They are in California, who knows what lengths the gun hate goes to there.
As a Californian: not enough.
Yes, because disarming law-abiding citizens is a well known and effective tactic to prevent street gangs and Mexican drug cartels who transport whatever they wish across the border from obtaining, possessing, and using guns against those same law-abiding citizens.
They are in California, who knows what lengths the gun hate goes to there.
Hey, at least he didn't bite a Pop-Tart into a rough 'L'-shape that could...with a large amount of make-believe...resemble the shape of a pistol! Oh, the horror! Poor kid's name is now likely a permanent entry on the infamous "No-Fly List".
If *everyone* is ignorant of the law, then why in the hell should ordinary citizens be held to a higher standard?
Simple. Because those in power want the ability to fine & imprison those who threaten the status quo and/or their power & wealth and their continued acquisition & accumulation of same in some way.
"Did you really think we want those laws observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them to be broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against... We're after power and we mean it... There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted - and you create a nation of law-breakers - and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Reardon, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with." - Atlas Shrugged
Sell food and alcohol and are de facto bars/restaurants/nightclubs, for one set of examples, many of which operate at hours when a normal bar is forbidden to operate. Because they are private clubs, not public businesses.
The only real difference is in whose ox is being gored. In this case with Uber/Lyft it is the incestuous relationship between the taxi service industry and the government.
Politicians get quite testy when someone gets between them and their graft & corruption. Despite all the hand-wringing and fake concern they espouse, that is the core of the issue.
Sure, that'll work.. and you'll probably void your car's warranty in the process, and very possibly damage the transceiver(s) using that antenna, if/when they try to transmit and and blow the final amplifier transistor(s) out because there's no antenna. Having a hardwired switch that kills power to the transceiver(s) would be a more elegant and practical solution.
Unless, as is common with automotive electronics, the circuit board containing the transceiver(s) is potted in epoxy and nearly impossible to physically access in such a way as to successfully perform these modifications without destroying it.
When US car makers think about their car's electronic security, their focus is on preventing the owners from being able to repair or alter it themselves.
If anybody can come in off the street, pay the fee, and become a member, it isn't a private club.
What, then, are the prerequisites for being a private club, if filling out an application and paying a membership fee are insufficient? That's pretty much all it takes to join private clubs such as the Elks Lodge and similar clubs who operate private bars. Do they no longer qualify, and has anybody informed them of the change in their status?
I am German, I know our history very well and all of this is even highschool-level stuff that doesn't go very deep.
Yet, you provide no links to citations.
Weimar, not Wiemar. Why do you Americans have such a large problem with the "ei" diphthong?
Auto-correct sucks sometimes. Sorry I did not catch it. Auto-correct insists it's Wiemar. It's not Americans in particular. Thanks for the sweeping generalization, though. Very Progressive of you.
And of course they were progressives.
There are more than one group who call themselves Progressives. Why do Europeans fail to realize that their political and ideological groupings and distinctions are not the only ones that exist? It's the same sort of difference that Europeans are so quick to point out between US and European understanding of Left and Right when they claim that Leftists in the US are far to the right of Europeans on the Right.
A progressive is someone who wants to change things for the better. All socialists are progressive.
Here you attempt to define Socialism as those who want to change things "for the better". Better for those in power, perhaps. Better for the common citizen? Hardly. History shows us that socialism assures equal misery for all by setting the "equality" at the lowest common denominator. Socialism and communism have resulted in the largest mass atrocities and acts of genocide the modern world has ever known, far outdoing the Nazis.
The US Progressive movement has no relation to the dictionary definition of progress/progressive that you trotted out.
Some US progressives are indeed socialists or communists. Never heard of CPUSA? Your Democratic party are kinda sorta social democrats of a very tame variety.
Here we can mostly agree, although US Progressives themselves scream bloody murder if anyone actually calls them socialists/communists or socialist/communist-like.
No idea indeed. Now go and educate yourself first before you call others childish.
I would suggest you educate yourself before attempting to treat others as inferiors.
*I* am childish and attempt to treat others as inferiors!?!? May I remind you who started the personal attack?
You should stay with playing guitar and not talking about things you apparently have no idea of.
I was not the one who reached for an ad hominem attack in my initial reply and came across as a pseudo-intellectual gasbag with delusions of superiority as you did.
I am done with you, as it's apparent your ego and Euro-superiority complex does not allow you to participate in an honest adult discussion.
But hey, never is a chance to take a shot at the US, right? I sure whatever country you live in is much better in every way.
I am a US citizen.
I do not allow nationalistic pride to blind me to reality. The US is well on the way to being a full-blown authoritarian fascist oligarchy.
And, by the way, the Uber issue is not only a US issue, just check out what happened in France a few weeks ago with the taxi drivers.
I am aware. It's no surprise that entrenched interests try to protect their government-enforced monopoly and that the government works to protect it's partners in cronyism. That's pretty much what is happening here in the US regarding Uber/Lyft, nor will it be a surprise when other businesses who depend on government to protect their markets and business models from innovation and competition from newcomers use their partners in government to destroy those who threaten their incestuous relationship.
It doesn't matter if I am ok with it or not. The point is, there is simply no freaking way your trick will work. You might believe it should, you might want it to, I might want it to, but you simply don't understand it isn't so simple.
It probably won't work, I agree. I was not aware that operating under the existing laws governing private clubs was a "trick". I guess operating within long-established laws is considered a "trick" when it thwarts the Progressive government political agenda. The US government routinely ignores the Rule of Law and does whatever it damned well pleases regardless of laws or the US Constitution that contradict it's position.
The US has for all intents & purposes become the world's largest "banana republic" where the law is whatever those in power say it is on any particular day which suits their current agenda. I guess that's fine if you like living in a banana republic. I do not.
It was the reactionaries like you who cheered for the Nazis
No, history clearly shows it was the Progressives and their fellow-travelers in the US.
and it was the big business who funded Hitler because of his anticommunist platform.
IBM did business with Germany along with others, but "funded Hitler" as in supplying him with large amounts of cash donations as you imply? Fantasy.
And the first thing Hitler did after he rose to power, was to arrest all progressives (SPD and KPD members).
The SPD and KPD were socialist and communist political parties respectively, from the former Wiemar Republic.
In the Weimar Republic the left consisted of the Communists (KPD) and the Social Democrats (SPD). The Center consisted of the Democratic party (DDP), the Catholic Center Party (Z) and the Peopleâ(TM)s Party (DVP). The right consisted of the German Nationalist Party (DNVP) and the National Socialist Party (NSDAP-Nazi). Unlike American political parties, German political parties had narrower bases of support generally based on class, occupation and religion. They were therefore less inclined to compromise and more inclined to have programs based on clear sets of ideas (ideologies).
They had nothing to do with the US Progressive movement. Unless you're saying US Progressives are actually socialists and communists, which does have more than a grain of truth to it.
You should stay with playing guitar and not talking about things you apparently have no idea of.
That *I* have no idea of!? You spout other people's history-rewriting talking points without any citations and without thinking for yourself.
Go away with your juvenile insults. Adults are talking here.
So the USSR has a history of electing Republican leadership? You know, the majority of the past 26 or so MA governors have all been Republicans.
You misspelled "Progressives".
It matters not whether there's an (R) or (D) by their name. Progressives believe there is no area of the private sector that could not use more government involvement and control.
Progressives are the reason the US is in the sorry state it is and why individual liberty and private property rights are going the way of the Dodo bird in "the land of the free, home of the brave".
Here's the darling of the Progressive movement, George Bernard Shaw. What he espouses in this video is one of the core beliefs of their ideology. They will deny it as it shows them for who they really are, but this way of thinking is one of the principles at the heart of Progressivism. Progressives cheered for the Nazis and the Italian fascists.
If it is available to the general public, it becomes quite murky.
But that's the whole point. It's not available to the general public if you must pay a fee and register as a member.
Unless you want to redefine words and terms specifically for Uber/Lyft?
Which is even more wrong and corrupt.
Uber/Lyft and similar services are a threat to the comfortable little crony relationship between taxi companies and politicians, and a threat to government's desire to regulate, monitor, and control every aspect of society and all social interactions.
This is just another example of the fascist oligarchy at work protecting itself and it's cronies.
Nice strawman, but this is not a situation with vague wording that is amenable to creative interpretation later on. The distinction between civil and criminal copyright infringement is relatively clear and unambiguous in the UK, and nothing I've seen anyone say or propose in relation to this discussion suggests that this will change.
As I said, people who believe assurances of government over the clear track record of history are doomed to repeat that history. That is no straw man, that is historical fact.
Nothing you have said diminishes this. It does not matter how "clear" the law appears. Words will be redefined and reinterpreted to suit government's goals, as history has shown us again and again.
You sticking your fingers in your ears and going "lalalala I can't hear you" and "straw man! straw man!" does not change the clear track record of history on this matter.
I'm sure we can all agree that these are comparable to someone sharing a song.
You make a good emotional appeal, but the reality is that someone just casually sharing a song isn't likely to be subject to these penalties at all.
Unless you annoy someone in power, hold 'dangerous' or 'inconvenient' political/ideological/religious views, or for whatever reason the government wants to destroy some individual.
History teaches us that whenever government enacts a law for which they claim "it will never be used for 'X'" you can be assured that's precisely what it will be used for eventually.
Those who refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
Somebody in the YouTube comments mentioned that in the United States the gun would considered a fully automatic weapon because of the attached solenoid.
Ridiculously-broad laws & regulations are ridiculous.
BATFE considers a shoestring a machine gun.
Seriously, no kidding.
The ATF recommends that manufacturers voluntarily submit weapons for case-by-case determination. But those judgments are private and, it turns out, sometimes contradictory. Critics say nearly identical prototypes can be approved for one manufacturer but denied for another.
That process, known as âoeletter rulings,â results in various findings about what makes a weapon. Program critics, including the ATF's former assistant director of criminal investigations, said one determination contended that a shoestring was a machine gun.
So basically, an individual can not know precisely what is legal or illegal ahead of time until/unless they are prosecuted, that is, unless they become a licensed firearm maker and submit a prototype for a determination.
But, that does not inform anyone else, as those letters are sent to the specific business involved and are often secret. Letter determinations are not made public.
As far as a solenoid or similar type actuating mechanism that is not a traditional mechanical type, isn't that at the core of so-called "smart gun" designs?
Wouldn't a law that made this armed quad-copter illegal by making the non-manual trigger mechanism illegal run the risk of simultaneously making "smart gun" technology illegal?
It's another of those attempts to make a technology or object illegal instead of making harmful/dangerous acts performed by any means illegal.
I'm certain that, given the amount of laws & regulations concerning firearms already on the books, that there are already laws that would cover any illegal/dangerous acts performed with this technology.
Besides, as has been pointed out elsewhere in the comments, a law won't stop lawbreakers.
They are "13th Imam" religious fanatics that wish to start Armageddon, as they believe that the 13th Imam will only return at that time, and that it is their duty to make sure that occurs as soon as possible.
MAD is meaningless to such fanatics. Treaties are simply a way to deceive and enfeeble their enemies while they keep doing what they are doing. Remember, these fanatics are the same ones, generations later, which Hitler allied with in WW2.
Not much has changed regarding their ultimate goals since the middle ages, and they certainly haven't changed in the scant few decades since WW2.
The only way such fanatics can be dealt with is to kill them and, as much as possible, wipe out any lingering, festering remnants of their culture & beliefs, and maintain a watchful eye to prevent such insanity from gaining traction again.
The very same loving, caring, and benevolent government, that provides our children with "free" public schools, is also the one with a Federal Department of Education having its own SWAT team.
Well, all those home-schoolers and private charter schools aren't gonna be assaulted by a military breach & clear team on their own!
Do you really think there won't be an exception for the government to use secure communication?
Not everyone for whom it is vital for politicians to communicate securely with are in government. Also, government does not operate in a vacuum. There are all manner and sorts of private contractors, suppliers, etc etc.
And this is without even discussing the effect on the security of online banking, e-commerce, and interactions between individuals and government.
It is impractical and self-defeating, as unless the exceptions are so broad they are meaningless, the whole thing is unworkable.
In other news, Cameron is rumored to soon come out to push for tough new laws against whispering and against carrying on conversations outside the range/ability of government to monitor & record.
"'In our country, do we want to allow a means of communication between people which we cannot read? My answer to that question is: "No, we must not,"' [Prime Minister] Cameron said earlier this year following the Charlie Hebdo shooting in Paris."
Cameron is asking the wrong (or a misleading) question.
The choices are communications you (GCHQ/MI5/etc) may not be able to decrypt, or communications that anyone may be able decrypt.
There is no 'secret sauce' method of making communications secure against common threats while simultaneously making them insecure to the government.
If the government can read the communications, so can any other interested party including, terrorists, foreign intelligence agencies, rival/foreign businesses, journalists, etc etc.
Including Cameron's own political enemies.
He may not like it if he gets what he's advocating for.
Much like a drug raid on your neighbor's house is in no way your doing if you secretly called the police to report a meth lab in the basement? Try that one on a judge.
Oh, I get it!
Saying something untrue which someone else learns of, and then decides to tell police, who then in an over-the-top knee-jerk reaction make utter fools of themselves, is *exactly* the same as intentionally and personally filing a false police report!
C'mon! I expect much better propaganda than this for my tax dollars!
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, because disarming law-abiding citizens is a well known and effective tactic to prevent street gangs and Mexican drug cartels who transport whatever they wish across the border from obtaining, possessing, and using guns against those same law-abiding citizens.
Bravo, Sir!
You have single-handedly solved all gun crime!
You win an internets!
Strat
They are in California, who knows what lengths the gun hate goes to there.
Hey, at least he didn't bite a Pop-Tart into a rough 'L'-shape that could...with a large amount of make-believe...resemble the shape of a pistol! Oh, the horror! Poor kid's name is now likely a permanent entry on the infamous "No-Fly List".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Strat
If *everyone* is ignorant of the law, then why in the hell should ordinary citizens be held to a higher standard?
Simple. Because those in power want the ability to fine & imprison those who threaten the status quo and/or their power & wealth and their continued acquisition & accumulation of same in some way.
"Did you really think we want those laws observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them to be broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against... We're after power and we mean it... There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted - and you create a nation of law-breakers - and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Reardon, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with." - Atlas Shrugged
Strat
Because he is not in full control of the firearm.
Neither is a person who places a firearm in a gun rest and fires it with a string on the trigger for testing purposes.
Arrest warrants all around for the cast and crew of MythBusters, then?
Strat
What do the Elks do, specifically?
Sell food and alcohol and are de facto bars/restaurants/nightclubs, for one set of examples, many of which operate at hours when a normal bar is forbidden to operate. Because they are private clubs, not public businesses.
The only real difference is in whose ox is being gored. In this case with Uber/Lyft it is the incestuous relationship between the taxi service industry and the government.
Politicians get quite testy when someone gets between them and their graft & corruption. Despite all the hand-wringing and fake concern they espouse, that is the core of the issue.
Strat
Sure, that'll work.. and you'll probably void your car's warranty in the process, and very possibly damage the transceiver(s) using that antenna, if/when they try to transmit and and blow the final amplifier transistor(s) out because there's no antenna. Having a hardwired switch that kills power to the transceiver(s) would be a more elegant and practical solution.
Unless, as is common with automotive electronics, the circuit board containing the transceiver(s) is potted in epoxy and nearly impossible to physically access in such a way as to successfully perform these modifications without destroying it.
When US car makers think about their car's electronic security, their focus is on preventing the owners from being able to repair or alter it themselves.
Strat
If anybody can come in off the street, pay the fee, and become a member, it isn't a private club.
What, then, are the prerequisites for being a private club, if filling out an application and paying a membership fee are insufficient? That's pretty much all it takes to join private clubs such as the Elks Lodge and similar clubs who operate private bars. Do they no longer qualify, and has anybody informed them of the change in their status?
Strat
I am German, I know our history very well and all of this is even highschool-level stuff that doesn't go very deep.
Yet, you provide no links to citations.
Weimar, not Wiemar. Why do you Americans have such a large problem with the "ei" diphthong?
Auto-correct sucks sometimes. Sorry I did not catch it. Auto-correct insists it's Wiemar. It's not Americans in particular. Thanks for the sweeping generalization, though. Very Progressive of you.
And of course they were progressives.
There are more than one group who call themselves Progressives. Why do Europeans fail to realize that their political and ideological groupings and distinctions are not the only ones that exist? It's the same sort of difference that Europeans are so quick to point out between US and European understanding of Left and Right when they claim that Leftists in the US are far to the right of Europeans on the Right.
A progressive is someone who wants to change things for the better. All socialists are progressive.
Here you attempt to define Socialism as those who want to change things "for the better". Better for those in power, perhaps. Better for the common citizen? Hardly. History shows us that socialism assures equal misery for all by setting the "equality" at the lowest common denominator. Socialism and communism have resulted in the largest mass atrocities and acts of genocide the modern world has ever known, far outdoing the Nazis.
The US Progressive movement has no relation to the dictionary definition of progress/progressive that you trotted out.
Some US progressives are indeed socialists or communists. Never heard of CPUSA? Your Democratic party are kinda sorta social democrats of a very tame variety.
Here we can mostly agree, although US Progressives themselves scream bloody murder if anyone actually calls them socialists/communists or socialist/communist-like.
No idea indeed. Now go and educate yourself first before you call others childish.
I would suggest you educate yourself before attempting to treat others as inferiors.
*I* am childish and attempt to treat others as inferiors!?!? May I remind you who started the personal attack?
You should stay with playing guitar and not talking about things you apparently have no idea of.
I was not the one who reached for an ad hominem attack in my initial reply and came across as a pseudo-intellectual gasbag with delusions of superiority as you did.
I am done with you, as it's apparent your ego and Euro-superiority complex does not allow you to participate in an honest adult discussion.
Good day, Sir!
Strat
But hey, never is a chance to take a shot at the US, right? I sure whatever country you live in is much better in every way.
I am a US citizen.
I do not allow nationalistic pride to blind me to reality. The US is well on the way to being a full-blown authoritarian fascist oligarchy.
And, by the way, the Uber issue is not only a US issue, just check out what happened in France a few weeks ago with the taxi drivers.
I am aware. It's no surprise that entrenched interests try to protect their government-enforced monopoly and that the government works to protect it's partners in cronyism. That's pretty much what is happening here in the US regarding Uber/Lyft, nor will it be a surprise when other businesses who depend on government to protect their markets and business models from innovation and competition from newcomers use their partners in government to destroy those who threaten their incestuous relationship.
Strat
It doesn't matter if I am ok with it or not. The point is, there is simply no freaking way your trick will work. You might believe it should, you might want it to, I might want it to, but you simply don't understand it isn't so simple.
It probably won't work, I agree. I was not aware that operating under the existing laws governing private clubs was a "trick". I guess operating within long-established laws is considered a "trick" when it thwarts the Progressive government political agenda. The US government routinely ignores the Rule of Law and does whatever it damned well pleases regardless of laws or the US Constitution that contradict it's position.
The US has for all intents & purposes become the world's largest "banana republic" where the law is whatever those in power say it is on any particular day which suits their current agenda. I guess that's fine if you like living in a banana republic. I do not.
Strat
It was the reactionaries like you who cheered for the Nazis
No, history clearly shows it was the Progressives and their fellow-travelers in the US.
and it was the big business who funded Hitler because of his anticommunist platform.
IBM did business with Germany along with others, but "funded Hitler" as in supplying him with large amounts of cash donations as you imply? Fantasy.
And the first thing Hitler did after he rose to power, was to arrest all progressives (SPD and KPD members).
The SPD and KPD were socialist and communist political parties respectively, from the former Wiemar Republic.
In the Weimar Republic the left consisted of the Communists (KPD) and the Social Democrats (SPD). The Center consisted of the Democratic party (DDP), the Catholic Center Party (Z) and the Peopleâ(TM)s Party (DVP). The right consisted of the German Nationalist Party (DNVP) and the National Socialist Party (NSDAP-Nazi). Unlike American political parties, German political parties had narrower bases of support generally based on class, occupation and religion. They were therefore less inclined to compromise and more inclined to have programs based on clear sets of ideas (ideologies).
https://www.facinghistory.org/...
They had nothing to do with the US Progressive movement. Unless you're saying US Progressives are actually socialists and communists, which does have more than a grain of truth to it.
You should stay with playing guitar and not talking about things you apparently have no idea of.
That *I* have no idea of!? You spout other people's history-rewriting talking points without any citations and without thinking for yourself.
Go away with your juvenile insults. Adults are talking here.
Strat
So the USSR has a history of electing Republican leadership? You know, the majority of the past 26 or so MA governors have all been Republicans.
You misspelled "Progressives".
It matters not whether there's an (R) or (D) by their name. Progressives believe there is no area of the private sector that could not use more government involvement and control.
Progressives are the reason the US is in the sorry state it is and why individual liberty and private property rights are going the way of the Dodo bird in "the land of the free, home of the brave".
Here's the darling of the Progressive movement, George Bernard Shaw. What he espouses in this video is one of the core beliefs of their ideology. They will deny it as it shows them for who they really are, but this way of thinking is one of the principles at the heart of Progressivism. Progressives cheered for the Nazis and the Italian fascists.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Strat
I think you are making quite an assumption that a large company can skirt regulations with such a trick.
That's the entire point. It would cease to be a company and become a private club.
Again, you would have to redefine words and terms to get around existing laws in order to attack UberClub/LyftClub.
Which you seem to be OK with.
At least, until it affects something negatively that you specifically care about.
Strat
If it is available to the general public, it becomes quite murky.
But that's the whole point. It's not available to the general public if you must pay a fee and register as a member.
Unless you want to redefine words and terms specifically for Uber/Lyft?
Which is even more wrong and corrupt.
Uber/Lyft and similar services are a threat to the comfortable little crony relationship between taxi companies and politicians, and a threat to government's desire to regulate, monitor, and control every aspect of society and all social interactions.
This is just another example of the fascist oligarchy at work protecting itself and it's cronies.
Strat
Then why bother debating laws at all?
What we *should* be debating is how much tar, feathers, and hanging-rope we need for those in power who pass and use laws in such manner.
Strat
Nice strawman, but this is not a situation with vague wording that is amenable to creative interpretation later on. The distinction between civil and criminal copyright infringement is relatively clear and unambiguous in the UK, and nothing I've seen anyone say or propose in relation to this discussion suggests that this will change.
As I said, people who believe assurances of government over the clear track record of history are doomed to repeat that history. That is no straw man, that is historical fact.
Nothing you have said diminishes this. It does not matter how "clear" the law appears. Words will be redefined and reinterpreted to suit government's goals, as history has shown us again and again.
You sticking your fingers in your ears and going "lalalala I can't hear you" and "straw man! straw man!" does not change the clear track record of history on this matter.
Strat
Unless you annoy someone in power, hold 'dangerous' or 'inconvenient' political/ideological/religious views, or for whatever reason the government wants to destroy some individual.
History teaches us that whenever government enacts a law for which they claim "it will never be used for 'X'" you can be assured that's precisely what it will be used for eventually.
Those who refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
Strat
Somebody in the YouTube comments mentioned that in the United States the gun would considered a fully automatic weapon because of the attached solenoid.
Ridiculously-broad laws & regulations are ridiculous.
BATFE considers a shoestring a machine gun.
Seriously, no kidding.
The ATF recommends that manufacturers voluntarily submit weapons for case-by-case determination. But those judgments are private and, it turns out, sometimes contradictory. Critics say nearly identical prototypes can be approved for one manufacturer but denied for another.
That process, known as âoeletter rulings,â results in various findings about what makes a weapon. Program critics, including the ATF's former assistant director of criminal investigations, said one determination contended that a shoestring was a machine gun.
http://www.washingtontimes.com...
So basically, an individual can not know precisely what is legal or illegal ahead of time until/unless they are prosecuted, that is, unless they become a licensed firearm maker and submit a prototype for a determination.
But, that does not inform anyone else, as those letters are sent to the specific business involved and are often secret. Letter determinations are not made public.
As far as a solenoid or similar type actuating mechanism that is not a traditional mechanical type, isn't that at the core of so-called "smart gun" designs?
Wouldn't a law that made this armed quad-copter illegal by making the non-manual trigger mechanism illegal run the risk of simultaneously making "smart gun" technology illegal?
It's another of those attempts to make a technology or object illegal instead of making harmful/dangerous acts performed by any means illegal.
I'm certain that, given the amount of laws & regulations concerning firearms already on the books, that there are already laws that would cover any illegal/dangerous acts performed with this technology.
Besides, as has been pointed out elsewhere in the comments, a law won't stop lawbreakers.
Strat
No it is not legal and hasn't been since 1886. Selective prosecution is a violation of the equal protection clause. You're just plain wrong.
Sorry, you are the one who is badly mistaken.
See, government is good because government provides civilization.
Ergo, people who try to damage government, and by extension civilization, by exposing things the government wishes concealed from the public are evil.
Since these people are evil, any means & methods used to silence them, thwart them, and punish them are justified.
Without the government monitoring, tracking, and controlling everything and everyone, civilization would collapse.
Why do you hate civilization, you barbarian!?
Strat
Also the US had 90% top tax rate.
Which is deceptive and a half-truth as almost nobody actually paid those insane rates because of tax loopholes.
Remember, taxes kill the economy!
This, you got right.
Here, take a listen to one of the greatest Democratic US Presidents on the subject of taxation:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Strat
They're like any rational actor
This is where people get it wrong.
Iran's leadership is not rational.
They are "13th Imam" religious fanatics that wish to start Armageddon, as they believe that the 13th Imam will only return at that time, and that it is their duty to make sure that occurs as soon as possible.
MAD is meaningless to such fanatics. Treaties are simply a way to deceive and enfeeble their enemies while they keep doing what they are doing. Remember, these fanatics are the same ones, generations later, which Hitler allied with in WW2.
Not much has changed regarding their ultimate goals since the middle ages, and they certainly haven't changed in the scant few decades since WW2.
The only way such fanatics can be dealt with is to kill them and, as much as possible, wipe out any lingering, festering remnants of their culture & beliefs, and maintain a watchful eye to prevent such insanity from gaining traction again.
Strat
The very same loving, caring, and benevolent government, that provides our children with "free" public schools, is also the one with a Federal Department of Education having its own SWAT team.
Well, all those home-schoolers and private charter schools aren't gonna be assaulted by a military breach & clear team on their own!
SWAT - For The Children
Strat
Do you really think there won't be an exception for the government to use secure communication?
Not everyone for whom it is vital for politicians to communicate securely with are in government. Also, government does not operate in a vacuum. There are all manner and sorts of private contractors, suppliers, etc etc.
And this is without even discussing the effect on the security of online banking, e-commerce, and interactions between individuals and government.
It is impractical and self-defeating, as unless the exceptions are so broad they are meaningless, the whole thing is unworkable.
In other news, Cameron is rumored to soon come out to push for tough new laws against whispering and against carrying on conversations outside the range/ability of government to monitor & record.
Strat
"'In our country, do we want to allow a means of communication between people which we cannot read? My answer to that question is: "No, we must not,"' [Prime Minister] Cameron said earlier this year following the Charlie Hebdo shooting in Paris."
Cameron is asking the wrong (or a misleading) question.
The choices are communications you (GCHQ/MI5/etc) may not be able to decrypt, or communications that anyone may be able decrypt.
There is no 'secret sauce' method of making communications secure against common threats while simultaneously making them insecure to the government.
If the government can read the communications, so can any other interested party including, terrorists, foreign intelligence agencies, rival/foreign businesses, journalists, etc etc.
Including Cameron's own political enemies.
He may not like it if he gets what he's advocating for.
Strat
Much like a drug raid on your neighbor's house is in no way your doing if you secretly called the police to report a meth lab in the basement? Try that one on a judge.
Oh, I get it!
Saying something untrue which someone else learns of, and then decides to tell police, who then in an over-the-top knee-jerk reaction make utter fools of themselves, is *exactly* the same as intentionally and personally filing a false police report!
C'mon! I expect much better propaganda than this for my tax dollars!
https://youtu.be/qztuEucrNBc
Strat