Actually, the government would find it easier to go up against the armed citizens. Police and military personnel will not want to shoot into groups of unarmed civilians, and won't have an excuse to detain too many. They will fire back. It won't be necessary to defeat 100 million people. Move into an area, defeat the few who will stand against the army, impose martial law, repeat in next area.
The Vietnam war was won by an organized army (although not ours). Afghanistan can be made ungovernable by people with guns, and there's special circumstances, but the guys with guns will not win.. Korea was a war of organized armies. The American Revolution was won by organizing armies and facing the British on the battlefield at selected times.
Given an armed rebellion, the Air Force is not going to start indiscriminately bombing cities. Get real. Bear in mind that the rebels will be criminals rising up against the US, and will be treated accordingly.
You know what else is common to the Viet Cong, Taliban, and ISIS? They lost. The Viet Cong were pretty well wiped out in the Tet Offensive, and further action was by the North Vietnamese army. South Vietnam fell to an armored offensive from the North, not random people with guns. The Taliban did well enough when not facing good military units, but when they faced the Army things were different.
Actually, the people I see talking about taking guns away are primarily gun nuts. Most leftists don't like having so many guns around, and would like to see more restrictions, but I rarely see talk about confiscating them. One might think that certain gun-related organizations like whipping up gun nuts into a frenzy of fear that we're coming for their guns.
Hey, look! Another right-winger who can't read. GP referred to a racist, not a black guy, and I'm pretty sure he meant to type "rapist". You're the one who associates black guys with rape..
There's a difference in senses of entitlement between living off the public and not being shot. If you're going to shoot somebody for petty vandalism, you're willing to apply the death penalty to a lot of minor crimes.
If the Republicans hadn't flocked to Trump in the nomination process, he wouldn't be President today. There were lots of other candidates, some of which were actually halfway good. Republican voters did vote for Trump.
The DNC didn't disenfranchise lots of Democrats. Primaries are run by states, not the DNC. Caucuses are run by the party, but Sanders did better in caucus states than primary states. Clinton had most of the superdelegates, but the superdelegates were a known part of the process (like the Electoral College) even if people didn't like it, and Clinton got more regular delegates.
Sanders lost, because more people voted for Clinton. That happens in politics.
The campaign was not well run, but I'm not impressed with Trump's campaign. Clinton was far less charismatic.
Astronomers and astrophysicists know that interplanetary and interstellar space isn't a complete vacuum. That isn't controversial. There is a known galactic magnetic field, although it's very weak.
You also seem to be arguing from a theory of science as individual authorities. Eddington had a reputation for eccentricity, and his work is pretty old by now. There's been more work since. Einstein did die in 1955, but that doesn't mean General Relativity was finished at that point. Lots of physicists have worked on it since then. Scientifically, Einstein's death was not important, just his earlier contributions. The fact that a lot of observations postdate Einstein doesn't matter, since physicists have been hard at work on GR without him.
Some of our most important ideas in the sciences today originated in just this manner, actually. And in fact, pet theories are actually quite common amongst even academics.
Actually, the most important ideas in science came from people who clearly understood the field they were working on. Academic pet theories do not in general contradict what's generally accepted. You are showing no signs of understanding the theories you want to supplant, or of understanding the reasoning and observations behind those theories. We have good predictions from General Relativity. We have lots of observations confirming it. If you want to be taken seriously, you need to study at least the observations, and show how the EU handles them.
You're not giving me any incentive to look into this.
In your first paragraph, you compare Einstein's death date and something about the estimated amount of plasma, without saying what relationship they have, or what the US public's attitude towards Goddard's rockets has to do with anything. (If you're trying to find an example where scientists were wrong, you can, but this isn't one of them.) You have a limited amount of words to entice people into looking into the theory, and you waste them with irrelevancies.
You quote something about gravity, and seem to think the Lorentz transformation has something to do with it. The Lorentz transformation is important to Special Relativity, and gravity is part of General Relativity. Nor does it matter where Einstein got the mathematics (one would have assumed that, if Einstein had created that transform, it'd be called the Einstein transform); what matters is what the math is and how it predicts physical reality.
You speak of "the dark matter problem" as if it were only a fudge for galactic rotation curves. We've also seen a lot of gravitational lensing where there's no normal matter to cause it. The Bullet Cluster was the first and biggest example.
There's no reason to believe that gravity is a short-ranged force. Your link applies the known laws of gravity and gets an apparently known result. Sure, it's weak over interstellar distances. However, it scales with mass, so a galaxy worth of mass does have significant gravity at a distance.
So, you come off as someone who can't explain stuff well, doesn't know the existing theory worth a darnn, and is unfamiliar with the observations made. This isn't promising.
The Left doesn't have gender problems. You know your own gender, and don't need to know everybody else's. The ones obsessed with the relation of gender to crotch danglies are on the Right.
The Left is mostly split on exploitation of women vs. free choices of women. Where that comes together strongest is sex and especially porn and sex work. It's uncomfortable. Does that woman really want to perform that sex act, or is it expected of her, or something the patriarchy decided she should do? Here's a picture of a naked woman, who was paid to be the model. Is that exploitation, or male expectations, or is she just comfortable with showing off for money?
There's a very important consideration here. How much money do anti-gun snowflakes have or control? This was very likely a business decision made to make more money.
Another problem is that groups of frequently posting inane people can, without actually spamming, destroy the usefulness of a group. I witnessed the fall of soc.history.misc when the idiots from sci.military.naval moved in.
Hint: there are darn few hard leftists in the US. Sanders is about as far left as they come, and Sanders is centrist by the standards of most of the rest of the developed world. The Left doesn't control much in Congress, even when Democrats are in power.
Nor do leftists call reasonable liberals "alt-right" and "fascist". We reserve those for the insane right wing. If you want to call those folks "reasonable", you should probably get out more.
Because the top priority should always be what's good for the country. That should be the single most important thing Congress considers. If the President oversteps his bounds, the courts can rein him in or Congress can impeach. Throwing a tantrum and blaming it on the President is not productive.
Except that bitcoin transactions are irreversible and significant information is not recorded. (You know how much went from which wallet to which wallet, and that will last forever or until the blockchain is banned for having child pornography, but nothing further.) Bank transactions are recorded in detail, and often reversible. This means that, if somebody hacks into your wallet and steals your bitcoins, you're screwed, but if someone hacks into a bank and steals its money you aren't out your money.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, the government would find it easier to go up against the armed citizens. Police and military personnel will not want to shoot into groups of unarmed civilians, and won't have an excuse to detain too many. They will fire back. It won't be necessary to defeat 100 million people. Move into an area, defeat the few who will stand against the army, impose martial law, repeat in next area.
The Vietnam war was won by an organized army (although not ours). Afghanistan can be made ungovernable by people with guns, and there's special circumstances, but the guys with guns will not win.. Korea was a war of organized armies. The American Revolution was won by organizing armies and facing the British on the battlefield at selected times.
Given an armed rebellion, the Air Force is not going to start indiscriminately bombing cities. Get real. Bear in mind that the rebels will be criminals rising up against the US, and will be treated accordingly.
You know what else is common to the Viet Cong, Taliban, and ISIS? They lost. The Viet Cong were pretty well wiped out in the Tet Offensive, and further action was by the North Vietnamese army. South Vietnam fell to an armored offensive from the North, not random people with guns. The Taliban did well enough when not facing good military units, but when they faced the Army things were different.
Could you provide a reference to this mythical poll that says 80% of the military and National Guard are potential criminals?
Leftists are not confused over which bathroom to use. The people who are concerned about that are right-wing.
Actually, the people I see talking about taking guns away are primarily gun nuts. Most leftists don't like having so many guns around, and would like to see more restrictions, but I rarely see talk about confiscating them. One might think that certain gun-related organizations like whipping up gun nuts into a frenzy of fear that we're coming for their guns.
Hey, look! Another right-winger who can't read. GP referred to a racist, not a black guy, and I'm pretty sure he meant to type "rapist". You're the one who associates black guys with rape..
There's a difference in senses of entitlement between living off the public and not being shot. If you're going to shoot somebody for petty vandalism, you're willing to apply the death penalty to a lot of minor crimes.
If the Republicans hadn't flocked to Trump in the nomination process, he wouldn't be President today. There were lots of other candidates, some of which were actually halfway good. Republican voters did vote for Trump.
The DNC didn't disenfranchise lots of Democrats. Primaries are run by states, not the DNC. Caucuses are run by the party, but Sanders did better in caucus states than primary states. Clinton had most of the superdelegates, but the superdelegates were a known part of the process (like the Electoral College) even if people didn't like it, and Clinton got more regular delegates. Sanders lost, because more people voted for Clinton. That happens in politics.
The campaign was not well run, but I'm not impressed with Trump's campaign. Clinton was far less charismatic.
Astronomers and astrophysicists know that interplanetary and interstellar space isn't a complete vacuum. That isn't controversial. There is a known galactic magnetic field, although it's very weak.
You also seem to be arguing from a theory of science as individual authorities. Eddington had a reputation for eccentricity, and his work is pretty old by now. There's been more work since. Einstein did die in 1955, but that doesn't mean General Relativity was finished at that point. Lots of physicists have worked on it since then. Scientifically, Einstein's death was not important, just his earlier contributions. The fact that a lot of observations postdate Einstein doesn't matter, since physicists have been hard at work on GR without him.
C'mon. We're talking about interstellar events here. It came out in the last thousand years, so it's really really new.
Actually, the most important ideas in science came from people who clearly understood the field they were working on. Academic pet theories do not in general contradict what's generally accepted. You are showing no signs of understanding the theories you want to supplant, or of understanding the reasoning and observations behind those theories. We have good predictions from General Relativity. We have lots of observations confirming it. If you want to be taken seriously, you need to study at least the observations, and show how the EU handles them.
You're not giving me any incentive to look into this.
In your first paragraph, you compare Einstein's death date and something about the estimated amount of plasma, without saying what relationship they have, or what the US public's attitude towards Goddard's rockets has to do with anything. (If you're trying to find an example where scientists were wrong, you can, but this isn't one of them.) You have a limited amount of words to entice people into looking into the theory, and you waste them with irrelevancies.
You quote something about gravity, and seem to think the Lorentz transformation has something to do with it. The Lorentz transformation is important to Special Relativity, and gravity is part of General Relativity. Nor does it matter where Einstein got the mathematics (one would have assumed that, if Einstein had created that transform, it'd be called the Einstein transform); what matters is what the math is and how it predicts physical reality.
You speak of "the dark matter problem" as if it were only a fudge for galactic rotation curves. We've also seen a lot of gravitational lensing where there's no normal matter to cause it. The Bullet Cluster was the first and biggest example.
There's no reason to believe that gravity is a short-ranged force. Your link applies the known laws of gravity and gets an apparently known result. Sure, it's weak over interstellar distances. However, it scales with mass, so a galaxy worth of mass does have significant gravity at a distance.
So, you come off as someone who can't explain stuff well, doesn't know the existing theory worth a darnn, and is unfamiliar with the observations made. This isn't promising.
The Left doesn't have gender problems. You know your own gender, and don't need to know everybody else's. The ones obsessed with the relation of gender to crotch danglies are on the Right.
The Left is mostly split on exploitation of women vs. free choices of women. Where that comes together strongest is sex and especially porn and sex work. It's uncomfortable. Does that woman really want to perform that sex act, or is it expected of her, or something the patriarchy decided she should do? Here's a picture of a naked woman, who was paid to be the model. Is that exploitation, or male expectations, or is she just comfortable with showing off for money?
Got anything to back up that claim? The religious right wants to ban a lot of things.
There's a very important consideration here. How much money do anti-gun snowflakes have or control? This was very likely a business decision made to make more money.
You do realize that private gun ownership has approximately nothing to do with freedom and democracy, right?
Hard to tell without knowing why they made the decisions. Was it to make advertisers feel better? That could affect a large number of sites at once.
Another problem is that groups of frequently posting inane people can, without actually spamming, destroy the usefulness of a group. I witnessed the fall of soc.history.misc when the idiots from sci.military.naval moved in.
I've been told that railroads found that it's possible for an engineer to be asleep and still keep a foot down and push a button every ten minutes.
Hint: there are darn few hard leftists in the US. Sanders is about as far left as they come, and Sanders is centrist by the standards of most of the rest of the developed world. The Left doesn't control much in Congress, even when Democrats are in power.
Nor do leftists call reasonable liberals "alt-right" and "fascist". We reserve those for the insane right wing. If you want to call those folks "reasonable", you should probably get out more.
We need to convert him to Taoism.
Because the top priority should always be what's good for the country. That should be the single most important thing Congress considers. If the President oversteps his bounds, the courts can rein him in or Congress can impeach. Throwing a tantrum and blaming it on the President is not productive.
Except that bitcoin transactions are irreversible and significant information is not recorded. (You know how much went from which wallet to which wallet, and that will last forever or until the blockchain is banned for having child pornography, but nothing further.) Bank transactions are recorded in detail, and often reversible. This means that, if somebody hacks into your wallet and steals your bitcoins, you're screwed, but if someone hacks into a bank and steals its money you aren't out your money.