Firearms in the 5-figure cost range aren't used in shootings in the US. Why? Because they're expensive.
This won't ever be used to commit a crime, unless it's used by someone with official access to one. This is much like the reason why automatic weapons aren't used in crimes in the US but for a handful of times. Of that handful, most were committed by police officers with access as a result of their job.
Given the Justice Department's latest actions, subpoenas aren't necessary anymore to troll for information that's not even connected to an active investigation.
They just wiretap and obtain phone records whenever the hell they feel like it now.
I'm pretty sure you replied to the wrong message. I don't see your username in any of the messages in this particular thread, and there is no mention of VOIP in this thread.
Unless you use a BES server hosted by someone else, a Blackberry fits the bill. Their communications can only be decrypted if you use the Blackberry servers. That's very easy to avoid.
Pub. L. 103-272, Sec. 1(e), July 5, 1994, 108 Stat. 1234. As codified in 49 USC 46303.
Prior to July 5th, 1994, or the date of enactment set in Public Law 103-272 if it were later, carrying a firearm in the passenger compartment of an airplane was legal. I cannot find an earlier law prohibiting carry, though I may have missed one. There are those who claim it was outlawed in 1968, but I have been unable to verify if that was the case.
Home defense is a good reason. I personally know a couple people who are still alive as a result of owning a firearm.
If you have a problem with the 2nd Amendment, the proper course of action is to further amend it, not to ignore its meaning. SCOTUS has repeatedly held that various dependent clauses in the Constitution hold no restrictive power over the independent clauses to which they are attached. These have been applied to powers granted the Federal Government and to rights such as the 2nd Amendment.
The 2nd does in fact mention that its purpose is to enable the creation of well-regulated militias. Militias being irrelevant to modern warfare does not in any way negate the statement that follows the reasoning portion of the amendment. It has the same effect in the 2nd as it does in every other amendment the language is used: "the right of the people... shall not be infringed." That the exact same language is used in other amendments to denote individual rights, not collective rights.
When parsing the Constitution, it's routinely held by the SCOTUS that dependent clauses do nothing to limit the language of the independent clause to which they are attached.
Not to mention, the private sales at gun shows account for a nearly non-existent percentage of total gun show sales. It's pretty rare to have someone selling privately at a show who is not a collector (usually of rather expensive arms).
And most firearm deaths in the US are suicides, but Japan has far more suicides per capita than the US despite not having many firearms. Removing firearms would be unlikely to result in a statistically significant reduction in suicides. Simply look at the suicide rates for the UK and Australia following their widespread bans on firearms to see the effects (or rather, lack thereof).
An assault weapon is a rifle that looks scary; they're functionally not very different from a standard rifle. A grenade launcher is already heavily restricted, and civilians can't buy actual grenade ammo for them. As for bayonet mounts, I have yet to hear of a single crime committed with a bayonet, probably because it's far more effective to use the knife by itself. Stock and grip changes, as well as muzzle brakes, provide accuracy increases, but if reversing that was the goal they'd ban optics. A barrel shroud prevents you from burning yourself. A flash hider sounds scary, but doesn't do all that much for anyone who isn't hiding from a trained sniper spotter. Silencers are already heavily restricted.
If you meant an assault rifle, which is actually capable of firing more than one round per trigger pull, then they're already crazy expensive and highly restricted. They're also not used in US crimes due to their overwhelming expense and the difficulty of obtaining one. The few crimes that have occurred since the Valentine's Day Massacre in the 20s have mostly been law enforcement officers who have access to the assault rifles in their local police armory.
The problem with gun registries is not their usefulness to law enforcement when times are good. It's their usefulness to tyrants when things are bad. Unfortunately, the US has a long history of abusing data that's been collected for other uses. Other countries have even worse records when it's come to using firearm databases.
If that were true, there would be no presumption of innocence. It would be preferable to jail the innocent by mistake than to let one single criminal go.
There would also be no 4th Amendment, as that hampers the ability of law enforcement to catch everyone they possibly can with the least amount of interference.
It could be argued, however, that the protection of the individual serves to protect society in general, but unfortunately there are a huge number of people who do not see things that way.
Slashdot Mirror
Egypt is a great example of democracy and authoritarianism not being mutually exclusive.
That's perfect.
You forgot the sarcasm tags. Many people will take your post seriously as a result.
There's no inherent reason to believe that the poll wasn't statistically valid because of where they took the samples from.
Actually, it's entirely possible that a poll is inherently biased based on the location used. Whether or not that's the case here is another matter.
Making a zip gun requires almost no technical expertise, and they are quite effective.
Firearms in the 5-figure cost range aren't used in shootings in the US. Why? Because they're expensive.
This won't ever be used to commit a crime, unless it's used by someone with official access to one. This is much like the reason why automatic weapons aren't used in crimes in the US but for a handful of times. Of that handful, most were committed by police officers with access as a result of their job.
King George III.
Given the Justice Department's latest actions, subpoenas aren't necessary anymore to troll for information that's not even connected to an active investigation.
They just wiretap and obtain phone records whenever the hell they feel like it now.
The key is that any native from Belize knows that all hills in the flatlands are ruins.
I'm pretty sure you replied to the wrong message. I don't see your username in any of the messages in this particular thread, and there is no mention of VOIP in this thread.
You also have relatively homogeneous populations and a record of lower crime rates even before gun bans.
If the crime rates were similar before the gun bans, you might have a point. The cultures are similar in some respect, but vastly different in others.
Unless you use a BES server hosted by someone else, a Blackberry fits the bill. Their communications can only be decrypted if you use the Blackberry servers. That's very easy to avoid.
Quite pleased. Very little good has come out of non-gridlocked government. The best we can hope for now is to continue with gridlocked government.
Only ethical teachers of religion promote ethics.
There are many unethical teachers of religion.
Anyone can already do that more cheaply than using 3D printers.
They're called CNC machines, and they're almost as easy to use, and their use is cheaper to boot.
This changes nothing but perceptions.
Pub. L. 103-272, Sec. 1(e), July 5, 1994, 108 Stat. 1234.
As codified in 49 USC 46303.
Prior to July 5th, 1994, or the date of enactment set in Public Law 103-272 if it were later, carrying a firearm in the passenger compartment of an airplane was legal. I cannot find an earlier law prohibiting carry, though I may have missed one. There are those who claim it was outlawed in 1968, but I have been unable to verify if that was the case.
Home defense is a good reason. I personally know a couple people who are still alive as a result of owning a firearm.
If you have a problem with the 2nd Amendment, the proper course of action is to further amend it, not to ignore its meaning. SCOTUS has repeatedly held that various dependent clauses in the Constitution hold no restrictive power over the independent clauses to which they are attached. These have been applied to powers granted the Federal Government and to rights such as the 2nd Amendment.
The 2nd does in fact mention that its purpose is to enable the creation of well-regulated militias. Militias being irrelevant to modern warfare does not in any way negate the statement that follows the reasoning portion of the amendment. It has the same effect in the 2nd as it does in every other amendment the language is used: "the right of the people ... shall not be infringed." That the exact same language is used in other amendments to denote individual rights, not collective rights.
Hard.
None.
Plastic barrels wouldn't hold up to fully automatic fire. Metal barrels have a hard time holding up to fully automatic fire.
The firing pin can be set in a removable block.
When parsing the Constitution, it's routinely held by the SCOTUS that dependent clauses do nothing to limit the language of the independent clause to which they are attached.
Not to mention, the private sales at gun shows account for a nearly non-existent percentage of total gun show sales. It's pretty rare to have someone selling privately at a show who is not a collector (usually of rather expensive arms).
And most firearm deaths in the US are suicides, but Japan has far more suicides per capita than the US despite not having many firearms. Removing firearms would be unlikely to result in a statistically significant reduction in suicides. Simply look at the suicide rates for the UK and Australia following their widespread bans on firearms to see the effects (or rather, lack thereof).
He said "murders," not "deaths."
Most firearm deaths are suicides, and the suicide rates in countries depend far more on other factors than the availability of firearms.
An assault weapon is a rifle that looks scary; they're functionally not very different from a standard rifle. A grenade launcher is already heavily restricted, and civilians can't buy actual grenade ammo for them. As for bayonet mounts, I have yet to hear of a single crime committed with a bayonet, probably because it's far more effective to use the knife by itself. Stock and grip changes, as well as muzzle brakes, provide accuracy increases, but if reversing that was the goal they'd ban optics. A barrel shroud prevents you from burning yourself. A flash hider sounds scary, but doesn't do all that much for anyone who isn't hiding from a trained sniper spotter. Silencers are already heavily restricted.
If you meant an assault rifle, which is actually capable of firing more than one round per trigger pull, then they're already crazy expensive and highly restricted. They're also not used in US crimes due to their overwhelming expense and the difficulty of obtaining one. The few crimes that have occurred since the Valentine's Day Massacre in the 20s have mostly been law enforcement officers who have access to the assault rifles in their local police armory.
The problem with gun registries is not their usefulness to law enforcement when times are good. It's their usefulness to tyrants when things are bad. Unfortunately, the US has a long history of abusing data that's been collected for other uses. Other countries have even worse records when it's come to using firearm databases.
If that were true, there would be no presumption of innocence. It would be preferable to jail the innocent by mistake than to let one single criminal go.
There would also be no 4th Amendment, as that hampers the ability of law enforcement to catch everyone they possibly can with the least amount of interference.
It could be argued, however, that the protection of the individual serves to protect society in general, but unfortunately there are a huge number of people who do not see things that way.