the evidence, specifically the DNA evidence.
How'd that turn out, anyway?
This is a similar situation. The accuser is saying "we have evidence that says you done us wrong." The accused isn't saying "yeah, well, you asked for it," they're saying "your evidence is bunk, and we want to know how you collected it, because we don't think it's reliable." That's generally allowed in both civil and criminal cases ("national security" notwithstanding).
>> It also just occured to me that with disclaimers such as :
>>
>> "This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
>> intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom
they are
>> addressed.
I always read those as though they said,
"We're total losers who couldn't proofread an e-mail address if our
business depended on it, which our lawyers advise us is actually the
case. Instead of setting up an easy-to-use address book to handle and
verify addresses, we are going to put some totally meaningless and
legally-irrelevant boilerplate on every message we send so that there
will be no doubt as to our total luser-itis.
"If you received this e-mail by mistake, we're screwed, because we
can't bind you to a contract just because you read something you
shouldn't have. Not only that, but by the time you read these
instructions about how you weren't supposed to read it, you would have
already read through the stuff you weren't supposed to read... and boy
doesn't that make us look like complete morons... if there was any
doubt earlier.
"All that is assuming we included some information that would let
you determine that you are not, in fact, the intended recipient of
this e-mail. Which we probably didn't, because we've heard that
'redundant' means 'unnecessary', because that's what they called the
guy who used to sulk in the basement and make the computers go before
they fired his ass."
On the other hand, there must be some way to say that a particular computer forensics lab is not just some shady operation, especially if the evidence provided is going to be presented in court.
There are a couple of ways. First, courts certify expert witnesses. If you use a certified expert witness, his testimony is presumed accurate.
Second, and much stronger, is the process itself. Our legal system operates on the adversarial system: each side opposes the other, bringing its own evidence and analysis before the judge and/or jury. Either can bring in experts, and either can refute the testimony of the other. If the forensics lab is questionable, a competent attorney (and most are at least competent) will challenge the labs methods and results. It works surprisingly well.
3rd. Every law that changes the punishment, and inflicts a greater punishment, than the law annexed to the crime, when committed.
Like, for example, the Lautenburg Amendment?
Slashdot Mirror
Is there a white equivalent of the NAACP?
No, why would there be? Was there a white equivalent of slavery in the US?
Our histories are parallel and intertwined, but not equal. Without injustice, the NAACP would not be necessary. The NAACP was started in the early 1900s, when blacks often couldn't vote or stay in the same hotel or use the same drinking fountain. The NAACP is a demonstration of exactly what I'm talking about - we still haven't healed.
And the NAACP intends to make damned sure we don't. If nobody believed there was a problem, they'd have to find honest work. Much easier to fan the flames and make sure that everybody knows how big the problem is so that race-baiters will continue to have power.
Cases in point: Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton.
Because, absent any risk of actual failure, the banks have no incentive not to go down the same destructive path next week.
If failure carried serious negative outcomes--like the risk of bankruptcy--banks would have a reason to be far more cautious. A few people are better off in the short term, but all of us are worse off in the long run.
Banning links to copyrighted material is plainly asinine.
Banning links to copyrighted material would result in the legal destruction of the internet, at least in the US.
Under US copyright law, copyrights for all material are held by the author (with certain limited exceptions). The vast majority of works never have their copyrights registered, but registration is not necessary for copyright to apply. "Banning links to copyrighted material" is thus redundant, and can be shortened to simply "banning links."
Monopoly doesn't mean "I want this specific product, and only one company makes it;" rather, it applies to an entire broad category of goods that are generally related. Or do you think that Nikon holds a monopoly on 70-200mm f/2.8 vibration-reducing lenses that fit Nikon bodies?
Actually, he did answer the question, if you're sharp enough to catch it.
The current administration--along with the Congressional leadership--has shown itself to be hostile to the idea of us mere citizens owning firearms. Demand is through the roof as some of us--the ones who believe that the government is answerable to its people--are stocking up in case of future interruptions in supply. Modern marketing methods include the "just-in-time" supply chain; with the incredible spike in demand, not only are the ammo manufacturers unable to keep up, but their suppliers are unable to keep up with their demand. Metals suppliers--lead, copper, zinc--chemical suppliers--powder and priming compounds--etc. The entire supply chain is thin right now.
Now, the ammo manufacturers are doing the best they can. By raising prices, they're able to pay higher prices to their suppliers, increasing the quantity of raw materials supplied. By doing so, they have been able to increase production somewhat, but that has limits. The factories are running at full capacity. The only way to increase production past that point, assuming the availability of input materials, is to expand the production line. That would require the manufacturers to take out loans. Unfortunately, due to the aforementioned "leaders" running the show, it's by no means certain that the manufacturers would be able to sell enough ammunition to pay back those loans; said "leaders" are working on any number of laws to restrict ammunition sales (see, for example, microstamping, limitations on purchase quantities, and so forth). Considering the political risk, banks are (quite wisely) reticent to loan large sums of money to engage in such ventures. Throw in the fact that everybody knows it's a bubble, and will inevitably burst, and even if the manufacturers could get the money, they know that the increased demand probably wouldn't last through the payback period on the expansion. In fact, this is already starting to happen, proving the wisdom of riding the storm out without expanding facilities.
Does that answer your question more clearly?
"There are more airplanes in the ocean than submarines in the sky."
--old Navy reply to cocky Air Force pilots
- Firing for gross incompetence. As works with just about everyone else.
- Requiring a higher level of knowledge and teaching abilities.
So...abolish the NEA?
That's communism.
Not if he does it voluntarily. Then it's altruism, which is entirely different.
The moral problem with communism is that you don't donate, but rather have resources taken from you at the (implied) point of a gun. There's nothing wrong--and, in fact, everything right--with choosing to donate to the benefit of others.
Disclaimer: I don't own a single firearm, bullet, or even an axe.
Well, I can see where that would qualify you to speak on the topic.
Speaking as somebody who does own firearms, and who is in the process of buying a suppressor, let me correct the record.
A) The "Class 3" refers to the license a dealer has to have to transfer a suppressor (or other item regulated by the National Firearms Act of 1934). It refers to the class of Special Occupation Taxpayer (SOT) license he has to deal in firearms. There is no license per se required for mere ownership.
B) There is a $200 transfer fee per NFA item. They are "shall-issue" at the Federal level: if you have no criminal record, and what you propose to buy is legal in your jurisdiction, your application will be granted. Most things are legal in most places; some states have more restrictive laws on one or more of the general categories under the NFA (machine guns, short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, suppressors, destructive devices, "any other weapon"). If your state forbids them, the Feds will deny the transfer.
Note that "high capacity firearm" and "armor-piercing ammunition" are not on that list. The former are not subject to special regulation at the Federal level since the expiry of the "Assault Weapons" ban in 2004, and the latter is regulated for pistols, but there isn't a transfer tax or such, just a restriction on manufacture or import.
C) Holding fee? What are you talking about? And the sheriff doesn't have to do a background check, at least not according to the Feds (some states may require it). In fact, as far as the Feds are concerned, you're not necessarily even required to talk to you local law enforcement: you can either get a signature from your Chief Law Enforcement Officer, or you can form a trust or corporation to own the NFA item, bypassing the CLEO entirely. This option is getting more popular.
Hope that clears things up.
Do you think it would be more of a shame if he accidentally cut his throat while shaving, slipped and fell down three flights of stairs, or tripped and hit his head on a bullet?
s/or/and/
It's an airplane so you land at a designated airport just like every other airplane in existence. It must not be that obvious if you can't figure that out. The FARs(US Federal Air Regulations) and the CAR(Canadian Air Regulations) clearly state any aircraft is not to attempt take off or landing on any surface unless that surface is a designated airport or aerodrome.
Cite? I'm looking through the FARs, but I don't see that regulation, and frankly, given the number of people who operate off of a mowed strip on their private farms, I think you may be misinterpreting a regulation.
... You can get a private pilot's license, good for light aircraft and night flying, for about $5,000, with about 100 hours logged. Simulator time counts.
Where are you getting your training for $50/hr? I charge half that just for my time as a CFI, and I don't know anything short of a Champ or Cub that only burns $25/hr in gas, to say nothing of maintenance, insurance, etc.
My real question is what kind of fuel it runs on. There aren't a lot of aircraft that'll run well on less than avgas, and avgas is very expensive. (The aircraft I trained on was a Diamond Eclipse, which *will* run on premium unleaded, but runs a lot better on avgas....)
At only 100BHP, it's probably an engine that runs well enough on auto gas. It's not that hard to get low-horsepower engines to run on auto gas due to their lower compression. High-power engines (over about 160 BHP) get tougher.
While your point stands, the Marines are a department of the Navy, not an independent branch.
Because of this, it's even hard to say that Obama really supported (himself, as opposed to part of his platform) the bill that he voted for, since he could have easily been worried that voting against the bill would have hurt him in the election if he was portrayed as even weaker on national security than he was.
So...your argument is that he didn't really believe in what he was doing, he just sold out his principles to get elected?
And that's supposed to make me feel better?
How come Mexicans [...] don't get the Moon?
If that's no moon (pun intended), then wtf is in the sky then?
A space station!
This is known as the perfect temperature for beer consumed after mowing the lawn.
3. Robber does get shot, is otherwise a good person who was short on luck and made a mistake.
See, here's the disconnect: "good people" don't go around robbing people. Damn skippy he made a mistake, but some mistakes have serious consequences. Death-by-intended-victim is one of the known risks of engaging in robbery.
The victim now has to deal with the reality of having killed another person.
He'll live. Quite literally: he'll only have to deal with that reality because he is still alive. I count that as a positive thing; you're certainly free to disagree.
Kudos, by the way, for correctly identifying the victim. A lot of people think it would have been the robber.
"Gauge" is defined as the number of pure lead balls, the diameter of the barrel, required to make a pound. A 12-ga, therefore, requires twelve pure lead spheres of bore diameter to equal a pound.
Guns have commonly been built as large as 4-ga (often termed "elephant guns). And yes, they do pack a hell of a wallop. Or so I'm told; I've never been offered the chance.
Here's an article for you with some history on the biggest of the big-bores: http://www.riflemagazine.com/magazine/article.cfm?magid=44&tocid=553 (for reference, there are 7000 grains in a pound).
I know not a single Dem who wanted more airport security.
"You don't professionalize unless you Federalize." --Tom Daschle, D-SD, who was the Senate Majority Leader at the time he said it. Not just any Democrat, mind you, but the most powerful Democrat in the government at that time. I'm sure I can find others, if you like. Not that the Republicans are any better on security, but claiming the Democrats didn't want more airport security is absolutely false.The problem is that this isn't prima facie evidence. Since you draw parallels to a rape accusation, the most appropriate analogy would probably be the Duke rape case. You may recall that the defense's argument wasn't "she had it coming," but "your so-called evidence doesn't pan out." They challenged the validity of the evidence, specifically the DNA evidence. How'd that turn out, anyway? This is a similar situation. The accuser is saying "we have evidence that says you done us wrong." The accused isn't saying "yeah, well, you asked for it," they're saying "your evidence is bunk, and we want to know how you collected it, because we don't think it's reliable." That's generally allowed in both civil and criminal cases ("national security" notwithstanding).
>> It also just occured to me that with disclaimers such as : >> >> "This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and >> intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are >> addressed. I always read those as though they said, "We're total losers who couldn't proofread an e-mail address if our business depended on it, which our lawyers advise us is actually the case. Instead of setting up an easy-to-use address book to handle and verify addresses, we are going to put some totally meaningless and legally-irrelevant boilerplate on every message we send so that there will be no doubt as to our total luser-itis. "If you received this e-mail by mistake, we're screwed, because we can't bind you to a contract just because you read something you shouldn't have. Not only that, but by the time you read these instructions about how you weren't supposed to read it, you would have already read through the stuff you weren't supposed to read... and boy doesn't that make us look like complete morons... if there was any doubt earlier. "All that is assuming we included some information that would let you determine that you are not, in fact, the intended recipient of this e-mail. Which we probably didn't, because we've heard that 'redundant' means 'unnecessary', because that's what they called the guy who used to sulk in the basement and make the computers go before they fired his ass."
So, if they strike, does that make those of us who keep blogging scabs? 'Cause I'm completely okay with that.
Stupid gits.
On the other hand, there must be some way to say that a particular computer forensics lab is not just some shady operation, especially if the evidence provided is going to be presented in court.
There are a couple of ways. First, courts certify expert witnesses. If you use a certified expert witness, his testimony is presumed accurate.
Second, and much stronger, is the process itself. Our legal system operates on the adversarial system: each side opposes the other, bringing its own evidence and analysis before the judge and/or jury. Either can bring in experts, and either can refute the testimony of the other. If the forensics lab is questionable, a competent attorney (and most are at least competent) will challenge the labs methods and results. It works surprisingly well.
3rd. Every law that changes the punishment, and inflicts a greater punishment, than the law annexed to the crime, when committed. Like, for example, the Lautenburg Amendment?
Aw, maaaaan. My kingdom for an "edit" option!