While the reforms are targeting those who should not be in possession of firearms, they also target firearms specifically.
They would outlaw all magazines in excess of 10 rounds, and renew the "scary-looking weapons" ban.
While this legislation isn't a push to ban all firearms from all people, there is a group which mirrors the real gun nuts. They use the passage of common sense laws to put in submarine "discretionary" language, which allows one person, or maybe a handful, to effectively remove large swaths of firearm ownership if they can get supporters into those positions.
It's the submarine subversion by the extremist left corollary to the extremist right which makes those of us who are not extremists very leery of any legislation. It only takes one bad apple to spoil the whole bunch, and it's hard to make sure none of those bad apples get into positions they can abuse. It's easier to try and prevent them passing any legislation which might be subverted, since extremists cannot be trusted (and I mean extremists of any stripe, including pro-gun extremists).
And those legally purchased firearms used in the commission of the first crime on record by that individual would be considered a crime committed with a legally purchased firearm, thus answering the hypothetical question originally posited.
Things start small. To begin with, there would be few who disobeyed orders. After all, their first orders would be to secure some area or other.
It would be no different than the guards on military installations. They will shoot you if you do not follow protocol. In this case, the protocol would be extended to whatever area/incident provoked a hypothetical crackdown.
Civil wars don't just explode out of nowhere. There are many incidents, small and large, which lead up to them. It's the events prior to the flashpoint that help set the stage for soldiers to start shooting at civilians, but in every case it happens. In some hypothetical future civil war in the US, it will be no different from any other in history. Eventually you'll have defections, and depending on how things go most of the remaining US military might eventually turn, but in the beginning almost all will follow orders. It may even end with most following orders.
Unfortunately, the restrictions on standing armies relied on a Congress that had living experience with standing armies being used by their government to suppress them. The Framers had not enough foresight to realize that a two-year authorization limit on funding for military expenditures was far too generous, and would do nothing to prevent the creation of one of the largest permanent standing military forces the world has ever seen.
Large numbers of small arms are the only way to effectively combat a modern military force, short of an equally-equipped, trained, and manned military.
I'm sure Opera support will be along shortly, since they're one of the three partners (along with Google and Mozilla) supporting the WebRTC initiative.
From the http://webrtc.org/ front page: "The WebRTC initiative is a project supported by Google, Mozilla and Opera. This page is maintained by the Google Chrome team."
I agree. It's a pretty bold statement to make saying wealthy blacks are more likely than the poorest of the other races to commit crimes. Few on Slashdot actually follow through with extraordinary evidence to back up extraordinary claims though, so I doubt that person will even make an attempt.
Yup. The problems going forward will be less about racism and more about nationalism or culturalism.
Contact is what eliminates barriers. It's what's different about "them" which makes "them" evil. As that has increasingly less to do with color, people will hate for other reasons, such as culture and language.
They also don't reflect the insane rate of plea bargains, a large percentage of which have been proven (usually long after the fact) to be false pleas in order to avoid the incredibly harsh sentences following jury trials. It is standard procedure for prosecutors to stack charges in order to coerce pleas for crimes which, in many cases, never even provably occurred.
Unfortunately, T-Mobile doesn't do that as of the last time I needed to change plans. Both phones were unsubsidized, and they informed me they no longer had non-contract plans comparable to their contract plans for the reduced rate. That's been about a year though, so maybe they regained their sanity.
No they won't, because the plan change requires a 2-year contract. There's no "sign up for support then drop plan" option on most carriers. The only carrier this might be an issue with is T-Mobile.
Every single pro-firearms person I've ever met is in favor of training.
The problem comes with mandating it as a matter of law. The mandates are the spot most easily co-opted by those who support universal bans. While they know they could never get the support for a ban, a mandate means there's room to write the training statute in a manner so that a small number of people can derail the process or make it needlessly expensive.
It's sort of like the permitting process in a number of states. While theoretically anyone not barred by law should be able to receive a permit, only those with political connections are realistically able to do so.
By co-opting the process at points where rational people ordinarily agree, irrational minorities can act in a manner that results in people refusing to support measures as law that they wouldn't ever consider ignoring in practice.
No, asking for a single cop is far less than what the President has available. Absent the ability to arm effectively against criminal arms though, a single 24/7 armed guard is the lowest level of non-self-provided defense one could count on for effective protection.
If society decides self-defense is no longer a right, it becomes incumbent on the society to provide adequate security measures on which all those deprived of their defensive rights may rely instead.
Departments I'm familiar with have an AR-style rifle and a shotgun in almost every squad car, whether urban or rural. The sidearm magazine size is usually 15 rounds, limited only by the inconvenience of having a larger one (though officers carrying something larger than a.40 will have proportionally smaller magazine sizes available).
As for the strawman, yeah, he was definitely claiming arguments not in evidence. It's good that you're clear as to what you're arguing, as many are not (which leads to massive amounts of miscommunication within a debate already filled with it at the best of times).
It's not a selective quotation. It is a dependent clause in much the same way that the power to enact copyrights is given to the Federal Government: Because it is necessary to goal X, power Y is granted.
Courts have ruled regularly that operative clauses are not actually limited by a dependent clause in grants of power. These rulings are more common than rulings on rights because they've been contested in the courts more often, but the logic applies the same way. Just because a copyright law is enacted with a goal other than promoting the progress of science and the useful arts does not mean it is outside the scope of power granted the government by the Copyright Clause. The "Promotion" clause does not limit the powers granted by the operative portion of the Copyright Clause (despite how much we might wish it did). There are prefaces and introductory clauses to most of the grants of power in the Constitution, and none of them have ever been held to actually limit the scope of those grants. Only the limits in the operative clauses have ever been held to limit the action of those clauses.
Because goal X is considered of the utmost importance, the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." The operative clause is identical in wording across several amendments. It follows then, that the power imbued in that clause is identical.
Since the phrase "the right of the people" is common to several amendments, and not a dependent clause, its meaning is just as clear in each. If the means of the time were the metric used, any technology used in furtherance of the 1st Amendment is open to being banned.
Additionally, the 4th Amendment could contemplate only physical searches and seizures, so technological means of monitoring, searching, and seizing would be perfectly permissible if your metric were used.
Those of the most authoritarian stripe would be incredibly pleased if your metric for determining what each Amendment covers were the one in current use. That is actually the goal of many, because it allows for the maximum amount of protections to be stripped from the Bill of Rights.
It's a failing common to those on both the Right and the Left. Most of the enduring problems in US law stem from short-cutting Constitutional protections, and both sides are to blame.
It's common to find that someone bringing up the behavior as a debate bludgeon would defend (or at least ignore) the exact same behavior in furtherance of a cause that person supports. By calling out only one side, the outrage rings hollow.
Actually, the.223 round (5.56mm NATO) is designed to pass straight through, leaving a very small hole, so that the person being shot is much more likely to be disabled than killed. The uproar over "assault weapons" fails to take into account that the predominant round used in them is engineered specifically to reduce fatalities. I'd much rather be on the receiving end of a.223 than a.308 from a single-shot hunting rifle.
I just wish Logitech would stop discontinuing their best trackballs. If it's the most functional thing Logitech sells in its trackball line, you can guarantee it'll be gone in a couple years.
Slashdot Mirror
North Korea is the Ferengi, without the lobes for business.
While the reforms are targeting those who should not be in possession of firearms, they also target firearms specifically.
They would outlaw all magazines in excess of 10 rounds, and renew the "scary-looking weapons" ban.
While this legislation isn't a push to ban all firearms from all people, there is a group which mirrors the real gun nuts. They use the passage of common sense laws to put in submarine "discretionary" language, which allows one person, or maybe a handful, to effectively remove large swaths of firearm ownership if they can get supporters into those positions.
It's the submarine subversion by the extremist left corollary to the extremist right which makes those of us who are not extremists very leery of any legislation. It only takes one bad apple to spoil the whole bunch, and it's hard to make sure none of those bad apples get into positions they can abuse. It's easier to try and prevent them passing any legislation which might be subverted, since extremists cannot be trusted (and I mean extremists of any stripe, including pro-gun extremists).
And those legally purchased firearms used in the commission of the first crime on record by that individual would be considered a crime committed with a legally purchased firearm, thus answering the hypothetical question originally posited.
Not to mention, tanks are horribly cramped. There isn't room to put a machine gun inside most tanks, let alone fire it from several positions.
Things start small. To begin with, there would be few who disobeyed orders. After all, their first orders would be to secure some area or other.
It would be no different than the guards on military installations. They will shoot you if you do not follow protocol. In this case, the protocol would be extended to whatever area/incident provoked a hypothetical crackdown.
Civil wars don't just explode out of nowhere. There are many incidents, small and large, which lead up to them. It's the events prior to the flashpoint that help set the stage for soldiers to start shooting at civilians, but in every case it happens. In some hypothetical future civil war in the US, it will be no different from any other in history. Eventually you'll have defections, and depending on how things go most of the remaining US military might eventually turn, but in the beginning almost all will follow orders. It may even end with most following orders.
Unfortunately, the restrictions on standing armies relied on a Congress that had living experience with standing armies being used by their government to suppress them. The Framers had not enough foresight to realize that a two-year authorization limit on funding for military expenditures was far too generous, and would do nothing to prevent the creation of one of the largest permanent standing military forces the world has ever seen.
Large numbers of small arms are the only way to effectively combat a modern military force, short of an equally-equipped, trained, and manned military.
Seems like all that would be needed was a shifting random minimum bit rate to mask an encrypted VBR stream from speech pattern analysis.
I'm sure Opera support will be along shortly, since they're one of the three partners (along with Google and Mozilla) supporting the WebRTC initiative.
From the http://webrtc.org/ front page:
"The WebRTC initiative is a project supported by Google, Mozilla and Opera. This page is maintained by the Google Chrome team."
I'm glad I just finished drinking.
I agree. It's a pretty bold statement to make saying wealthy blacks are more likely than the poorest of the other races to commit crimes. Few on Slashdot actually follow through with extraordinary evidence to back up extraordinary claims though, so I doubt that person will even make an attempt.
Yup. The problems going forward will be less about racism and more about nationalism or culturalism.
Contact is what eliminates barriers. It's what's different about "them" which makes "them" evil. As that has increasingly less to do with color, people will hate for other reasons, such as culture and language.
They also don't reflect the insane rate of plea bargains, a large percentage of which have been proven (usually long after the fact) to be false pleas in order to avoid the incredibly harsh sentences following jury trials. It is standard procedure for prosecutors to stack charges in order to coerce pleas for crimes which, in many cases, never even provably occurred.
It was more complex than "if first_child == girl then kill first_child", but the custom did exist.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2799344
Unfortunately, T-Mobile doesn't do that as of the last time I needed to change plans. Both phones were unsubsidized, and they informed me they no longer had non-contract plans comparable to their contract plans for the reduced rate. That's been about a year though, so maybe they regained their sanity.
No they won't, because the plan change requires a 2-year contract. There's no "sign up for support then drop plan" option on most carriers. The only carrier this might be an issue with is T-Mobile.
Every single pro-firearms person I've ever met is in favor of training.
The problem comes with mandating it as a matter of law. The mandates are the spot most easily co-opted by those who support universal bans. While they know they could never get the support for a ban, a mandate means there's room to write the training statute in a manner so that a small number of people can derail the process or make it needlessly expensive.
It's sort of like the permitting process in a number of states. While theoretically anyone not barred by law should be able to receive a permit, only those with political connections are realistically able to do so.
By co-opting the process at points where rational people ordinarily agree, irrational minorities can act in a manner that results in people refusing to support measures as law that they wouldn't ever consider ignoring in practice.
No, asking for a single cop is far less than what the President has available. Absent the ability to arm effectively against criminal arms though, a single 24/7 armed guard is the lowest level of non-self-provided defense one could count on for effective protection.
If society decides self-defense is no longer a right, it becomes incumbent on the society to provide adequate security measures on which all those deprived of their defensive rights may rely instead.
Departments I'm familiar with have an AR-style rifle and a shotgun in almost every squad car, whether urban or rural. The sidearm magazine size is usually 15 rounds, limited only by the inconvenience of having a larger one (though officers carrying something larger than a .40 will have proportionally smaller magazine sizes available).
As for the strawman, yeah, he was definitely claiming arguments not in evidence. It's good that you're clear as to what you're arguing, as many are not (which leads to massive amounts of miscommunication within a debate already filled with it at the best of times).
The police have no duty to protect you.
Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. (1981)
Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005)
It's not a selective quotation. It is a dependent clause in much the same way that the power to enact copyrights is given to the Federal Government: Because it is necessary to goal X, power Y is granted.
Courts have ruled regularly that operative clauses are not actually limited by a dependent clause in grants of power. These rulings are more common than rulings on rights because they've been contested in the courts more often, but the logic applies the same way. Just because a copyright law is enacted with a goal other than promoting the progress of science and the useful arts does not mean it is outside the scope of power granted the government by the Copyright Clause. The "Promotion" clause does not limit the powers granted by the operative portion of the Copyright Clause (despite how much we might wish it did). There are prefaces and introductory clauses to most of the grants of power in the Constitution, and none of them have ever been held to actually limit the scope of those grants. Only the limits in the operative clauses have ever been held to limit the action of those clauses.
Because goal X is considered of the utmost importance, the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." The operative clause is identical in wording across several amendments. It follows then, that the power imbued in that clause is identical.
Since the phrase "the right of the people" is common to several amendments, and not a dependent clause, its meaning is just as clear in each. If the means of the time were the metric used, any technology used in furtherance of the 1st Amendment is open to being banned.
Additionally, the 4th Amendment could contemplate only physical searches and seizures, so technological means of monitoring, searching, and seizing would be perfectly permissible if your metric were used.
Those of the most authoritarian stripe would be incredibly pleased if your metric for determining what each Amendment covers were the one in current use. That is actually the goal of many, because it allows for the maximum amount of protections to be stripped from the Bill of Rights.
It's a failing common to those on both the Right and the Left. Most of the enduring problems in US law stem from short-cutting Constitutional protections, and both sides are to blame.
It's common to find that someone bringing up the behavior as a debate bludgeon would defend (or at least ignore) the exact same behavior in furtherance of a cause that person supports. By calling out only one side, the outrage rings hollow.
Actually, the .223 round (5.56mm NATO) is designed to pass straight through, leaving a very small hole, so that the person being shot is much more likely to be disabled than killed. The uproar over "assault weapons" fails to take into account that the predominant round used in them is engineered specifically to reduce fatalities. I'd much rather be on the receiving end of a .223 than a .308 from a single-shot hunting rifle.
I just wish Logitech would stop discontinuing their best trackballs. If it's the most functional thing Logitech sells in its trackball line, you can guarantee it'll be gone in a couple years.