The biggest irony? The Turner Diaries aren't available on iBooks:(
I've still not read them, though I hear they are poorly written and deal with some kind of farfetched race war. Still, they seem like a part of pop culture, so I might as well.
The act was also never challenged, was passed before the establishment (I would say usurpment) of judicial review, and as far as I can tell, has never been enforced.
The "end state" of *any* governmental system is totalitarianism. Government is a necessary evil, held in check only by the demonstrated will of the people to overturn an unjust system and replace it.
As Americans, we've lost the apparent will to fight - with weapons, or with words - and our government knows that. It has become a nearly living thing, slowly probing and expanding the boundaries within which it is allowed to operate. Today, the government is literally in every facet of our lives, and most of us don't realize it.
We will either wake up as a people, and begin that fight anew - not necessarily with weapons, mind you, not at this point,but with words, ideas, and political action - or we will continue to slowly fall into an increasingly fascist social democracy.
If you ask me to point to when this decline happened, I'd point to Marbury v Madison. The doctrine of judicial review is a stabilizing influence on the American system, and that system depends on a measure of instability. Once the people had a "legal process" to address the slights of Congress, it was no longer reasonable for them to march down to the capitol and threaten to hang the bastards when they stepped outside the lines laid out for them.
Without that doctrine, yes - there would have been violence and bloodshed in our history. I don't believe the Civil War would have happened, though, and the nation today would look entirely different. Probably smaller, with more legal hassle between states - but without the huge, overarching federal government that is sapping the very life out of the economy and society today.
I'm slowly coming to the realization that while I have an utter hatred for the rhetoric of Obama, he's been utterly incapable of making any real impact.
The real enemy is Congress, and we seem to have made a real impact this time around. We'll see how that holds up - if the freshmen in both houses continue to stay true to their campaign lines, or turn into establishment Republicans.
I'm glad of my contributions to the "Elect more Pauls" fund, though. They seem to be working out.
Me too. I need to check to make sure it fulfills the requirements for Adsense, but I suspect it does. I'll enable comments on the page, too - it might even draw some hits.
Clinton was impeached, but not removed from office.
Obama ran for President on a platform that included letting the Bush tax cuts expire. This week, he gave a speech wherein he explained that allowing them to be renewed would be stimulating to the economy, and therefore he's reached a "compromise".
Capitalism forbids barriers to market entry, not monopolies. In some cases, a need is best filled by a single business, and that's fine - so long as others are not prevented from competing by external force (i.e., government).
No. There should be no local utilities commission.
If you don't like the rates being charged, you should purchase a generator, or solar panels, or a windmill, or...
Think about that for a moment. How much fossil fuel is being burned to generate electricity in power plants? Now imagine a decentralized system, where places like my house, in the country and two miles from the nearest neighbor, are simply unprofitable to connect to the grid. Choosing to live that far out would necessitate a means of energy production - wind, solar, geothermal, whatever. That would tie the cost of energy production to me directly. Do you think I'd use less energy when I'm responsible for making sure the system is capable of generating it? Would there be an "energy crisis" if this were the case?
Capitalism is not defined as "using the power of government to expand and enforce profitability." In fact, that is the antithesis of capitalism, as capitalism is all about the respect of *every individual's* economic rights, which is obviously not being done when you have a government agency telling companies what they can charge for services they provide.
Some calibers greater than.50/12.7mm are specifically allowed - typically large game rifles. Off the top of my head,.600 Nitro Express is legal without additional paperwork (but expensive!)
You're more right than most, but wrong a few things:
Outside of a few states, there is no registration of any firearms. You might make an argument for dealer sales records being registration, but I can buy from a private party to avoid that if I really want to.
Flamethrowers are not exempt, and considered destructive devices under the NFA. "Brush control devices" - which look an operate in an eerily similar fashion to flamethrowers - are fine. That said, I'm a huge gun nut and know lots of other gun nuts, and I don't know anyone that owns a flamethrower as a weapon.
Automatics and large-caliber wepaons ("Destructive devices") do not require a license. They require a background check and a $200 tax stamp at a minimum.
While some states have waiting periods, most do not. The background check takes less than 5 minutes, and out the door you go, with the gun. There is no special tax on firearms, and you can in fact pay cash for a weapon from someone on the street, exchange no information, and be perfectly legal.
Walking down the street with a rifle in urban and suburban areas will draw some response from a raised eyebrow to getting shot by police, depending on where you are. Open carry of handguns is commonplace in many states, even in urban areas - see Phoenix, Arizona.
All in all, guns just aren't a big deal in most places. There are some cities which do their best to ban them - namely, Chicago and New York City - and some states with very draconian laws (by US standards), but in most cases, no one thinks about it.
FWIW - I'm part owner and webmaster of Shooters' Journal, a small gun-related webmagazine, and a long time member of the firearms community. If I don't know the answer to a gun question, I know who to ask.
You can get around the law enforcement approval by incorporating as an LLC or establishing a trust.
While the form asks for a reason, I've never heard of one being rejected because of it. In fact, I've seen a Form 4 returned with the stated reason being "Zombies", approved. It was a joke, but they approved it.
More difficult will be finding a manufacturer willing to sell grenades to you. Plus the $200 tax on each one.
Slashdot Mirror
The biggest irony? The Turner Diaries aren't available on iBooks :(
I've still not read them, though I hear they are poorly written and deal with some kind of farfetched race war. Still, they seem like a part of pop culture, so I might as well.
I've always taken the term to mean entering into an obligation without a full understanding of what you're agreeing to.
I'm an American, but I think my British English is good enough to translate.
I'd tell them to "bugger off".
I bought it; mostly to support the developer. I hope they make a boatload, hire new devs, and keep doing cool stuff :)
Did you just try to tie Truthers into the right?
Agreed - this is exactly the kind of thing a government is for -- keeping the interests of one party from damaging the rights of others.
Unless they own the bees they're killing, then pesticide companies are creating demonstrable harm. Sue them out of existence for the lost bees.
The act was also never challenged, was passed before the establishment (I would say usurpment) of judicial review, and as far as I can tell, has never been enforced.
Not that it particularly matters, but I intend to. Now isn't the time for it, though - I'm 26, and have little establishment political background.
In 5 or 10 years, I'll have made the contacts necessary to try - until then, it would be pure folly.
I believe it was the "militia act of xxxx", with "xxxx" being in the late 18th Century.
You've got a ways to go to catch up with us, then :)
I would propose that the ER have the option of refusing service, yes.
The "end state" of *any* governmental system is totalitarianism. Government is a necessary evil, held in check only by the demonstrated will of the people to overturn an unjust system and replace it.
As Americans, we've lost the apparent will to fight - with weapons, or with words - and our government knows that. It has become a nearly living thing, slowly probing and expanding the boundaries within which it is allowed to operate. Today, the government is literally in every facet of our lives, and most of us don't realize it.
We will either wake up as a people, and begin that fight anew - not necessarily with weapons, mind you, not at this point,but with words, ideas, and political action - or we will continue to slowly fall into an increasingly fascist social democracy.
If you ask me to point to when this decline happened, I'd point to Marbury v Madison. The doctrine of judicial review is a stabilizing influence on the American system, and that system depends on a measure of instability. Once the people had a "legal process" to address the slights of Congress, it was no longer reasonable for them to march down to the capitol and threaten to hang the bastards when they stepped outside the lines laid out for them.
Without that doctrine, yes - there would have been violence and bloodshed in our history. I don't believe the Civil War would have happened, though, and the nation today would look entirely different. Probably smaller, with more legal hassle between states - but without the huge, overarching federal government that is sapping the very life out of the economy and society today.
And that, sirs, is my rant.
I'm slowly coming to the realization that while I have an utter hatred for the rhetoric of Obama, he's been utterly incapable of making any real impact.
The real enemy is Congress, and we seem to have made a real impact this time around. We'll see how that holds up - if the freshmen in both houses continue to stay true to their campaign lines, or turn into establishment Republicans.
I'm glad of my contributions to the "Elect more Pauls" fund, though. They seem to be working out.
Define "legitimate"?
I have a web business that is currently drawing about 1,000 visitors / day across all my sites, and I plan to adopt it. Is that "legitimate"?
Me too. I need to check to make sure it fulfills the requirements for Adsense, but I suspect it does. I'll enable comments on the page, too - it might even draw some hits.
Google Adsense requires them; therefore their primary purpose it to fulfill that requirement.
Clinton was impeached, but not removed from office.
Obama ran for President on a platform that included letting the Bush tax cuts expire. This week, he gave a speech wherein he explained that allowing them to be renewed would be stimulating to the economy, and therefore he's reached a "compromise".
See this site: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/
Capitalism forbids barriers to market entry, not monopolies. In some cases, a need is best filled by a single business, and that's fine - so long as others are not prevented from competing by external force (i.e., government).
No. There should be no local utilities commission.
If you don't like the rates being charged, you should purchase a generator, or solar panels, or a windmill, or...
Think about that for a moment. How much fossil fuel is being burned to generate electricity in power plants? Now imagine a decentralized system, where places like my house, in the country and two miles from the nearest neighbor, are simply unprofitable to connect to the grid. Choosing to live that far out would necessitate a means of energy production - wind, solar, geothermal, whatever. That would tie the cost of energy production to me directly. Do you think I'd use less energy when I'm responsible for making sure the system is capable of generating it? Would there be an "energy crisis" if this were the case?
Capitalism is not defined as "using the power of government to expand and enforce profitability." In fact, that is the antithesis of capitalism, as capitalism is all about the respect of *every individual's* economic rights, which is obviously not being done when you have a government agency telling companies what they can charge for services they provide.
I agree, but that's a bad example. I can show you videotaped instances where Barack Obama *has* lied.
Just sayin'.
News flash: You can buy towed artillery today.Here's an example: http://g503.com/forums///viewtopic.php?f=27&t=159393
Why aren't they being sold to Mexico?
Some calibers greater than .50/12.7mm are specifically allowed - typically large game rifles. Off the top of my head, .600 Nitro Express is legal without additional paperwork (but expensive!)
You're more right than most, but wrong a few things:
Outside of a few states, there is no registration of any firearms. You might make an argument for dealer sales records being registration, but I can buy from a private party to avoid that if I really want to.
Flamethrowers are not exempt, and considered destructive devices under the NFA. "Brush control devices" - which look an operate in an eerily similar fashion to flamethrowers - are fine. That said, I'm a huge gun nut and know lots of other gun nuts, and I don't know anyone that owns a flamethrower as a weapon.
Automatics and large-caliber wepaons ("Destructive devices") do not require a license. They require a background check and a $200 tax stamp at a minimum.
While some states have waiting periods, most do not. The background check takes less than 5 minutes, and out the door you go, with the gun. There is no special tax on firearms, and you can in fact pay cash for a weapon from someone on the street, exchange no information, and be perfectly legal.
Walking down the street with a rifle in urban and suburban areas will draw some response from a raised eyebrow to getting shot by police, depending on where you are. Open carry of handguns is commonplace in many states, even in urban areas - see Phoenix, Arizona.
All in all, guns just aren't a big deal in most places. There are some cities which do their best to ban them - namely, Chicago and New York City - and some states with very draconian laws (by US standards), but in most cases, no one thinks about it.
FWIW - I'm part owner and webmaster of Shooters' Journal, a small gun-related webmagazine, and a long time member of the firearms community. If I don't know the answer to a gun question, I know who to ask.
You can get around the law enforcement approval by incorporating as an LLC or establishing a trust.
While the form asks for a reason, I've never heard of one being rejected because of it. In fact, I've seen a Form 4 returned with the stated reason being "Zombies", approved. It was a joke, but they approved it.
More difficult will be finding a manufacturer willing to sell grenades to you. Plus the $200 tax on each one.