The problem with the US that many foreigners can't seen to grasp is that it is like many countries, but without borders. There are places that are nothing like New York City, which are much more wild than anything you'd find in the UK. Where I grew up, we have bears, wild cats, and (now recovering) wolves. You'd be a fool to go out into the woods for more than a short walk without some sort of a weapon. So, we can buy weapons. The problem then is that people take those to cities, where admittedly there shouldn't be any guns. In most cities, its quite illegal to have any gun unless you have a special permit (law enforcement, etc).
You're entitled to your opinion, but the right to have guns in the US isn't even remotely intended to provide protection from predators in the wild. It's not even about hunting. Like it or not, the Second Amendment guarantees (not grants) an individual right to bear arms in defense of oneself and their state, country, etc. I say it guarantees and doesn't grant, because the right to have the means available for self-defense was considered to be an inalienable right by the founding fathers. The government can't 'grant' a right that is assumed to already exist. As a last resort, it provides a check against the government becoming too powerful.
Sure, there are other applications such as hunting and protection from large, four-legged predators, but the Second Amendment is primarily about protection from two-legged predators. If you believe that guns don't belong in cities, that's your opinion and you're entitled to it. Just don't tell me I can't legally carry my sidearm when visiting large, crime-ridden urban centers where I'm more likely to actually need it. I live near Philadelphia and have the need to travel through, sometimes into the city to visit family. In case you're not familiar with current events here, the murder rate is at an all-time high.
Without the philosophy, their would have been no economic revolution. The principles that the founding fathers brought forth also happened to be the best principles for economic development. When men are free, they prosper.
Just a thought, but could the reason why most Americans are not prospering these days have anything to do with the fact that they are not as free now, with their rights having been eroded mostly within the last seventy or so years?
Agreed. Through driving up manufacturing costs and making it harder for manufacturers to comply with their regulations (especially the smaller ones), the anti-gun zealots are effectively using a back-door method of curtailing gun ownership by law-abiding citizens. Since they're losing ground on their contrived assertion that the Second Amendment does not guarantee an individual right, they're essentially taking whatever steps they can to effect their agenda by other means.
In tests, the durability of microstamps on breach faces, extractors and firing pins on semiautomatic handguns has been called into question. Nevermind the fact that not one case has been solved by Maryland's "ballistic fingerprint database" (a similar system) to date and resourceful criminals could remove the stamps or replace parts with unstamped ones. What's to stop a criminal from scooping up my spent shell casings at the firing range and leaving them at a crime scene to throw off investigators, or just using a revolver that doesn't leave cases behind? What about reloaded cartridges with multiple stamps?
While touted as a "common sense" measure by anti-gunners, with seemingly no good reason for opposition, this law is actually wasteful of law-enforcement resources. Plus, it's an undue burden on manufacturers and gun owners, which is exactly what they want.
Researchers in the US want at least $350m (£175m) to build the Global Environment for Network Innovations (Geni), touted by some as the possible replacement for today's internet. In Europe, similar projects are under way as part of the EU's Future and Internet Research (Fire) programme, which is expected to cost at least £27m.
Why not just allow the current internet to evolve in the direction it will, as it has thus far? Why such an overt "redesign" effort?
(Yes, I'm aware that underlying protocols will (and have) gone through formal design processes, but there's still a certain level of "evolution" that occurs along with that formality.)
I dunno if that's where the parent was going with this or not, but SDI was supposed to be a particle beam to detonate ICBMs as they reentered. A huge waste of money and never worked. We're talking anti-satellite missiles here though, which the US has had for many years anyway. These do work. See the ASM-135 ASAT, air-launched by F-15s.
I'm always amused when people criticize the ACLU for their ambivalence towards the 2nd Amendment. Usually (not always), it comes from pro-NRA people. Though I do wish the ACLU pushed for gun rights too, my math says that championing 9/10 of the Bill of Rights is 900% as good as championing 1/10 of the Bill of Rights, as the NRA does. So the ACLU is only 9 times as faithful to the Bill of Rights as the NRA.
The ACLU doesn't oppose gun rights, just as the NRA doesn't oppose the other 9 Amendments, but if someone is faulting the ACLU for being selective, it seems they'd be much more critical of the NRA. But the aren't, and we don't see the same argument used against the NRA, even though it would be vastly more appropriate for them. Why?
Point taken, but the NRA makes no bones about being a group who specifically champions a specific constitutional right. The ACLU on the other hand, say they are for all the individual rights outlined in the Constitution, but refuse to acknowledge one as being individual. It's like others have said here, that rather than acknowledging the meaning and wording of the Second Amendment, they've conveniently interpreted the amendment in a way that is more consistent with their agenda.
Besides the enjoyment of shooting sports, the importance of the Second Amendment to us gun rights people, stems from the true purpose of this amendment. The other nine individual rights in the Bill of Rights are meaningless unless they are ultimately able to be backed up by force. I know many 'enlightened' liberal types may find this distasteful, but even today this is sometimes necessary.
Perhaps because many NRA members happen to believe that warrantless surveillance is okay, torture-induced confessions should be allowed, prayer should be part of the school day, habeus corpus only helps the terrorists, and so on? Not all pro-gun people are like that, but if you're around long enough you see a rough correlation between being pro-gun and a certain tepidness towards aggressive defense of the 9/10 of the Bill of Rights that the ACLU champions.
That's just so ridiculous of an assumption, I'm not even going to answer that.
Similarly, ACLU types (myself included) are generally skeptical that guns need to be as available as they are. So though charges are bandied about of whom is more faithful to the Bill of Rights and who isn't, it still falls out along political lines. But even so, 9/10 is still a larger number than 1/10.
Yes, 'liberal' ACLU types are under the false assumption that firearms are much more available than they really are. If you're not familiar with the process of buying a gun, there are no supposed 'loopholes' even in less restrictive states or at gunshows where even private party sales are already required to go through background checks. Meanwhile criminals have no problem obtaining theirs on the street.
Something else liberals refuse to acknowledge (or are not aware of) is that statistically speaking, total gun deaths have actually been declining for decades, despite population increase and a near exponential increase in the number of firearms in circulation. An 'epidemic' of gun violence simply doesn't exist, but due to increased reporting by the media of such things, we are given that impression.
It says "well regulated militia", with a poorly placed comma. If you see NO AMBIGUITY there, you are an idealogue, it isn't even good english! That could mean a lot of things. What it meant then is one thing. What it means now is open to some interpetation. So, since it's so unambiguous, what the fuck is "well regulated"??
You obviously missed my post above. To reiterate:
"In the parlance of the day "well regulated" did not have the meaning it does today (as in government regulation). It referred to a well-trained and well-equipped militia. Also, as in other amendments, the militia "clause" is not a qualifying statement for application of the right, merely a statement suggesting the purpose of it."
Yeah, and I'm also sure the well-educated founders were so sloppy as to misplace a comma, too. *rollseyes*
But regardless of how much I may or may not agree with your interpetation of this, I do doubt that the founding fathers... sitting from their technological vantage point, with the speed of technological progress at their time (which is to say, slow)... had any idea where weaponry would go, or what the consequences of a world with nuclear armed businessmen are.
We don't have to guess at what the founders meant, we can read their writings and letters to each other regarding their meaning and intent.
I disagree that the founding fathers had no notion of technological progress. They were deliberately vague in their wording so as to account for new technologies. Just as they don't mention handwriting and moveable type in the First Amendment, they didn't specifically mention muskets and field cannons in the Second.
If one uses the argument that the Second Amendment does not include automatic weapons, tanks, bombs and planes, then you must apply the same reasoning to the First, that the founders had no notion of laser printers, radio, television and the Internet. If you think free speech cannot be dangerous, you're deluding yourself.
Just because people have the capability, doesn't necessarily mean it will be used, either. How often have we heard from the gun control movement that passing shall-issue concealed weapons permits would lead to shootouts in the streets over fender-benders, and the like? The majority of US states have these now, and except for isolated incidents which may well have happened anyway, this feared scenario has not panned out. Much the same, mere access to deadlier weaponry would likely have the same effect.
You may call me crazy, but I don't believe in any restrictions whatsoever. Besides, once you get to things such as tanks, planes and nukes, things become more cost-prohibitive for individuals to acquire. I mean hell, whole countries (think Iran) take years and billions to develop nukes. I think that if an American citizen can afford one, they should be able to drive off in the equivalent of an M1A2 Abrams, fully armed, as soon as the money hits the counter.
The founders intended for people to have the ability to mount an armed insurrection against an injust government, and the tools of the day included everything up to and including field artillery (the tanks and planes of the day). The founders also knew that technology would change, which is why they said "arms" and not specifically firearms. The important part was that people would have the ability to resist a tyrannical government (and provide a deterrent against a government becoming so), and nowadays the people are all but denied these tools. No, you may not need a machine gun to hunt, but that's not the intended purpose of the Second Amendment.
Also, for the "there's no way regular people could mount an effective insurrection" crowd, one has only to look at the current situation in Iraq, or historically Vietnam. Guerilla tactics and rudimentary equipment can be effective against NVDs, smart bombs, and all the other technology in a modern military's arsenal.;)
I don't see what's "selective" about that. While any particular person (including me) may disagree with the philosophy behind it, this is a very well reasoned stance... there is ambiguity in what the constitution says and means on this issue, the ACLU protects constitutional rights when such rights are clear.
It's "selective" in that they don't acknowledge access to arms as an individual right. I can't supply links right now, because of my employer's nanny-ware, but a "collective right" is absurd from the standpoint of both the founding father's intent, and a consistent reading of the entire Bill of Rights. Picking apart the wording, in the parlance of the day "well regulated" did not have the meaning it does today (as in government regulation). It referred to a well-trained and well-equipped militia. Also, as in other amendments, the militia "clause" is not a qualifying statement for application of the right, merely a statement suggesting the purpose of it.
The "collective" right argument does not hold up when it's considered that the other 9 amendments guarantee individual rights (yes, even the 10th) and people's rights are the sole pruspose of having the Bill of Rights in the first place. The collective right reading is a fabrication of the 20th century gun control movement. If you look back further than that, any other interpretation than an individual right was never even suggested.
Besides, on a purely practical note, after the police finish beating the crap out of you and your friend(s), how hard is it for them to confiscate and destroy a recording device?
In an ideal world, police should be charged with tampering with or destroying evidence in cases where cameras are confiscated and the recording media destroyed. After all, that's what Joe Citizen would probably be charged with if the roles were reversed, right? If we could only be so lucky.
While I may have issue with the ACLU's selective view on the Bill of Rights (they refuse to acknowledge the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right), I must admit I give kudos to them for taking this up.
While I'm sure most law enforcement officers are good people, there are too many jack-booted thugs among the ranks, who view the Bill of Rights as a nuisance and a hindrance and/or are control freaks on a trip.
I find it extremely distasteful that the "felony wiretap" case was in my home state of Pennsylvania.
Oh, trust me... I fully expected to get modded flamebait for that one. I have karma to spare.
I was going to mention that I understand that equating intelligence from one species to another is a slippery slope. The brains of different animals, humans included, evolved (yes EVOLVED;) for different purposes so comparing is apples and oranges. More intelligent in what regard, is the question... To use the bird example, the visual cortex of even the "least intelligent" species of birds' and their processing of visual information would completely blow humans' out of the water, in some regards. So, it begs the question, better for what?
Equating human emotions to other animals is even more dubious. While there aren't exact correlations , I'm sure, they still have feelings, moods, etc.
Many people I know treat their animals like they were their own children, especially if they are a childless couple. I accord my own cat with roughly the same level of accord as I do most people, if you were crapping on the carpet I would swap you too.
Hey... At least my birds actually talk. What can your cat do?:P
In all seriousness, to the GP... Not sure if he was trying to be funny or not, but just because we may be at the top in intelligence, humans are still animals. Hell chimps are 99% genetically identical. When talking about intelligent animals, sometimes people refer to the age of a child. For example, one might say that one of my birds has the mentality of a 3-4 year old human child. Coupled with the fact that they use English words in the correct context and ask for things by name blurs the distiction the GP was trying to make.
Try firing that M16 + full-sized stock with full body armor, a RBR helmet and assorted ammo pouches in close quarters (IE, clearing a room inside of a building). That shorter barrel sure makes moving around corners a LOT easier (it's not in the way and catching on things) and the collapsable stock means a shorter distance from "weapon ready" to firing position. Oh, and it's lighter to boot.
Oh, I'm all too aware of the weight savings and suitability for CQB. My point wasn't that the M4 is/isn't lighter, more portable and easier to manuever in tight spaces, just that they aren't any more durable than the M16 upon which they're based.
Good point though about the tele-stock being adjustable depending on the gear between the butt of the stock and your shoulder.
Bit of trivia: there is a spring-loaded recoil reducer (yeah, I know, on a 5.56...) in the stock of the M-16: when you are firing with your cheek (facial cheek) against the stock, the noise from the recoil mechanism is almost as loud as the report of the weapon itself.
Actually, that's not it's primary purpose... The spring and buffer are there to return the bolt carrier forward during firing to chamber the next round. The "boing" sound isn't as loud as you make it out to be. It's a characteristic sound that's actually reassuring to some. Plus, when you don't hear it go "boing" means it's time to reload.;)
An M4 (I can never figure out the sequence of these numbers) is a good deal tougher long-term than the antique M16.
Says who? They're basically the same rifle. They have pretty much the same exact receiver assemblies, bolt carrier group and internal parts. All's an M4 is, is an M16 with a 14.5" barrel and a tele-stock (which basically has the same recoil buffer tube as the M16, but without the extra plastic around it to protect it).
Slashdot Mirror
The problem with the US that many foreigners can't seen to grasp is that it is like many countries, but without borders. There are places that are nothing like New York City, which are much more wild than anything you'd find in the UK. Where I grew up, we have bears, wild cats, and (now recovering) wolves. You'd be a fool to go out into the woods for more than a short walk without some sort of a weapon. So, we can buy weapons. The problem then is that people take those to cities, where admittedly there shouldn't be any guns. In most cities, its quite illegal to have any gun unless you have a special permit (law enforcement, etc).
You're entitled to your opinion, but the right to have guns in the US isn't even remotely intended to provide protection from predators in the wild. It's not even about hunting. Like it or not, the Second Amendment guarantees (not grants) an individual right to bear arms in defense of oneself and their state, country, etc. I say it guarantees and doesn't grant, because the right to have the means available for self-defense was considered to be an inalienable right by the founding fathers. The government can't 'grant' a right that is assumed to already exist. As a last resort, it provides a check against the government becoming too powerful.
Sure, there are other applications such as hunting and protection from large, four-legged predators, but the Second Amendment is primarily about protection from two-legged predators. If you believe that guns don't belong in cities, that's your opinion and you're entitled to it. Just don't tell me I can't legally carry my sidearm when visiting large, crime-ridden urban centers where I'm more likely to actually need it. I live near Philadelphia and have the need to travel through, sometimes into the city to visit family. In case you're not familiar with current events here, the murder rate is at an all-time high.
Without the philosophy, their would have been no economic revolution. The principles that the founding fathers brought forth also happened to be the best principles for economic development. When men are free, they prosper.
Just a thought, but could the reason why most Americans are not prospering these days have anything to do with the fact that they are not as free now, with their rights having been eroded mostly within the last seventy or so years?
So why does it need a book?
Agreed. Through driving up manufacturing costs and making it harder for manufacturers to comply with their regulations (especially the smaller ones), the anti-gun zealots are effectively using a back-door method of curtailing gun ownership by law-abiding citizens. Since they're losing ground on their contrived assertion that the Second Amendment does not guarantee an individual right, they're essentially taking whatever steps they can to effect their agenda by other means.
In tests, the durability of microstamps on breach faces, extractors and firing pins on semiautomatic handguns has been called into question. Nevermind the fact that not one case has been solved by Maryland's "ballistic fingerprint database" (a similar system) to date and resourceful criminals could remove the stamps or replace parts with unstamped ones. What's to stop a criminal from scooping up my spent shell casings at the firing range and leaving them at a crime scene to throw off investigators, or just using a revolver that doesn't leave cases behind? What about reloaded cartridges with multiple stamps?
While touted as a "common sense" measure by anti-gunners, with seemingly no good reason for opposition, this law is actually wasteful of law-enforcement resources. Plus, it's an undue burden on manufacturers and gun owners, which is exactly what they want.
I know this, because Tyler knows this.
<Tyler Durden>
You can swallow a pint of urine before you get sick.
</Tyler Durden>
FTA:
Researchers in the US want at least $350m (£175m) to build the Global Environment for Network Innovations (Geni), touted by some as the possible replacement for today's internet. In Europe, similar projects are under way as part of the EU's Future and Internet Research (Fire) programme, which is expected to cost at least £27m.
Why not just allow the current internet to evolve in the direction it will, as it has thus far? Why such an overt "redesign" effort?
(Yes, I'm aware that underlying protocols will (and have) gone through formal design processes, but there's still a certain level of "evolution" that occurs along with that formality.)
I've been hearing about for a long time, but never materializes?
SDI != anti-satellite missiles
I dunno if that's where the parent was going with this or not, but SDI was supposed to be a particle beam to detonate ICBMs as they reentered. A huge waste of money and never worked. We're talking anti-satellite missiles here though, which the US has had for many years anyway. These do work. See the ASM-135 ASAT, air-launched by F-15s.
The Chinese test was crude compared to these.
Ask and ye shall receive: ;)
a de.htm
m er_on_const.php#c4
http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm
http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndmea.html
http://yarchive.net/gun/politics/regulate.html
http://www.thepriceofliberty.org/05/12/19/greensl
http://mason.gmu.edu/~nlund/Pubs/WklyStd2dAmd.pdf
http://www.virginiainstitute.org/publications/pri
I'm always amused when people criticize the ACLU for their ambivalence towards the 2nd Amendment. Usually (not always), it comes from pro-NRA people. Though I do wish the ACLU pushed for gun rights too, my math says that championing 9/10 of the Bill of Rights is 900% as good as championing 1/10 of the Bill of Rights, as the NRA does. So the ACLU is only 9 times as faithful to the Bill of Rights as the NRA.
The ACLU doesn't oppose gun rights, just as the NRA doesn't oppose the other 9 Amendments, but if someone is faulting the ACLU for being selective, it seems they'd be much more critical of the NRA. But the aren't, and we don't see the same argument used against the NRA, even though it would be vastly more appropriate for them. Why?
Point taken, but the NRA makes no bones about being a group who specifically champions a specific constitutional right. The ACLU on the other hand, say they are for all the individual rights outlined in the Constitution, but refuse to acknowledge one as being individual. It's like others have said here, that rather than acknowledging the meaning and wording of the Second Amendment, they've conveniently interpreted the amendment in a way that is more consistent with their agenda.
Besides the enjoyment of shooting sports, the importance of the Second Amendment to us gun rights people, stems from the true purpose of this amendment. The other nine individual rights in the Bill of Rights are meaningless unless they are ultimately able to be backed up by force. I know many 'enlightened' liberal types may find this distasteful, but even today this is sometimes necessary.
Perhaps because many NRA members happen to believe that warrantless surveillance is okay, torture-induced confessions should be allowed, prayer should be part of the school day, habeus corpus only helps the terrorists, and so on? Not all pro-gun people are like that, but if you're around long enough you see a rough correlation between being pro-gun and a certain tepidness towards aggressive defense of the 9/10 of the Bill of Rights that the ACLU champions.
That's just so ridiculous of an assumption, I'm not even going to answer that.
Similarly, ACLU types (myself included) are generally skeptical that guns need to be as available as they are. So though charges are bandied about of whom is more faithful to the Bill of Rights and who isn't, it still falls out along political lines. But even so, 9/10 is still a larger number than 1/10.
Yes, 'liberal' ACLU types are under the false assumption that firearms are much more available than they really are. If you're not familiar with the process of buying a gun, there are no supposed 'loopholes' even in less restrictive states or at gunshows where even private party sales are already required to go through background checks. Meanwhile criminals have no problem obtaining theirs on the street.
Something else liberals refuse to acknowledge (or are not aware of) is that statistically speaking, total gun deaths have actually been declining for decades, despite population increase and a near exponential increase in the number of firearms in circulation. An 'epidemic' of gun violence simply doesn't exist, but due to increased reporting by the media of such things, we are given that impression.
It says "well regulated militia", with a poorly placed comma. If you see NO AMBIGUITY there, you are an idealogue, it isn't even good english! That could mean a lot of things. What it meant then is one thing. What it means now is open to some interpetation. So, since it's so unambiguous, what the fuck is "well regulated"??
You obviously missed my post above. To reiterate:
"In the parlance of the day "well regulated" did not have the meaning it does today (as in government regulation). It referred to a well-trained and well-equipped militia. Also, as in other amendments, the militia "clause" is not a qualifying statement for application of the right, merely a statement suggesting the purpose of it."
Yeah, and I'm also sure the well-educated founders were so sloppy as to misplace a comma, too. *rollseyes*
But regardless of how much I may or may not agree with your interpetation of this, I do doubt that the founding fathers... sitting from their technological vantage point, with the speed of technological progress at their time (which is to say, slow)... had any idea where weaponry would go, or what the consequences of a world with nuclear armed businessmen are.
We don't have to guess at what the founders meant, we can read their writings and letters to each other regarding their meaning and intent.
I disagree that the founding fathers had no notion of technological progress. They were deliberately vague in their wording so as to account for new technologies. Just as they don't mention handwriting and moveable type in the First Amendment, they didn't specifically mention muskets and field cannons in the Second.
If one uses the argument that the Second Amendment does not include automatic weapons, tanks, bombs and planes, then you must apply the same reasoning to the First, that the founders had no notion of laser printers, radio, television and the Internet. If you think free speech cannot be dangerous, you're deluding yourself.
Just because people have the capability, doesn't necessarily mean it will be used, either. How often have we heard from the gun control movement that passing shall-issue concealed weapons permits would lead to shootouts in the streets over fender-benders, and the like? The majority of US states have these now, and except for isolated incidents which may well have happened anyway, this feared scenario has not panned out. Much the same, mere access to deadlier weaponry would likely have the same effect.
I'm sure this will show most cops in good light, but we'll never see those videos on the evening news.
;)
No, you may not see them on the news, but there are plenty of examples to be seen on those "wildest car chase" shows they have on Court TV now.
Outrageous stuff, but officers mostly acting properly under the most stressful and scary of situations.
IMHO, cameras in cars that can't be deactivated by officers are a good thing. Keeps 'em honest. As their "employer" I like that.
You may call me crazy, but I don't believe in any restrictions whatsoever. Besides, once you get to things such as tanks, planes and nukes, things become more cost-prohibitive for individuals to acquire. I mean hell, whole countries (think Iran) take years and billions to develop nukes. I think that if an American citizen can afford one, they should be able to drive off in the equivalent of an M1A2 Abrams, fully armed, as soon as the money hits the counter.
;)
The founders intended for people to have the ability to mount an armed insurrection against an injust government, and the tools of the day included everything up to and including field artillery (the tanks and planes of the day). The founders also knew that technology would change, which is why they said "arms" and not specifically firearms. The important part was that people would have the ability to resist a tyrannical government (and provide a deterrent against a government becoming so), and nowadays the people are all but denied these tools. No, you may not need a machine gun to hunt, but that's not the intended purpose of the Second Amendment.
Also, for the "there's no way regular people could mount an effective insurrection" crowd, one has only to look at the current situation in Iraq, or historically Vietnam. Guerilla tactics and rudimentary equipment can be effective against NVDs, smart bombs, and all the other technology in a modern military's arsenal.
I don't see what's "selective" about that. While any particular person (including me) may disagree with the philosophy behind it, this is a very well reasoned stance... there is ambiguity in what the constitution says and means on this issue, the ACLU protects constitutional rights when such rights are clear.
It's "selective" in that they don't acknowledge access to arms as an individual right. I can't supply links right now, because of my employer's nanny-ware, but a "collective right" is absurd from the standpoint of both the founding father's intent, and a consistent reading of the entire Bill of Rights. Picking apart the wording, in the parlance of the day "well regulated" did not have the meaning it does today (as in government regulation). It referred to a well-trained and well-equipped militia. Also, as in other amendments, the militia "clause" is not a qualifying statement for application of the right, merely a statement suggesting the purpose of it.
The "collective" right argument does not hold up when it's considered that the other 9 amendments guarantee individual rights (yes, even the 10th) and people's rights are the sole pruspose of having the Bill of Rights in the first place. The collective right reading is a fabrication of the 20th century gun control movement. If you look back further than that, any other interpretation than an individual right was never even suggested.
Besides, on a purely practical note, after the police finish beating the crap out of you and your friend(s), how hard is it for them to confiscate and destroy a recording device?
In an ideal world, police should be charged with tampering with or destroying evidence in cases where cameras are confiscated and the recording media destroyed. After all, that's what Joe Citizen would probably be charged with if the roles were reversed, right? If we could only be so lucky.
Things like this make me sick.
While I may have issue with the ACLU's selective view on the Bill of Rights (they refuse to acknowledge the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right), I must admit I give kudos to them for taking this up.
While I'm sure most law enforcement officers are good people, there are too many jack-booted thugs among the ranks, who view the Bill of Rights as a nuisance and a hindrance and/or are control freaks on a trip.
I find it extremely distasteful that the "felony wiretap" case was in my home state of Pennsylvania.
The more the better...
Relaxen und watchen das blinkenlichten!
Oh, trust me... I fully expected to get modded flamebait for that one. I have karma to spare.
;) for different purposes so comparing is apples and oranges. More intelligent in what regard, is the question... To use the bird example, the visual cortex of even the "least intelligent" species of birds' and their processing of visual information would completely blow humans' out of the water, in some regards. So, it begs the question, better for what?
I was going to mention that I understand that equating intelligence from one species to another is a slippery slope. The brains of different animals, humans included, evolved (yes EVOLVED
Equating human emotions to other animals is even more dubious. While there aren't exact correlations , I'm sure, they still have feelings, moods, etc.
Many people I know treat their animals like they were their own children, especially if they are a childless couple. I accord my own cat with roughly the same level of accord as I do most people, if you were crapping on the carpet I would swap you too.
:P
;)
Hey... At least my birds actually talk. What can your cat do?
In all seriousness, to the GP... Not sure if he was trying to be funny or not, but just because we may be at the top in intelligence, humans are still animals. Hell chimps are 99% genetically identical. When talking about intelligent animals, sometimes people refer to the age of a child. For example, one might say that one of my birds has the mentality of a 3-4 year old human child. Coupled with the fact that they use English words in the correct context and ask for things by name blurs the distiction the GP was trying to make.
Unless he's a Bible-thumper.
Try firing that M16 + full-sized stock with full body armor, a RBR helmet and assorted ammo pouches in close quarters (IE, clearing a room inside of a building). That shorter barrel sure makes moving around corners a LOT easier (it's not in the way and catching on things) and the collapsable stock means a shorter distance from "weapon ready" to firing position. Oh, and it's lighter to boot.
Oh, I'm all too aware of the weight savings and suitability for CQB. My point wasn't that the M4 is/isn't lighter, more portable and easier to manuever in tight spaces, just that they aren't any more durable than the M16 upon which they're based.
Good point though about the tele-stock being adjustable depending on the gear between the butt of the stock and your shoulder.
Bit of trivia: there is a spring-loaded recoil reducer (yeah, I know, on a 5.56...) in the stock of the M-16: when you are firing with your cheek (facial cheek) against the stock, the noise from the recoil mechanism is almost as loud as the report of the weapon itself.
;)
Actually, that's not it's primary purpose... The spring and buffer are there to return the bolt carrier forward during firing to chamber the next round. The "boing" sound isn't as loud as you make it out to be. It's a characteristic sound that's actually reassuring to some. Plus, when you don't hear it go "boing" means it's time to reload.
Correction... The M4's buffer is a wee bit shorter, but still basically the same deal.
An M4 (I can never figure out the sequence of these numbers) is a good deal tougher long-term than the antique M16.
Says who? They're basically the same rifle. They have pretty much the same exact receiver assemblies, bolt carrier group and internal parts. All's an M4 is, is an M16 with a 14.5" barrel and a tele-stock (which basically has the same recoil buffer tube as the M16, but without the extra plastic around it to protect it).
That's pretty funny... But in actuality, since blond hair is a recessive trait, both parents have to be a carrier of the gene.