The terrorists would simply load up one or two aircraft with several firearms, overwhelming the one or two carrying civilians. If 'we' could carry, so could they.
Most states won't issue concealed carry licenses to non-residents and no state will issue them to someone who is in the country illegally, so this argument is moot.
This is wishful thinking but seriously not true. 9/11 was so successful simply because the common line of thought at the time was that hijackings were simply political ploys to gain bargaining strength in which the hostages staying alive was a necessary part of the organizational plan.
Passengers on all the planes (not just Flight 93) were in communications with the ground, so it stands to reason that they all knew what was happening. Perhaps the people on the first plane were clueless but certainly the people on the other three knew damn well what was going to happen.
And remember, this isn't because I think the 4th amendment should be violated, it's because the 2nd amendment was nullified.
So why not put some teeth back in the 2nd amendment and allow law-abiding American citizens to carry guns? It works on the ground, why not in the air?
Some of these planes (eg 747s) have been in service since before cell phones existed.
So what? A cell phone is nothing more than a fancy radio transmitter. Radio transmitters have been around longer than airplanes. You really don't think the designers of the 747 took RF emissions into account when they designed the thing?
We should only treat young Middle Easteners like criminals
Did I say that? I'm pretty sure I also pointed out the age of the people in question. Whom do you think is more likely to be a threat, the young male or the near-deaths-door wheelchair bound female?
Your right to carry on dangerous weapons that I can't reasonably escape from is terminated if you want to ride along
If "dangerous weapons" had been allowed to law-abiding citizens 9/11 would never have happened. Food for thought. We surrendered our 2nd amendment rights and 3,000 people died. Now you think that surrendering our 4th amendment rights are the answer?
Your nickname is telling. How'd you wind up on my friends list anyway if you are that much of a sheep?
Which domestic terrorist organization has engaged in a mass casualty attack? Most of the ones I can think of (OKC and Fort Hood come to mind) were the actions of a lone wolf or a small ad-hoc conspiracy.
but it's safer and doesn't require choosing between being either electronically strip searched or manhandled.
Yet.
NYPD is subjecting subway passengers to random searches. If you refuse they will kick you out of the subway system. Apparently you have no right to travel on the transit system that was built and maintained with public money unless you surrender your 4th amendment rights.
Israel also had locked cockpit doors back in the 1980s and armed members of law enforcement and/or the military on every flight. Amazingly enough they have managed to secure their airlines without banning bottled water and groping genitalia....
By the time we are done with this "everybody is a terrorist, including Grandma" bullshit everybody will have a damned good reason to be nervous at the security checkpoint. Hooray for equality, now we treat everybody like a criminal.
Which judging from the fact that the voters decided to promote bipartisanship by giving the GOP a majority in the house is pretty clearly out of the question.
Which exit poll did you read that said the voters wanted to promote bipartisanship? The main issue is the economy. The Democrats are perceived to be neglecting it and/or pushing policies that are ineffective.
BTW, since you made an offtopic snipe at the GOP, may I presume that you are a Democrat or lean in that direction? If that's the case are you really happy with the way that President Obama is handling this issue? His Administration hasn't done jack-shit to halt the growth of the security theater industry.
What is it about entering a plane (which, as we've seen, could potentially be used to cause great harm) do you think entitles you to more personal freedom than entering a venue for a concert or a sporting event?
What is it about entering a plane that makes you think we should have to give up any of our personal freedoms?
Because it's obviously racism if security focuses on the nervous looking young Middle Eastern man instead of the 85 year old Caucasian woman in a wheelchair.....
My last flight on Thursday to San Jose got me a grope by the TSA agents who now apparently are permitted to do full on frisk-downs
They weren't allowed to do that until the full body scanners came into the scene. Now they are doing that to the people who opt-out, presumably on the theory that by making the opt-out extremely unpleasant they can discourage people from exercising it.
Personally, if I'm ever forced to fly again (+1 on the suggestion to just drive) I plan on raising my voice a few octaves, adding a lisp and doing my best Mr. Slave impression. "Oh, Jesus, Jesus Christ!"
But if a borrower is under no legal obligation to pay back a loan, there is no finance, and by extension, very little business.
Enforcing contracts is not the same as enforcing a business model. I was thinking of cases where the Government props up a dying industry or puts complex regulations in place that the big boys can follow but more smaller nimble competitors have a hard time complying with.
As easy as it is to hate big business and government, we do actually need both.
I didn't say we don't need them, I just said that I hate the unholy marriage between government and big business. Take regulation -- the big boys don't mind when the government puts more regulations in place. They have legal/compliance departments devoted to following them and lobbyists devoted to ensuring they are written in a manner which benefits the company. The upstart competitor has none of these things and will often find that the regulations have been designed in such a way as to make it very difficult to compete with the established players.
You'll note that even the biggest busts, e.g. the seizure of 30 tons of cannabis last week in San Diego, seem to have no effect whatsoever on either supply or pricing.
I don't think you can claim it has no effect on pricing. Cannabis does not cost anywhere near $60 per 1/8 oz to produce and transport but that seems to be the going rate around these parts. The cost of hiding from law enforcement and dealing with police raids/theft/etc is included in the current street price. If cannabis was legalized tomorrow prices would drop by a non-zero amount. At least until the Government got it's dirty paws in the game and started taxing it:)
The fact is that we want laws to protect property and business models.
Agreed that we need laws to protect property rights, but not business models. The marriage between big business and government is destructive to society and hinders economic growth by propping up failed business models that would otherwise be swept away in the creative destruction of capitalism.
Yes, actually it is worth a 30 month stay in jail. RTFA. He inflicted tens of thousands of dollars worth of economic losses on the entities that he attacked. When you do that you go to jail. It's simple really.
Sure it was. Time and money were taken from the targeted sites and their hosting/bandwidth providers. Downtime does not have a non-zero cost in the commercial setting.
If so, they could have just made him pay for that.
Sorry, that's not how the criminal law works. If I smash one of your windows I'm going to receive a fine AND be compelled to make you whole for your loss.
Tally up the financial losses that he inflicted on the attacked sites, their providers, the providers in-between and the computers that he pwned to carry out the attacks. It will likely be in the tens of thousands of dollars. Now look at what you would be sentenced to for causing that much damage through a more conventional crime, such as vandalism or theft. I suspect you'll find that the punishment is very similar.
Slashdot Mirror
The terrorists would simply load up one or two aircraft with several firearms, overwhelming the one or two carrying civilians. If 'we' could carry, so could they.
Most states won't issue concealed carry licenses to non-residents and no state will issue them to someone who is in the country illegally, so this argument is moot.
This is wishful thinking but seriously not true. 9/11 was so successful simply because the common line of thought at the time was that hijackings were simply political ploys to gain bargaining strength in which the hostages staying alive was a necessary part of the organizational plan.
Passengers on all the planes (not just Flight 93) were in communications with the ground, so it stands to reason that they all knew what was happening. Perhaps the people on the first plane were clueless but certainly the people on the other three knew damn well what was going to happen.
And remember, this isn't because I think the 4th amendment should be violated, it's because the 2nd amendment was nullified.
So why not put some teeth back in the 2nd amendment and allow law-abiding American citizens to carry guns? It works on the ground, why not in the air?
Some of these planes (eg 747s) have been in service since before cell phones existed.
So what? A cell phone is nothing more than a fancy radio transmitter. Radio transmitters have been around longer than airplanes. You really don't think the designers of the 747 took RF emissions into account when they designed the thing?
We should only treat young Middle Easteners like criminals
Did I say that? I'm pretty sure I also pointed out the age of the people in question. Whom do you think is more likely to be a threat, the young male or the near-deaths-door wheelchair bound female?
Anyway, gunpowder is black.
Modern smokeless powder is not necessarily black.
Not in an aircraft = doesn't make flying scary.
Blowing up the security line that EVERYBODY has to pass through in order to fly doesn't make flying scary?
Your right to carry on dangerous weapons that I can't reasonably escape from is terminated if you want to ride along
If "dangerous weapons" had been allowed to law-abiding citizens 9/11 would never have happened. Food for thought. We surrendered our 2nd amendment rights and 3,000 people died. Now you think that surrendering our 4th amendment rights are the answer?
Your nickname is telling. How'd you wind up on my friends list anyway if you are that much of a sheep?
Which domestic terrorist organization has engaged in a mass casualty attack? Most of the ones I can think of (OKC and Fort Hood come to mind) were the actions of a lone wolf or a small ad-hoc conspiracy.
but it's safer and doesn't require choosing between being either electronically strip searched or manhandled.
Yet.
NYPD is subjecting subway passengers to random searches. If you refuse they will kick you out of the subway system. Apparently you have no right to travel on the transit system that was built and maintained with public money unless you surrender your 4th amendment rights.
I'm pretty sure we've done just about all we can do to protect ourselves while severely impeding our basic rights.
Fixed that for you.
Israel also had locked cockpit doors back in the 1980s and armed members of law enforcement and/or the military on every flight. Amazingly enough they have managed to secure their airlines without banning bottled water and groping genitalia....
By the time we are done with this "everybody is a terrorist, including Grandma" bullshit everybody will have a damned good reason to be nervous at the security checkpoint. Hooray for equality, now we treat everybody like a criminal.
Which judging from the fact that the voters decided to promote bipartisanship by giving the GOP a majority in the house is pretty clearly out of the question.
Which exit poll did you read that said the voters wanted to promote bipartisanship? The main issue is the economy. The Democrats are perceived to be neglecting it and/or pushing policies that are ineffective.
BTW, since you made an offtopic snipe at the GOP, may I presume that you are a Democrat or lean in that direction? If that's the case are you really happy with the way that President Obama is handling this issue? His Administration hasn't done jack-shit to halt the growth of the security theater industry.
What is it about entering a plane (which, as we've seen, could potentially be used to cause great harm) do you think entitles you to more personal freedom than entering a venue for a concert or a sporting event?
What is it about entering a plane that makes you think we should have to give up any of our personal freedoms?
If I was a terrorist I would find a way to sneak a bomb into every "normal" item that passengers bring with them
Why go to that hassle when TSA has helpfully provided you with a easy to target group of victims at the security line?
How about, gee, I dunno, profiling passengers?
Because it's obviously racism if security focuses on the nervous looking young Middle Eastern man instead of the 85 year old Caucasian woman in a wheelchair.....
My last flight on Thursday to San Jose got me a grope by the TSA agents who now apparently are permitted to do full on frisk-downs
They weren't allowed to do that until the full body scanners came into the scene. Now they are doing that to the people who opt-out, presumably on the theory that by making the opt-out extremely unpleasant they can discourage people from exercising it.
Personally, if I'm ever forced to fly again (+1 on the suggestion to just drive) I plan on raising my voice a few octaves, adding a lisp and doing my best Mr. Slave impression. "Oh, Jesus, Jesus Christ!"
But if a borrower is under no legal obligation to pay back a loan, there is no finance, and by extension, very little business.
Enforcing contracts is not the same as enforcing a business model. I was thinking of cases where the Government props up a dying industry or puts complex regulations in place that the big boys can follow but more smaller nimble competitors have a hard time complying with.
As easy as it is to hate big business and government, we do actually need both.
I didn't say we don't need them, I just said that I hate the unholy marriage between government and big business. Take regulation -- the big boys don't mind when the government puts more regulations in place. They have legal/compliance departments devoted to following them and lobbyists devoted to ensuring they are written in a manner which benefits the company. The upstart competitor has none of these things and will often find that the regulations have been designed in such a way as to make it very difficult to compete with the established players.
You'll note that even the biggest busts, e.g. the seizure of 30 tons of cannabis last week in San Diego, seem to have no effect whatsoever on either supply or pricing.
I don't think you can claim it has no effect on pricing. Cannabis does not cost anywhere near $60 per 1/8 oz to produce and transport but that seems to be the going rate around these parts. The cost of hiding from law enforcement and dealing with police raids/theft/etc is included in the current street price. If cannabis was legalized tomorrow prices would drop by a non-zero amount. At least until the Government got it's dirty paws in the game and started taxing it :)
The fact is that we want laws to protect property and business models.
Agreed that we need laws to protect property rights, but not business models. The marriage between big business and government is destructive to society and hinders economic growth by propping up failed business models that would otherwise be swept away in the creative destruction of capitalism.
I momentarily forgot that the definition of "scam" was "hold a gun to someone's head." My mistake.
Apparently you define it as someone listening to an idea that you oppose and concluding it's the right way to go.
Yes, actually it is worth a 30 month stay in jail. RTFA. He inflicted tens of thousands of dollars worth of economic losses on the entities that he attacked. When you do that you go to jail. It's simple really.
Nothing was taken or lost.
Sure it was. Time and money were taken from the targeted sites and their hosting/bandwidth providers. Downtime does not have a non-zero cost in the commercial setting.
If so, they could have just made him pay for that.
Sorry, that's not how the criminal law works. If I smash one of your windows I'm going to receive a fine AND be compelled to make you whole for your loss.
Coulter isn't an asshole, she's a fucking cunt. In fact if you look up the defintion of "cunt" in Websters I suspect you'll find her picture.
I say this as someone that leans to the right and even occasionally agrees with her.
Seriously, how is thirty months about right?
Tally up the financial losses that he inflicted on the attacked sites, their providers, the providers in-between and the computers that he pwned to carry out the attacks. It will likely be in the tens of thousands of dollars. Now look at what you would be sentenced to for causing that much damage through a more conventional crime, such as vandalism or theft. I suspect you'll find that the punishment is very similar.