They committed a violent action (and yes, occupying a building with firearms is a violent action)
So every one of those Occupy sit-ins was also a violent takeover? Those people were armed with kitchen equipment, camp stoves, pointy pencils, and even possibly lethal bare fists. The FBI reminds us that more people are beaten to death every year than are killed with any kind of rifle or shotgun. So pretty much anybody who holds one of those marches or protests while carrying signs attached to 4-foot wooden sticks... definitely violent acts, right? No? Why not? Be very specific.
Violence is not just the physical harm that results from a violent action.
Right. It might also include destruction of property, etc. Not actually conducting yourself violently means you're not violent.
Violence: noun
1. swift and intense force:
the violence of a storm.
2. rough or injurious physical force, action, or treatment:
to die by violence.
3. an unjust or unwarranted exertion of force or power, as against rights or laws:
to take over a government by violence.
So, sitting around with legally owned and carried firearms is violent, as far as you're concerned? Do you carry a multi-tool or a pocket knife (with which you could, at any moment, cut someone's throat)? For that matter, have you ever sat in a restaurant SURROUNDED by people with steak knives? That must have been terrifying for you.
The possession of firearms takes this from a peaceful protest to a violent, forceful act.
Really? Against whom were they violent, and in what way did they use force? Please be specific. Is a cop being violent and forceful (by virtue of carrying a firearm) when standing next to you in line at a coffee shop? Am I being violent and forceful if I have a duck gun in my truck when we're both in the same parking lot? How about if I'm the only one in the parking lot (or in an empty building)? Please point out where they used violence, and who they forced to do what. Specifically.
You understand that that's completely untrue, right? Or are you that confused? Everyone there pays for it through large taxes - even the people who aren't consuming those services. Would you consider a new tax increase on everyone that is used to let the government buy everyone shoes to be a case you getting "free" shoes? Surely you're not that unable to see how it actually works, and how NOT "free" it actually is. "Free" means "Someone else is forced to pay for it."
Why is something wrong? When someone wants to make use of a large staff of highly trained professionals and millions of dollars worth of labs and equipment, but hasn't made any arrangements to actually afford all of that, it's not going to be a financially rosy scenario. Just like if that person accidentally burns down half of their house and then arranges for the services of an architect, demolition crew, and a homebuilder's crew, equipment, and materials to fix it back up... but hasn't made any arrangements to be able to actually pay for that.
I know somebody with medicaid. She can see a local doctor, and prescriptions are completely covered. She pays no premium and has no income.
There is something horribly wrong with this picture.
People will debate "wrongness," but in that situation, you are buying her medicaid for her. And depending on where she lives, she may have a real problem finding a doctor willing to take her on as a patient, because he loses money (not just less income, but actual negative cash flow) with every hour spent with each such patient.
So true! When there isn't enough economic activity to generate the jobs that would make things like expensive university programs easy to afford, the best plan is definitely to spend more money you don't have (massive debt!) in order to just hand it out without any connection to productivity (inflation!). Excellent idea.
Won't be many participants unless this is all done inside. Because if they're flying outdoor courses, the operators have to be actual certified pilots (because this is a commercial activity). If they're doing it for fun, that's different. But the FAA considers the fact that flying the exact same RC aircraft in the exact same way in the exact same place while following the exact same safety procedures to be so much more dangerous if you're paid $5 to do so, that you must stop what you're doing and go learn how to fly a Cessna, first. Then you can go back to flying your 250g plastic quad copter legally, because that general aviation certificate definitely will make that $5 safer to earn (unless you want to fly, say, an ultra-light with an actual human being aboard, then there's no need for certification). But if you don't make any money at it, well, then there's no need to know any of that stuff. Because, FAA.
It must be nice living in the future. At least, I presume that's where you're EMPHATICALLY writing from, since here in the present, IMAP4 doesn't require that you Follow/Friend someone before they can e-mail you...which was one of the ways that this spam went out from Amazon.
The only time that such a message was produced in connection with a transaction at Amazon was when the person who BOUGHT the stuff at Amazon personally took the action of launching the notification to the people who follow them on social media. Amazon didn't dip into their mailboxes and spam anybody.
No. Even US Courts have ruled freedom of speech does not mean you have a right to stuff your opinion down someones throat...
How is communication initiated by one of your friends, a person you have chosen to hear from when they update their status or make postings, somehow them stuffing something down your throat? You have TOTAL control over whether or not you hear from those people. If you don't like it, just don't follow them - you obviously have made a poor choice in bad-mannered friends, and are trying to blame someone else for your own shortcomings.
Fortunately the world is not quite stupid enough to accept that as a valid excuse for what is very clearly unsolicited advertising.
It's not unsolicited advertising. If you don't like seeing communication that the friends and contacts YOU HAVE CHOSEN TO HEAR FROM are sending out through deliberate action on their part, then you simply have poor choice in friends and are trying to blame someone else.
It's freedom of speech if you take the link, copy it into Facebook or Twitter and say "just got me one of these babies".
It's spam when a commercial entity gives you a quick means...
Nonsense. Is it legit if you hand write a letter to your grandma about your purchase, but spam if you use a pre-printed letter that came in the box, and you fill in a few blanks before mailing it to grandma? No? Specifically why or why not?
forced to buy it now, is there no end to the paranoia ?
You do understand these are actual laws, right? If you are going to buy a gun, you will be forced to buy one that has these features, not a more traditional one. So if, for example, you are going to work as an armed private security guard in New Jersey, you will have to risk your life to a gun that requires magic rings, or batteries, or clean fingers, etc.
Strange that you consider reporting the provisions an on-the-books law to be "paranoia." Odd.
If the problem is a stupid state law mandating the use of a technology that doesn't even exist
But it DOES exist. It's just not very good. But that hasn't stopped manufacturers from offering these guns. Dealers who've considered taking them on have been loudly castigated by people throughout the industry and by all sorts of gun owners/buyers so that they don't set the precedent that will tip those laws into taking effect.
the obvious solution is to advocate for a moratorium or repeal of that law
The NRA (you know, that evil organization that wants to kill people) has been working very hard to that end. But liberal legislatures find more virtue in being seen opposing that camp that being seen turning a bad law into a more rational one. No progress in three years so far despite great efforts.
The solution is not to insist that the technology never be developed just because it's easier than actually getting the law reversed.
As we wait for some progress in undoing those very bad laws (this could take years), the only option is to oppose the selling of these weapons on the consumer/retail market.
Rather than making them compulsory (which is nowhere in the article)
It doesn't have to be in the article. It's already the law in more than one state. As soon as such a product goes on sales in any gun store in any state anywhere, the laws in those states require that ONLY such guns be allowed for sale thereafter. Yes, it's that absurd. And the people who vocally complain about these things are keeping that new reality in mind when they do.
Where did the submitter say that it should be required by law?
There are state legislatures that have already passed laws saying that as soon as such guns are available for retail sale anywhere, only such guns will be allowed to be sold going forward. It doesn't matter whether someone here mentioned such a thing, it's part of the landscape now, and it's one of the main reasons people are opposing this technology. Because idiots have already gone past the "saying" part, and have passed laws requiring exactly this.
If this is news to you, then you're out of touch with the some of the central issues involved.
You're just wishing it away. The average kid scoring some weed today is winding up with, and smoking, far more heavy-duty pot than their previous generational counterparts were.
Stoners become stoners because of lack of motivation, not the other way around.
Exactly contrary to my observations. Stoners become stoners mostly for social reasons - it's a social activity. For many, it alters them - bright, motivated, active people can become listless lumps. I've seen it in young teens, people in their twenties, less so in older adults who start.
They're paranoid because they engage in an illegal lifestyle and the law is literally out to get them.
Most of them aren't the least bit worried about the cops unless they're distributing. And the paranoia tends to be about many things, if not most things they deal with. It's seen in personal interactions (straining friendly and family relationships over imagined distrust and betrayal), etc.
You know this, you're just trying to wish it away.
There's a difference between IQ and giving a damn. How did they measure motivation, or paranoia, or the other things that anyone who's ever been around dedicated long-term stoners can plainly observe without needing any sort of formal study?
And, did this ten-year study make use of the contemporary high-test dope, or the sort of stuff that was more commonly used ten years ago?
Right, because the IAEA wasn't allowed to establish a baseline for their stores of processed uranium, and the 100% lopsided agreement puts Iran in charge of inspecting and reporting on the remaining amount as they see fit, no IAEA inspections allowed. In other words there IS something we can tell: that Iran got exactly what it wanted: no inspections, and billions of dollars with which to continue their project.
Slashdot Mirror
TREASON
Really? Which treasonous act, per the constitutional definition of that word? Read Article III, Section 3, and then get back to us with specifics.
Or are you so willing to mis-use that word that you'd agree that, say, all of the Occupy idiots were also being treasonous? No? I see.
And so is pointing guns at law enforcement. But hey, they're white!
And in several cases, in custody today or even dead. What's your point?
They committed a violent action (and yes, occupying a building with firearms is a violent action)
So every one of those Occupy sit-ins was also a violent takeover? Those people were armed with kitchen equipment, camp stoves, pointy pencils, and even possibly lethal bare fists. The FBI reminds us that more people are beaten to death every year than are killed with any kind of rifle or shotgun. So pretty much anybody who holds one of those marches or protests while carrying signs attached to 4-foot wooden sticks ... definitely violent acts, right? No? Why not? Be very specific.
Violence is not just the physical harm that results from a violent action.
Right. It might also include destruction of property, etc. Not actually conducting yourself violently means you're not violent.
Violence: noun 1. swift and intense force:
the violence of a storm.
2. rough or injurious physical force, action, or treatment:
to die by violence.
3. an unjust or unwarranted exertion of force or power, as against rights or laws:
to take over a government by violence.
So, sitting around with legally owned and carried firearms is violent, as far as you're concerned? Do you carry a multi-tool or a pocket knife (with which you could, at any moment, cut someone's throat)? For that matter, have you ever sat in a restaurant SURROUNDED by people with steak knives? That must have been terrifying for you.
The possession of firearms takes this from a peaceful protest to a violent, forceful act.
Really? Against whom were they violent, and in what way did they use force? Please be specific. Is a cop being violent and forceful (by virtue of carrying a firearm) when standing next to you in line at a coffee shop? Am I being violent and forceful if I have a duck gun in my truck when we're both in the same parking lot? How about if I'm the only one in the parking lot (or in an empty building)? Please point out where they used violence, and who they forced to do what. Specifically.
Ok... 95.9% free
You understand that that's completely untrue, right? Or are you that confused? Everyone there pays for it through large taxes - even the people who aren't consuming those services. Would you consider a new tax increase on everyone that is used to let the government buy everyone shoes to be a case you getting "free" shoes? Surely you're not that unable to see how it actually works, and how NOT "free" it actually is. "Free" means "Someone else is forced to pay for it."
Why is something wrong? When someone wants to make use of a large staff of highly trained professionals and millions of dollars worth of labs and equipment, but hasn't made any arrangements to actually afford all of that, it's not going to be a financially rosy scenario. Just like if that person accidentally burns down half of their house and then arranges for the services of an architect, demolition crew, and a homebuilder's crew, equipment, and materials to fix it back up ... but hasn't made any arrangements to be able to actually pay for that.
I know somebody with medicaid. She can see a local doctor, and prescriptions are completely covered. She pays no premium and has no income.
There is something horribly wrong with this picture.
People will debate "wrongness," but in that situation, you are buying her medicaid for her. And depending on where she lives, she may have a real problem finding a doctor willing to take her on as a patient, because he loses money (not just less income, but actual negative cash flow) with every hour spent with each such patient.
A basic income would fix that problem.
So true! When there isn't enough economic activity to generate the jobs that would make things like expensive university programs easy to afford, the best plan is definitely to spend more money you don't have (massive debt!) in order to just hand it out without any connection to productivity (inflation!). Excellent idea.
Won't be many participants unless this is all done inside. Because if they're flying outdoor courses, the operators have to be actual certified pilots (because this is a commercial activity). If they're doing it for fun, that's different. But the FAA considers the fact that flying the exact same RC aircraft in the exact same way in the exact same place while following the exact same safety procedures to be so much more dangerous if you're paid $5 to do so, that you must stop what you're doing and go learn how to fly a Cessna, first. Then you can go back to flying your 250g plastic quad copter legally, because that general aviation certificate definitely will make that $5 safer to earn (unless you want to fly, say, an ultra-light with an actual human being aboard, then there's no need for certification). But if you don't make any money at it, well, then there's no need to know any of that stuff. Because, FAA.
It must be nice living in the future. At least, I presume that's where you're EMPHATICALLY writing from, since here in the present, IMAP4 doesn't require that you Follow/Friend someone before they can e-mail you...which was one of the ways that this spam went out from Amazon.
The only time that such a message was produced in connection with a transaction at Amazon was when the person who BOUGHT the stuff at Amazon personally took the action of launching the notification to the people who follow them on social media. Amazon didn't dip into their mailboxes and spam anybody.
In the latter the retailer sent it, at best, 'with my permission'.
1) Why are you putting quotes around 'with my permission' ... what you're describing is exactly with your permission.
2) How does the retailer have your grandma's postal address?
No. Even US Courts have ruled freedom of speech does not mean you have a right to stuff your opinion down someones throat...
How is communication initiated by one of your friends, a person you have chosen to hear from when they update their status or make postings, somehow them stuffing something down your throat? You have TOTAL control over whether or not you hear from those people. If you don't like it, just don't follow them - you obviously have made a poor choice in bad-mannered friends, and are trying to blame someone else for your own shortcomings.
Fortunately the world is not quite stupid enough to accept that as a valid excuse for what is very clearly unsolicited advertising.
It's not unsolicited advertising. If you don't like seeing communication that the friends and contacts YOU HAVE CHOSEN TO HEAR FROM are sending out through deliberate action on their part, then you simply have poor choice in friends and are trying to blame someone else.
It's freedom of speech if you take the link, copy it into Facebook or Twitter and say "just got me one of these babies".
It's spam when a commercial entity gives you a quick means...
Nonsense. Is it legit if you hand write a letter to your grandma about your purchase, but spam if you use a pre-printed letter that came in the box, and you fill in a few blanks before mailing it to grandma? No? Specifically why or why not?
forced to buy it now, is there no end to the paranoia ?
You do understand these are actual laws, right? If you are going to buy a gun, you will be forced to buy one that has these features, not a more traditional one. So if, for example, you are going to work as an armed private security guard in New Jersey, you will have to risk your life to a gun that requires magic rings, or batteries, or clean fingers, etc.
Strange that you consider reporting the provisions an on-the-books law to be "paranoia." Odd.
If the problem is a stupid state law mandating the use of a technology that doesn't even exist
But it DOES exist. It's just not very good. But that hasn't stopped manufacturers from offering these guns. Dealers who've considered taking them on have been loudly castigated by people throughout the industry and by all sorts of gun owners/buyers so that they don't set the precedent that will tip those laws into taking effect.
the obvious solution is to advocate for a moratorium or repeal of that law
The NRA (you know, that evil organization that wants to kill people) has been working very hard to that end. But liberal legislatures find more virtue in being seen opposing that camp that being seen turning a bad law into a more rational one. No progress in three years so far despite great efforts.
The solution is not to insist that the technology never be developed just because it's easier than actually getting the law reversed.
As we wait for some progress in undoing those very bad laws (this could take years), the only option is to oppose the selling of these weapons on the consumer/retail market.
Maryland and New Jersey each have laws along these lines.
Rather than making them compulsory (which is nowhere in the article)
It doesn't have to be in the article. It's already the law in more than one state. As soon as such a product goes on sales in any gun store in any state anywhere, the laws in those states require that ONLY such guns be allowed for sale thereafter. Yes, it's that absurd. And the people who vocally complain about these things are keeping that new reality in mind when they do.
Where did the submitter say that it should be required by law?
There are state legislatures that have already passed laws saying that as soon as such guns are available for retail sale anywhere, only such guns will be allowed to be sold going forward. It doesn't matter whether someone here mentioned such a thing, it's part of the landscape now, and it's one of the main reasons people are opposing this technology. Because idiots have already gone past the "saying" part, and have passed laws requiring exactly this.
If this is news to you, then you're out of touch with the some of the central issues involved.
You're just wishing it away. The average kid scoring some weed today is winding up with, and smoking, far more heavy-duty pot than their previous generational counterparts were.
Stoners become stoners because of lack of motivation, not the other way around.
Exactly contrary to my observations. Stoners become stoners mostly for social reasons - it's a social activity. For many, it alters them - bright, motivated, active people can become listless lumps. I've seen it in young teens, people in their twenties, less so in older adults who start.
They're paranoid because they engage in an illegal lifestyle and the law is literally out to get them.
Most of them aren't the least bit worried about the cops unless they're distributing. And the paranoia tends to be about many things, if not most things they deal with. It's seen in personal interactions (straining friendly and family relationships over imagined distrust and betrayal), etc.
You know this, you're just trying to wish it away.
There's a difference between IQ and giving a damn. How did they measure motivation, or paranoia, or the other things that anyone who's ever been around dedicated long-term stoners can plainly observe without needing any sort of formal study?
And, did this ten-year study make use of the contemporary high-test dope, or the sort of stuff that was more commonly used ten years ago?
As far as we can tell
Right, because the IAEA wasn't allowed to establish a baseline for their stores of processed uranium, and the 100% lopsided agreement puts Iran in charge of inspecting and reporting on the remaining amount as they see fit, no IAEA inspections allowed. In other words there IS something we can tell: that Iran got exactly what it wanted: no inspections, and billions of dollars with which to continue their project.
Yup, just like they weren't going after nukes during those years that they actually were, in fact, going after nukes. Hilarious.