Then please come up with a way to frame the debate. Right now, the NRA is simply stonewalling, or suggesting things that are so outlandish that they only serve to alienate the average person from their argument.
I'm not a firearms enthusiast, but I know how to load and fire a bolt-action rifle, and how to load and fire a revolver. I find target shooting to be entertaining, and have considered concealed carry before, but haven't found a specific need to carry. I look at it that without firearms enthusiasts in the debate, even I may lose the rights that I have enjoyed if those who go off-the-deep-end keep representing the side of firearms enthusiasts.
Certainly having more than single-shot long guns would have been an advantage during our Revolutionary War, but most likely for the British military that would have embraced them wholesale, than for civilian-based militias that we would have had.
As I said, there is at least one mass-shooting incident where the unarmed people present stopped the shooter when he had to reload.
In 1997 an armed civilian with military training stopped a fleeing school shooter after he was done shooting at the school, and he stopped him by ramming his car with his own.
A quick search has not revealed any successful incidents of civilians stopping mass-shootings with their own guns. Off-duty police and military have, but I can't find evidence of civilians without military or police training doing it.
Be careful, depending on the courts, "clip" could refer to any structure capable of holding ammunition and designed to be a module of the firearm.
And framing the debate in these terms is not going to help you if they decide to propose legislation that requires all civilian magazines for rifles with a capcity of 10 rounds must be unloaded except when in use at licensed firearms ranges, and for handguns with magazines in excess of ten rounds, the remaining capacity must be filled with dummy rounds if carried off one one's own property or outside of a licensed firearms range...
My point is that attempting to stonewall the debate instead of participating in it will probably result in something at least at stringent as the previous assault weapons ban, and could result in something even more strict. If firearms enthusiasts take a good look at the ills that come from firearms ownership and themselves suggest limits, then they can craft what happens. And one can rant and rave about the Second Amendment all one wants, the court has ruled that previous restrictions are in fact legal, and would very likely continue to do so as long as restrictions do not outright prohibit any kind of firearm.
Last time I checked, another way to stop a bad guy with a gun was to catch him when he was reloading because he exhausted the ammunition in his firearm. That worked in Tucson.
I would like to see documented cases where an otherwise-innocent civilian with no connection to the military, to law enforcement, or to private security needed more than ten rounds, or was harmed for running out of ammunition over ten rounds...
How about statistically greater than one incident, and given the context (returning to work to shoot the people at work) is more akin to a workplace shooting than a military-trained shooting then?
Bear in mind that I've used sick time and vacation time over the last decade at work, so that's why I do not have all of the time I have accrued in total, I've used it.
Have it revealed that some humans are actually droids? Have it turn out that Han and Leia are somehow also brother/sister, or that Han is a blood-relative of the Fett line? Or have Keira Knightley's character return and have Luke go for someone that's too old for him and looks like his mother?
Don't get me wrong, I like Ron Moore's work more than I dislike it, but there is plenty to dislike and plenty of places that it can go full derp.
At least Moore has a sense of humor about it. There was an epsiode of CSI set at a convention for a fictional sci-fi show, and the show was "reimagined" in the same vein as BSG and after showing the teaser for it, out in the crowd, Ron Moore shouted, "YOU SUCK!" at the writer/producer of the new show. This was based on an experience that he actually had.
All of those military rifles in Swiss homes are there because they were earned, not bought. Just about all males go through military service, and on honorable discharge from their conscription they're essentially listed as being in the reserves and they retain their rifles.
If you've been through the military and honorably discharged and want to own a sidearm like the one that you carried in the service, I'm a lot less worried about you than I am about any other random person. Granted, too many former US military have PTSD issues that our health system isn't addressing like it should, but even with that, we haven't seen massive numbers of mass-shootings conducted by former military personnel that were honorably discharged. In fact, there has been only one such mass-shooting in 30 years, and it was an Airman that was forcibly-honorably-discharged, who didn't want to be, who returned with weapons to shoot the military doctors that he blamed for his discharge.
Wow. I started with an accrual rate of 8hrs/month sick, 8hrs/month vacation, and being over ten years service, I now earn 12hrs/month vacation, sick accrual remaining the same. There's also little to no actual cap- once I cross 240hrs vacation accrued, at the end of the fiscal year the overage past 240 gets rolled into my sick time, so I just start taking sick time instead of vacation time.
Right now I have about 120hrs sick time and about 240hrs vacation time accrued. I've still got about 20 years before I can retire from this employer, and I have yet to have children, so I'm happy to let it bank now so that I have sick time available to deal with child illnesses, and vacation time available. I still take vacations, but I actually like my job, so I don't feel a massive need to escape as far away as possible either.
The real issue is that my wife doesn't accrue vacation time as fast as I do, and with her need to travel out-of-state to see her aging parents, she uses hers up much faster than I do mine, and she also accrues sick time like you do, in only paltry amounts. It's kind of pathetic how little sick time she gets, and everyone at the company is the same on that, so people just work sick.
Knowing how to drop a precision F-strike at the appropriate time is one thing. Indiscriminately carpeting the place with cluster F-bombs is a waste of perfectly good shock ammunition.
I think that the real issue is if HP tries to enforce some kind of no-compete against these specific employees or not, and given the nature of the apparent transition, if such a no-compete is even a valid argument when such a large division of employees are moving.
The weirder thing is that apparently there is some formal process for those 3000 HP employees to become GM employees anyway, so eighteen represents about 0.6% of those employees.
I've had couple of generations, and our current model for my wife's use is an X301. We love its industrial ruggedness (for a non-ruggedized machine) and its very light weight for its size.
But, I've owned Toshibas, Dells, and a Gateway, so I'm not opposed to other brands. When we bought the X301 it came with a free Ideapad S10-2, which is what I have on-hand as a quick-availability machine in the living room. Build Thinkpads like the Ideapads and you'll lose us as a customer. Even though the X301 was very expensive ($1700 if memory serves) I'd still rather buy quality an reliability in a package that looks businesslike and doesn't scream, "steal me!" over most of the stuff out there. If that paradigm changes, I don't need to keep buying.
I maintain that "religion" and "faith" and "beliefs" and even "convictions" are not the same thing.
Religion is dogmatic in nature. Whether its adherents know or understand the literature, the scripture, the dogma is secondary, and is the difference between religion and faith. This difference is what causes religions to either go into decline or to have to accept change, and is why there are new religions in the first place. But, as a consequence, the thoughts and concepts that lead to alternate religions or to variants on existing religions generally have to be organized in order to be recognized, otherwise they're just beliefs, not religions.
I believe that lay people that want to claim religious exceptions for things should have to first disclose their religion, and then authorities of that religion should have to be willing to stand up and publicly defend those claims, especially for things that the lay person can't cite chapter-and-verse on, or can't cite existing documentation like from Vatican II or other edicts or the like. I would expect that whatever religion she claims, she cannot cite any supporting documentation for this position. Even those wackos in the South that handle snakes can cite a passage from the Bible about snakes.
I'm wondering what in the article-cited "Christian Faith" precludes immunization. Last time I checked, Catholics, Anglicans, Lutherans, Baptists, Seventh-day Adventists, Methodists, and a whole host of other or "non denominational" sects or splinter groups all have no issue with immunizations or other medical procedures of any kind. The only mainstream Christian splinter that eschews immunizations and just about all other medical care is the ironically-named Christian Scientists.
If she's not Christian Science, the faith-based claim should fall as short as the parents of schoolchildren that sued because little Suzie was dresscoded for wearing a crucifix charm necklace, with the court finding no religious mandate or directive to wear a crucifix charm necklace, and the dismissal of their suit.
Being one of those that does aftermarket stuff with cars, car manufacturers seem to not have a problem with auto enthusiasts plastering the manufacturer's name all over the vehicle in all but the weirdest of cases. It's free advertising for them, and for the most part, restorers look to do a good job with a restoration.
I think he should be allowed to make the car, but he can't put a Batman logo on it without a license...
That would depend on where he got the logo from, and if the logo's production was licensed. If he bought a licensed logo from a store and slapped it on then I don't see a violation. It would also depend on if the show has fallen into the public domain. I had heard, for example, that at least the first season Star Trek had fallen into the public domain because its copyright wasn't renewed, but currently I can't find any evidence of that, but if it's true then it would possibly be legal to use elements from Star Trek in other things without royalties.
Interesting... Modded down when the point was to satirize the very writeup itself with the reference to the website that satirized the claims and promotions of the dotcom era...
Government has no rights. It most certainly doesn't have any right to know what I own or possess, until said government obtains a warrant.
Do you drive a car? I hope it's titled and registered.
Do you own a home? Your deed itself is a function of government acknowledging that you own the property and in that acknowledgement providing you with a legal claim.
Do you travel? Your luggage is subject to search as a condition of being allowed to fly. Your breath and blood are legal avenues of investigation if you drive.
Otherwise, enjoy renting for the rest of your life, and taking cabs and buses or walking everywhere.
Automakers do not have to copyright their designs, they trademark aspects of them. They also patent aspects of them, and generally only defend those patents and trademarks when others attempt to build new vehicles of mass production.
This gentleman is reproducing something by modifying an existing car to look like another modified car. DC nor the TV producers built the car from scratch, they modified a design for a concept car from Ford using existing Ford chassis to make their batmobile. Arguably, theirs is a derivative work in of itself, which should significantly reduce their ability to claim harm from others also making derivative works.
Slashdot Mirror
Then please come up with a way to frame the debate. Right now, the NRA is simply stonewalling, or suggesting things that are so outlandish that they only serve to alienate the average person from their argument.
I'm not a firearms enthusiast, but I know how to load and fire a bolt-action rifle, and how to load and fire a revolver. I find target shooting to be entertaining, and have considered concealed carry before, but haven't found a specific need to carry. I look at it that without firearms enthusiasts in the debate, even I may lose the rights that I have enjoyed if those who go off-the-deep-end keep representing the side of firearms enthusiasts.
Certainly having more than single-shot long guns would have been an advantage during our Revolutionary War, but most likely for the British military that would have embraced them wholesale, than for civilian-based militias that we would have had.
As I said, there is at least one mass-shooting incident where the unarmed people present stopped the shooter when he had to reload.
In 1997 an armed civilian with military training stopped a fleeing school shooter after he was done shooting at the school, and he stopped him by ramming his car with his own.
A quick search has not revealed any successful incidents of civilians stopping mass-shootings with their own guns. Off-duty police and military have, but I can't find evidence of civilians without military or police training doing it.
Be careful, depending on the courts, "clip" could refer to any structure capable of holding ammunition and designed to be a module of the firearm.
And framing the debate in these terms is not going to help you if they decide to propose legislation that requires all civilian magazines for rifles with a capcity of 10 rounds must be unloaded except when in use at licensed firearms ranges, and for handguns with magazines in excess of ten rounds, the remaining capacity must be filled with dummy rounds if carried off one one's own property or outside of a licensed firearms range...
My point is that attempting to stonewall the debate instead of participating in it will probably result in something at least at stringent as the previous assault weapons ban, and could result in something even more strict. If firearms enthusiasts take a good look at the ills that come from firearms ownership and themselves suggest limits, then they can craft what happens. And one can rant and rave about the Second Amendment all one wants, the court has ruled that previous restrictions are in fact legal, and would very likely continue to do so as long as restrictions do not outright prohibit any kind of firearm.
Last time I checked, another way to stop a bad guy with a gun was to catch him when he was reloading because he exhausted the ammunition in his firearm. That worked in Tucson.
I would like to see documented cases where an otherwise-innocent civilian with no connection to the military, to law enforcement, or to private security needed more than ten rounds, or was harmed for running out of ammunition over ten rounds...
How about statistically greater than one incident, and given the context (returning to work to shoot the people at work) is more akin to a workplace shooting than a military-trained shooting then?
Bear in mind that I've used sick time and vacation time over the last decade at work, so that's why I do not have all of the time I have accrued in total, I've used it.
Have it revealed that some humans are actually droids? Have it turn out that Han and Leia are somehow also brother/sister, or that Han is a blood-relative of the Fett line? Or have Keira Knightley's character return and have Luke go for someone that's too old for him and looks like his mother?
Don't get me wrong, I like Ron Moore's work more than I dislike it, but there is plenty to dislike and plenty of places that it can go full derp.
At least Moore has a sense of humor about it. There was an epsiode of CSI set at a convention for a fictional sci-fi show, and the show was "reimagined" in the same vein as BSG and after showing the teaser for it, out in the crowd, Ron Moore shouted, "YOU SUCK!" at the writer/producer of the new show. This was based on an experience that he actually had.
All of those military rifles in Swiss homes are there because they were earned, not bought. Just about all males go through military service, and on honorable discharge from their conscription they're essentially listed as being in the reserves and they retain their rifles.
If you've been through the military and honorably discharged and want to own a sidearm like the one that you carried in the service, I'm a lot less worried about you than I am about any other random person. Granted, too many former US military have PTSD issues that our health system isn't addressing like it should, but even with that, we haven't seen massive numbers of mass-shootings conducted by former military personnel that were honorably discharged. In fact, there has been only one such mass-shooting in 30 years, and it was an Airman that was forcibly-honorably-discharged, who didn't want to be, who returned with weapons to shoot the military doctors that he blamed for his discharge.
Wow. I started with an accrual rate of 8hrs/month sick, 8hrs/month vacation, and being over ten years service, I now earn 12hrs/month vacation, sick accrual remaining the same. There's also little to no actual cap- once I cross 240hrs vacation accrued, at the end of the fiscal year the overage past 240 gets rolled into my sick time, so I just start taking sick time instead of vacation time.
Right now I have about 120hrs sick time and about 240hrs vacation time accrued. I've still got about 20 years before I can retire from this employer, and I have yet to have children, so I'm happy to let it bank now so that I have sick time available to deal with child illnesses, and vacation time available. I still take vacations, but I actually like my job, so I don't feel a massive need to escape as far away as possible either.
The real issue is that my wife doesn't accrue vacation time as fast as I do, and with her need to travel out-of-state to see her aging parents, she uses hers up much faster than I do mine, and she also accrues sick time like you do, in only paltry amounts. It's kind of pathetic how little sick time she gets, and everyone at the company is the same on that, so people just work sick.
Is it time for a colorful metaphor?
I think that the real issue is if HP tries to enforce some kind of no-compete against these specific employees or not, and given the nature of the apparent transition, if such a no-compete is even a valid argument when such a large division of employees are moving.
The weirder thing is that apparently there is some formal process for those 3000 HP employees to become GM employees anyway, so eighteen represents about 0.6% of those employees.
It's a snow cone machine.
Fucking dashes, how do they work?!
I've had couple of generations, and our current model for my wife's use is an X301. We love its industrial ruggedness (for a non-ruggedized machine) and its very light weight for its size.
But, I've owned Toshibas, Dells, and a Gateway, so I'm not opposed to other brands. When we bought the X301 it came with a free Ideapad S10-2, which is what I have on-hand as a quick-availability machine in the living room. Build Thinkpads like the Ideapads and you'll lose us as a customer. Even though the X301 was very expensive ($1700 if memory serves) I'd still rather buy quality an reliability in a package that looks businesslike and doesn't scream, "steal me!" over most of the stuff out there. If that paradigm changes, I don't need to keep buying.
I maintain that "religion" and "faith" and "beliefs" and even "convictions" are not the same thing.
Religion is dogmatic in nature. Whether its adherents know or understand the literature, the scripture, the dogma is secondary, and is the difference between religion and faith. This difference is what causes religions to either go into decline or to have to accept change, and is why there are new religions in the first place. But, as a consequence, the thoughts and concepts that lead to alternate religions or to variants on existing religions generally have to be organized in order to be recognized, otherwise they're just beliefs, not religions.
I believe that lay people that want to claim religious exceptions for things should have to first disclose their religion, and then authorities of that religion should have to be willing to stand up and publicly defend those claims, especially for things that the lay person can't cite chapter-and-verse on, or can't cite existing documentation like from Vatican II or other edicts or the like. I would expect that whatever religion she claims, she cannot cite any supporting documentation for this position. Even those wackos in the South that handle snakes can cite a passage from the Bible about snakes.
I'm wondering what in the article-cited "Christian Faith" precludes immunization. Last time I checked, Catholics, Anglicans, Lutherans, Baptists, Seventh-day Adventists, Methodists, and a whole host of other or "non denominational" sects or splinter groups all have no issue with immunizations or other medical procedures of any kind. The only mainstream Christian splinter that eschews immunizations and just about all other medical care is the ironically-named Christian Scientists.
If she's not Christian Science, the faith-based claim should fall as short as the parents of schoolchildren that sued because little Suzie was dresscoded for wearing a crucifix charm necklace, with the court finding no religious mandate or directive to wear a crucifix charm necklace, and the dismissal of their suit.
22/7, but only when one doesn't need much more than two decimal places significance.
Being one of those that does aftermarket stuff with cars, car manufacturers seem to not have a problem with auto enthusiasts plastering the manufacturer's name all over the vehicle in all but the weirdest of cases. It's free advertising for them, and for the most part, restorers look to do a good job with a restoration.
That would depend on where he got the logo from, and if the logo's production was licensed. If he bought a licensed logo from a store and slapped it on then I don't see a violation. It would also depend on if the show has fallen into the public domain. I had heard, for example, that at least the first season Star Trek had fallen into the public domain because its copyright wasn't renewed, but currently I can't find any evidence of that, but if it's true then it would possibly be legal to use elements from Star Trek in other things without royalties.
Interesting... Modded down when the point was to satirize the very writeup itself with the reference to the website that satirized the claims and promotions of the dotcom era...
... you can do anything at Zombo com, the only limitation is yourself...
Welcome to Zombo Com!
Nah, it doesn't come and go...
Do you drive a car? I hope it's titled and registered.
Do you own a home? Your deed itself is a function of government acknowledging that you own the property and in that acknowledgement providing you with a legal claim.
Do you travel? Your luggage is subject to search as a condition of being allowed to fly. Your breath and blood are legal avenues of investigation if you drive.
Otherwise, enjoy renting for the rest of your life, and taking cabs and buses or walking everywhere.
Automakers do not have to copyright their designs, they trademark aspects of them. They also patent aspects of them, and generally only defend those patents and trademarks when others attempt to build new vehicles of mass production.
This gentleman is reproducing something by modifying an existing car to look like another modified car. DC nor the TV producers built the car from scratch, they modified a design for a concept car from Ford using existing Ford chassis to make their batmobile. Arguably, theirs is a derivative work in of itself, which should significantly reduce their ability to claim harm from others also making derivative works.