"NRA: Uh, fake news! Those kids were coached! And they're actors!
I think the 'crisis actors' thing is bullshit too. I'd say if some of the teachers were allowed to concealed carry, maybe one of them would have shot the nutter without having to wait for the cops to decide to do something. And we know the cops held off on entering the building. In which case why not let staff with a concealed carry permit to carry guns into the building.
So we want to hear ideas from Americans of all backgrounds and beliefs about how we can improve security at our schools, tackle the issue of mental health because this was a sick person. Very sick. And we had a lot of warning about him being sick. This wasn't a surprise. To the people that knew him, this wasn't even a little bit. In fact, some said we're surprised it took so long. So what are we doing? What are we doing?
We want to ensure that when there are warning signs, we can act and act very quickly. Why do we protect our airports and our banks, our government buildings, but not our schools. It is time to make our schools a much harder target for attackers. We don't want them in our schools. We don't want them. When we declare our schools to be gun-free zones, it just puts our students in far more danger. Far more danger.
Well trained, gun adept teachers and coaches and people that work in those buildings, people that were in the Marines for 20 years, and retired, people in the Army, the Navy, the Air Force, the Coast Guard, people that are adept, adept with weaponry, and with guns, they teach.
I mean, I don't want to have 100 guards standing with rifles all over the school. You do a conceal carry permit. And this would be a major deterrent, because these people are inherently cowards. If they thought like if this guy thought that other people would be shooting bullets back at him, he wouldn't have gone to that school. He wouldn't have gone there. It is a gun-free zone. It says this is a gun-free zone. Please check your guns way far away. And what happens is they feel safe. There is nobody going to come at them. This way you may have - and, remember, if you use this school as an example, this is a very big school. With tremendous floor area and a lot of acreage, a big, big school, good school. A big, big school. You would have to have 150 real guns.
Look, you had one guard, he didn't turn out to be too good, I will tell you that. He turned out to be not good. He was not a credit to law enforcement that I can tell you. That I can tell you. But as I have been talking about this idea, and I feel it is a great idea, but some people that are good people are opposed to it, don't like the idea of teachers doing it, I'm not talking about teachers.
CNN went on, they said, Donald Trump wants all teachers, okay, fake news, folks. Fake news. News. I don't want a person that has never handled a gun that wouldn't know what a gun looks like to be armed.
But out of your teaching population, out of your teaching population, you have 10 percent, 20 percent, very gun adept people. Military people, law enforcement people, they teach. They teach. And something I thought of this morning, you know what else, I thought of it since I found and watched Peterson, the deputy who didn't go into the school, because he didn't want to go into the school, okay. He was tested under fire and that wasn't a good result. But you know what I thought of, as soon as I saw that, these teachers, and I've seen them, and a lot of schools where they had problems, these teachers love their students and the students love their teachers in many cases. These teachers love their students. And these teachers are talented with weaponry and with guns. And that's - they feel safe.
And I would rather have somebody that loves their students and wants to prote
Theil didn't hate Gawker for outing him (he's a billionaire, at his level there are no consequences actual crimes let alone legal behavior)
When the outed him he was on a business trip to Saudi Arabia where there most definitely can be consequences for being outed. Those camel shaggers could have arrested him, threatened him with prosecution and locked him up in a hell hole until he paid them off.
We haven't lost Gawker though. Nick Denton got bankrupted. Gawker Media got sold to Univision. Univision shut down Gawker.com but the other verticals are still running.
On August 16, 2016, Univision Communications paid $135 million at auction to acquire all of Gawker Media and its brands. This ends Gawker Media's fourteen years of independence, as going forward it will become a unit of Univision.
On August 18, 2016, it was announced that Gawker Media's flagship site Gawker would be ceasing operations the week after. Univision continues to operate Gawker Media's six other websites, Deadspin, Gizmodo, Jalopnik, Jezebel, Kotaku, and Lifehacker. Gawker's article archive remains online, and its employees were transferred to the remaining six websites or elsewhere in Univision. On August 22, 2016, at 22:33 GMT, Denton posted Gawker's final article.
And as people are fond of telling me here when conservatives get silenced : "Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences. Also if it's not the government censoring you it's not a violation of the First Amendment".
Nick Denton could start a site and put up all the stolen sex tapes he likes. And if, like The Daily Stormer, he gets his site pulled by his ISP for doing it, that's also not a First Amendment violation.
The POTUS and VP were there. I think the chance of a mass shooting was pretty low given the extreme security that implies.
I.e. there's a difference between CPAC - a venue with a wall around it and the FBI/secret service/cops/private security protecting it and only letting people in if they pass through an airport type security check and a school where there's a 'This is a gun free zone. Pls respect this and do your shooting spree somewhere else' sign and no armed guard, no wall and probably no airport security check.
The resentment among Coral Springs officials toward Broward County officials about what they perceived to be a dereliction of duty may have reached a boiling point at a vigil the night of February 15, where, in front of dozens of others, Coral Springs City Manager Mike Goodrum confronted Broward County Sheriff Scott Israel. A source familiar with the conversation tells CNN that Goodrum was upset that the Broward deputies had remained outside the school while kids inside could have been bleeding out, among other reasons.
So your position is "You don't need guns, the police will protect you. Oh wait, the police didn't protect you? What makes you think teachers would protect their kids?"
Surely you can why some people are going to say "If the cops won't protect our kids, why can't we do it?"?
The POTUS and VP were there. Which probably means there's a very high level of security. Barriers round the event and a metal detector check for people going in. It's not exactly a gun free zone though - I bet it was crawling with cops, FBI, secret service, private security and so on.
And it's very much not the same sticking up a sign that says 'gun free zone' in front of a school and not having armed guards and entry/exit checks.
True. In fact the reason the US is a representative republic and not a democracy is so that demagogues can't convince an impassioned mob to remove rights from the minority.
Heller is a much better choice. Scalia wasn't just the deciding vote. He wrote the opinion. Americans support his position and the right it protected. In a CNN/ORC poll taken in June 2008, just before Heller, 67 percent of Americans said the Second Amendment guaranteed "that each individual has the right to own a gun," not just "the right of citizens to form a militia." In a 2012 Pew poll, 67 percent opposed "banning the possession of handguns except by law enforcement officers." In a CNN/ORC poll, also taken in 2012, 89 percent opposed "preventing all Americans from owning guns"
Even in an elite group, engineering students from the Gulf States, there is one big difference: their competencies are two to four years less behind those of comparable German engineering students. These results are underpinned by a recent study in Chemnitz: Asylum seekers with university studies had an average IQ of 93 in mathematical and figurative tasks - a skill level of native high school students.
It's entirely reasonable it doesn't defend the 2nd given the modern interpretation of that amendment isn't how it's traditionally been interpreted up until the mid-seventies.
Wait. What? You're saying the actually text of the law didn't change but the left have 'reinterpreted' it to mean the exact opposite of what it used to mean since the mid-seventies.
Gee. I wonder why American conservatives are so keen to get originalist judges on the SCOTUS and not ones appointed by the left who'll reinterpret the first and second amendments to be 'You're allowed to speak but not hate speech. And hate speech is anything a conservative says' and 'You're allowed to have a gun if you join the army. Otherwise you're not and we're sending the ATF round to kick your door down'.
Once the left sets the precedent that the actual text of the law doesn't matter, only the interpretation, and that the left will appoint judges who'll interpret it in the way which most benefits the left and shafts the right, it's really game over for the notion that the US is a representative republic. What you've got is mob rule where the mob gets to decide what rights you've got. And the left's media sock puppets will mobilise the mob against anyone who sticks up for rights they disagree with.
Look at that disgraceful display on CNN where an hand picked audience of leftists hooted and booed Rubio and asked him questions like this
KASKY: I'm sorry, I know I'm not supposed to do this, but I'm not going to listen to that. Senator Rubio, it's hard to look at you and not look down a barrel of an AR-15 and not look at Nicholas Cruz, but the point is you're here and there some people who are not. And I need to ask two things of you. Number one, Chris Grady, can you stand up? This is my friend who is going to the military. I need you to tell him that he's going to live to make it to serve our country. And then we'll get to the other one.
Honestly looking at this I'd say the left need to be stopped. At all costs. The logic of what they're doing where laws mean exactly what they want them to mean regardless of what the actual words say and where it's all up to a mob handpicked to be 100% left is far more horrifying than some nutcase shooting a couple of dozen people.
And if that seems heartless consider Jefferson's attitude to violence
the people can not be all, & always, well informed. the part which is wrong [. ..] will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. if they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. we have had 13. states independant 11. years. there has been one rebellion. that comes to one rebellion in a century & a half for each state. what country before ever existed a century & half without a rebellion? & what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? let them take arms. the remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. what signify a few lives lost in a century or two? the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. it is it's natural manure.
And it's interesting how the left doesn't mobilise emotion when it's a crime that doesn't fit their agenda. E.g. illegal immigrants killing natives, Muslims shooting up a gay bar or committing a terror attack. It's not like they have a town hall in those cases where an angry crowd berates a Democrat Senator over immigration law.
Maybe the right *should* be doing that if the left are going to do it to push for their agenda.
App developers can make money out of live performances instead. Imagine some guy on stage with XCode projected onto an enormous screen. He is silent but occasionally curses Apple. The audience hold up lighters.
We know you're trying to be helpful but can you please stop doing it?
I hear AMD have some vacancies for PR shills at the moment. Why not contact them? I even asked on your behalf and they said they'd match your current Intel rate.
Thanks for everything you've done, but I think it's time we parted company.
The Venezuelans I've met a) would like the US to liberate their country and b) and very pissed off it shows no sign of doing it.
That's of course not a reason for the US to do this. The US needs to do things because they're in its interests, not out of charity to a bunch of non citizens.
What if, however, there was an evidence-based process for temporarily denying a troubled person access to guns? What if this process empowered family members and others close to a potential shooter, allowing them to "do something" after they "see something" and "say something"? I've written that the best line of defense against mass shootings is an empowered, vigilant citizenry. There is a method that has the potential to empower citizens even more, when it's carefully and properly implemented.
It's called a gun-violence restraining order, or GVRO.
While there are various versions of these laws working their way through the states (California passed a GVRO statute in 2014, and it went into effect in 2016), broadly speaking they permit a spouse, parent, sibling, or person living with a troubled individual to petition a court for an order enabling law enforcement to temporarily take that individual's guns right away. A well-crafted GVRO should contain the following elements ("petitioners" are those who seek the order, "the respondent" is its subject):
1. It should limit those who have standing to seek the order to a narrowly defined class of people (close relatives, those living with the respondent);
2. It should require petitioners to come forward with clear, convincing, admissible evidence that the respondent is a significant danger to himself or others;
3. It should grant the respondent an opportunity to contest the claims against him;
4. In the event of an emergency, ex parte order (an order granted before the respondent can contest the claims), a full hearing should be scheduled quickly - preferably within 72 hours; and
5. The order should lapse after a defined period of time unless petitioners can come forward with clear and convincing evidence that it should remain in place.
The concept of the GVRO is simple, not substantially different from the restraining orders that are common in family law, and far easier to explain to the public than our nation's mental-health adjudications. Moreover, the requirement that the order come from people close to the respondent and that they come forward with real evidence (e.g. sworn statements, screenshots of social-media posts, copies of journal entries) minimizes the chance of bad-faith claims.
The great benefit of the GVRO is that it provides citizens with options other than relying on, say, the FBI. As the bureau admitted today, it did not respond appropriately to a timely warning from a "person close to Nikolas Cruz." According the FBI, that person provided "information about Cruz's gun ownership, desire to kill people, erratic behavior, and disturbing social media posts, as well as the potential of him conducting a school shooting."
In other words, it appears the FBI received exactly the kind of information that would justify granting a GVRO.
Feinstein won the backing of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), who had previously voted against renewing the ban. But 15 of her fellow Democrats, including a number from Western states, and one independent voted against the ban, as did all Republicans except Sen. Mark Steven Kirk of Illinois.
No problem you say, we'll fill CNN with crying children and bring on Jimmy Kimmel, also crying, to emotionally blackmail anyone who is going to vote against the bill so it passes. Well Republicans don't watch Jimmy Kimmel or CNN so you'll have to concentrate of the Democrats. You also need the bill to survive legal challenges, which it's fair to assume there will be a lot of.
However now your problems are only just beginning.
2) You need to confiscate all the now illegal guns. ATF and the FBI will need to go door to door. Most people are going to say "Oh yeah that AR-15? Lost it in a tragic boating accident?". In Australia only about one third of guns were collected
Gun confiscation is not happening in the United States any time soon. But let's suppose it did. How would it work? Australia's program netted, at the low end, 650,000 guns, and at the high end, a million. That was approximately a fifth to a third of Australian firearms. There are about as many guns in America as there are people: 310 million of both in 2009. A fifth to a third would be between 60 and 105 million guns. To achieve in America what was done in Australia, in other words, the government would have to confiscate as many as 105 million firearms.
Some percentage of gun owners will decide that a government which confiscates guns is Literally Hitler and it is their patriotic duty to die fighting it. So you'll need the National Guard. Maybe the army too - though at that point you've admitted it's a civil war. Though it's fair to say that people who join the army and National Guard might sympathize rather more with the people who believe in the 2nd Amendment than the politicians telling them to confiscate guns. But hey, don't worry. The US's armed forces are pretty well indoctrinated into the importance of following orders from civilians, even if they disagree with them. There hasn't been a mutiny since troops in Vietnam fragged their superiors.
Still do you see gun deaths going up or down in this process? Do you see civil liberties being enhanced or radically curtailed as the government ends up fighting an insurgency on its own territory and supported at the very least by ex military types? If you're the delicate sort who cries when a few dozen people get killed in gun violence, be prepared to be crying all the time as the ATF and right wing militias duke it out and a few people in the armed forces announce they're going over to the rebel side.
American gun control would be like trying to put the toothpaste back in the tube, i.e. a complete mess. On the other hand it's not like putting the toothpaste back in the tube causes a bloody civil war. So actually it's significantly worse than putting the toothpaste back in the tube.
Meanwhile the Russians and Chinese will be celebrating because the government of their only strategic competitor has just done something which makes overseas military action impossible. And they'll be sure to take advantage of that. If the US is having a civil war, what's top stop Russian sending troops into the Eastern members of NATO or China sending troops into Taiwan?
Slashdot Mirror
Send all the Apple engineers to Gitmo until they agree to release a Macbook Pro with user upgradeable Ram and user upgradeable NVMe storage.
"NRA: Uh, fake news! Those kids were coached! And they're actors!
I think the 'crisis actors' thing is bullshit too. I'd say if some of the teachers were allowed to concealed carry, maybe one of them would have shot the nutter without having to wait for the cops to decide to do something. And we know the cops held off on entering the building. In which case why not let staff with a concealed carry permit to carry guns into the building.
As Trump put it
https://www.vox.com/policy-and...
So we want to hear ideas from Americans of all backgrounds and beliefs about how we can improve security at our schools, tackle the issue of mental health because this was a sick person. Very sick. And we had a lot of warning about him being sick. This wasn't a surprise. To the people that knew him, this wasn't even a little bit. In fact, some said we're surprised it took so long. So what are we doing? What are we doing?
We want to ensure that when there are warning signs, we can act and act very quickly. Why do we protect our airports and our banks, our government buildings, but not our schools. It is time to make our schools a much harder target for attackers. We don't want them in our schools. We don't want them. When we declare our schools to be gun-free zones, it just puts our students in far more danger. Far more danger.
Well trained, gun adept teachers and coaches and people that work in those buildings, people that were in the Marines for 20 years, and retired, people in the Army, the Navy, the Air Force, the Coast Guard, people that are adept, adept with weaponry, and with guns, they teach.
I mean, I don't want to have 100 guards standing with rifles all over the school. You do a conceal carry permit. And this would be a major deterrent, because these people are inherently cowards. If they thought like if this guy thought that other people would be shooting bullets back at him, he wouldn't have gone to that school. He wouldn't have gone there. It is a gun-free zone. It says this is a gun-free zone. Please check your guns way far away. And what happens is they feel safe. There is nobody going to come at them. This way you may have - and, remember, if you use this school as an example, this is a very big school. With tremendous floor area and a lot of acreage, a big, big school, good school. A big, big school. You would have to have 150 real guns.
Look, you had one guard, he didn't turn out to be too good, I will tell you that. He turned out to be not good. He was not a credit to law enforcement that I can tell you. That I can tell you. But as I have been talking about this idea, and I feel it is a great idea, but some people that are good people are opposed to it, don't like the idea of teachers doing it, I'm not talking about teachers.
CNN went on, they said, Donald Trump wants all teachers, okay, fake news, folks. Fake news. News. I don't want a person that has never handled a gun that wouldn't know what a gun looks like to be armed.
But out of your teaching population, out of your teaching population, you have 10 percent, 20 percent, very gun adept people. Military people, law enforcement people, they teach. They teach. And something I thought of this morning, you know what else, I thought of it since I found and watched Peterson, the deputy who didn't go into the school, because he didn't want to go into the school, okay. He was tested under fire and that wasn't a good result. But you know what I thought of, as soon as I saw that, these teachers, and I've seen them, and a lot of schools where they had problems, these teachers love their students and the students love their teachers in many cases. These teachers love their students. And these teachers are talented with weaponry and with guns. And that's - they feel safe.
And I would rather have somebody that loves their students and wants to prote
Buzzfeed's not doing too well and they've got an IPO coming up.
https://www.inc.com/erik-sherm...
https://nypost.com/2017/03/29/...
Theil didn't hate Gawker for outing him (he's a billionaire, at his level there are no consequences actual crimes let alone legal behavior)
When the outed him he was on a business trip to Saudi Arabia where there most definitely can be consequences for being outed. Those camel shaggers could have arrested him, threatened him with prosecution and locked him up in a hell hole until he paid them off.
I can see why he was pissed at Gawker.
We haven't lost Gawker though. Nick Denton got bankrupted. Gawker Media got sold to Univision. Univision shut down Gawker.com but the other verticals are still running.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gawker_Media#Univision_Communications_acquisition_and_subsidiary_era_(2016-present)
On August 16, 2016, Univision Communications paid $135 million at auction to acquire all of Gawker Media and its brands. This ends Gawker Media's fourteen years of independence, as going forward it will become a unit of Univision.
On August 18, 2016, it was announced that Gawker Media's flagship site Gawker would be ceasing operations the week after. Univision continues to operate Gawker Media's six other websites, Deadspin, Gizmodo, Jalopnik, Jezebel, Kotaku, and Lifehacker. Gawker's article archive remains online, and its employees were transferred to the remaining six websites or elsewhere in Univision. On August 22, 2016, at 22:33 GMT, Denton posted Gawker's final article.
And as people are fond of telling me here when conservatives get silenced : "Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences. Also if it's not the government censoring you it's not a violation of the First Amendment".
Nick Denton could start a site and put up all the stolen sex tapes he likes. And if, like The Daily Stormer, he gets his site pulled by his ISP for doing it, that's also not a First Amendment violation.
The POTUS and VP were there. I think the chance of a mass shooting was pretty low given the extreme security that implies.
I.e. there's a difference between CPAC - a venue with a wall around it and the FBI/secret service/cops/private security protecting it and only letting people in if they pass through an airport type security check and a school where there's a 'This is a gun free zone. Pls respect this and do your shooting spree somewhere else' sign and no armed guard, no wall and probably no airport security check.
It wasn't just one officer
https://edition.cnn.com/2018/0...
The resentment among Coral Springs officials toward Broward County officials about what they perceived to be a dereliction of duty may have reached a boiling point at a vigil the night of February 15, where, in front of dozens of others, Coral Springs City Manager Mike Goodrum confronted Broward County Sheriff Scott Israel. A source familiar with the conversation tells CNN that Goodrum was upset that the Broward deputies had remained outside the school while kids inside could have been bleeding out, among other reasons.
So your position is "You don't need guns, the police will protect you. Oh wait, the police didn't protect you? What makes you think teachers would protect their kids?"
Surely you can why some people are going to say "If the cops won't protect our kids, why can't we do it?"?
The POTUS and VP were there. Which probably means there's a very high level of security. Barriers round the event and a metal detector check for people going in. It's not exactly a gun free zone though - I bet it was crawling with cops, FBI, secret service, private security and so on.
And it's very much not the same sticking up a sign that says 'gun free zone' in front of a school and not having armed guards and entry/exit checks.
True. In fact the reason the US is a representative republic and not a democracy is so that demagogues can't convince an impassioned mob to remove rights from the minority.
The majority of Americans disagree with you on DC vs Heller. Even Slate, no fan of the right, concede that.
http://www.slate.com/articles/...
Heller is a much better choice. Scalia wasn't just the deciding vote. He wrote the opinion. Americans support his position and the right it protected. In a CNN/ORC poll taken in June 2008, just before Heller, 67 percent of Americans said the Second Amendment guaranteed "that each individual has the right to own a gun," not just "the right of citizens to form a militia." In a 2012 Pew poll, 67 percent opposed "banning the possession of handguns except by law enforcement officers." In a CNN/ORC poll, also taken in 2012, 89 percent opposed "preventing all Americans from owning guns"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKbDKsNsjac
It's probably up to the venue and not CPAC.
BTW guess how many percent of mass shootings took place in gun free zones?
https://www.dailywire.com/news...
The average IQ in Afghanistan and Syria is in the 80's
https://iq-research.info/en/pa...
Even the migrants with University education have an IQ in the 90's
https://www.focus.de/finanzen/...
Even in an elite group, engineering students from the Gulf States, there is one big difference: their competencies are two to four years less behind those of comparable German engineering students. These results are underpinned by a recent study in Chemnitz: Asylum seekers with university studies had an average IQ of 93 in mathematical and figurative tasks - a skill level of native high school students.
If we ever make clanking replicators the prototype must called Weird AI Clankovich.
It's entirely reasonable it doesn't defend the 2nd given the modern interpretation of that amendment isn't how it's traditionally been interpreted up until the mid-seventies.
Wait. What? You're saying the actually text of the law didn't change but the left have 'reinterpreted' it to mean the exact opposite of what it used to mean since the mid-seventies.
Gee. I wonder why American conservatives are so keen to get originalist judges on the SCOTUS and not ones appointed by the left who'll reinterpret the first and second amendments to be 'You're allowed to speak but not hate speech. And hate speech is anything a conservative says' and 'You're allowed to have a gun if you join the army. Otherwise you're not and we're sending the ATF round to kick your door down'.
Once the left sets the precedent that the actual text of the law doesn't matter, only the interpretation, and that the left will appoint judges who'll interpret it in the way which most benefits the left and shafts the right, it's really game over for the notion that the US is a representative republic. What you've got is mob rule where the mob gets to decide what rights you've got. And the left's media sock puppets will mobilise the mob against anyone who sticks up for rights they disagree with.
Look at that disgraceful display on CNN where an hand picked audience of leftists hooted and booed Rubio and asked him questions like this
https://edition.cnn.com/2018/0...
KASKY: I'm sorry, I know I'm not supposed to do this, but I'm not going to listen to that. Senator Rubio, it's hard to look at you and not look down a barrel of an AR-15 and not look at Nicholas Cruz, but the point is you're here and there some people who are not.
And I need to ask two things of you. Number one, Chris Grady, can you stand up? This is my friend who is going to the military. I need you to tell him that he's going to live to make it to serve our country. And then we'll get to the other one.
Honestly looking at this I'd say the left need to be stopped. At all costs. The logic of what they're doing where laws mean exactly what they want them to mean regardless of what the actual words say and where it's all up to a mob handpicked to be 100% left is far more horrifying than some nutcase shooting a couple of dozen people.
And if that seems heartless consider Jefferson's attitude to violence
http://tjrs.monticello.org/let...
the people can not be all, & always, well informed. the part which is wrong [. . .] will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. if they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. we have had 13. states independant 11. years. there has been one rebellion. that comes to one rebellion in a century & a half for each state. what country before ever existed a century & half without a rebellion? & what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? let them take arms. the remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. what signify a few lives lost in a century or two? the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. it is it's natural manure.
And it's interesting how the left doesn't mobilise emotion when it's a crime that doesn't fit their agenda. E.g. illegal immigrants killing natives, Muslims shooting up a gay bar or committing a terror attack. It's not like they have a town hall in those cases where an angry crowd berates a Democrat Senator over immigration law.
Maybe the right *should* be doing that if the left are going to do it to push for their agenda.
App developers can make money out of live performances instead. Imagine some guy on stage with XCode projected onto an enormous screen. He is silent but occasionally curses Apple. The audience hold up lighters.
Rock and roll!
One cubic mile is 17478049959.184 hogshead. That's 1.7478049959184 mega hogshead (MHgshd)
https://www.convertunits.com/f...
Don't mod up parent! Defend the honour of slashdot.org's wise and honourable volunteer moderators.
Who do sterling work in, often difficult circumstances.
Hi!
We know you're trying to be helpful but can you please stop doing it?
I hear AMD have some vacancies for PR shills at the moment. Why not contact them? I even asked on your behalf and they said they'd match your current Intel rate.
Thanks for everything you've done, but I think it's time we parted company.
Debbie
Intel PR
The Venezuelans I've met a) would like the US to liberate their country and b) and very pissed off it shows no sign of doing it.
That's of course not a reason for the US to do this. The US needs to do things because they're in its interests, not out of charity to a bunch of non citizens.
I don't think Her Majesty's Government would do anything that was in any way underhand or less than honourable.
1. Announce new cryptocurrency
2. Get "investors"
3. "WE GOT HACKED!"
4. Flee country
5. Profit!
Heck, he used his real name to threaten school shootings online, and one of his relatives called the FBI tip line in January.
There's an interesting suggestion to deal with cases like this
https://www.nationalreview.com...
What if, however, there was an evidence-based process for temporarily denying a troubled person access to guns? What if this process empowered family members and others close to a potential shooter, allowing them to "do something" after they "see something" and "say something"? I've written that the best line of defense against mass shootings is an empowered, vigilant citizenry. There is a method that has the potential to empower citizens even more, when it's carefully and properly implemented.
It's called a gun-violence restraining order, or GVRO.
While there are various versions of these laws working their way through the states (California passed a GVRO statute in 2014, and it went into effect in 2016), broadly speaking they permit a spouse, parent, sibling, or person living with a troubled individual to petition a court for an order enabling law enforcement to temporarily take that individual's guns right away. A well-crafted GVRO should contain the following elements ("petitioners" are those who seek the order, "the respondent" is its subject):
1. It should limit those who have standing to seek the order to a narrowly defined class of people (close relatives, those living with the respondent);
2. It should require petitioners to come forward with clear, convincing, admissible evidence that the respondent is a significant danger to himself or others;
3. It should grant the respondent an opportunity to contest the claims against him;
4. In the event of an emergency, ex parte order (an order granted before the respondent can contest the claims), a full hearing should be scheduled quickly - preferably within 72 hours; and
5. The order should lapse after a defined period of time unless petitioners can come forward with clear and convincing evidence that it should remain in place.
The concept of the GVRO is simple, not substantially different from the restraining orders that are common in family law, and far easier to explain to the public than our nation's mental-health adjudications. Moreover, the requirement that the order come from people close to the respondent and that they come forward with real evidence (e.g. sworn statements, screenshots of social-media posts, copies of journal entries) minimizes the chance of bad-faith claims.
The great benefit of the GVRO is that it provides citizens with options other than relying on, say, the FBI. As the bureau admitted today, it did not respond appropriately to a timely warning from a "person close to Nikolas Cruz." According the FBI, that person provided "information about Cruz's gun ownership, desire to kill people, erratic behavior, and disturbing social media posts, as well as the potential of him conducting a school shooting."
In other words, it appears the FBI received exactly the kind of information that would justify granting a GVRO.
That's surprisingly literate for a millennial.
Even if you could repeal the 2nd Amendment what happens next?
1) You need to get gun control through both houses. Good luck with that, given that 15 Democrats voted against Obama's Federal Assault Weapons Ban
http://articles.latimes.com/20...
Feinstein won the backing of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), who had previously voted against renewing the ban. But 15 of her fellow Democrats, including a number from Western states, and one independent voted against the ban, as did all Republicans except Sen. Mark Steven Kirk of Illinois.
No problem you say, we'll fill CNN with crying children and bring on Jimmy Kimmel, also crying, to emotionally blackmail anyone who is going to vote against the bill so it passes. Well Republicans don't watch Jimmy Kimmel or CNN so you'll have to concentrate of the Democrats. You also need the bill to survive legal challenges, which it's fair to assume there will be a lot of.
However now your problems are only just beginning.
2) You need to confiscate all the now illegal guns. ATF and the FBI will need to go door to door. Most people are going to say "Oh yeah that AR-15? Lost it in a tragic boating accident?". In Australia only about one third of guns were collected
https://www.nationalreview.com...
Gun confiscation is not happening in the United States any time soon. But let's suppose it did. How would it work? Australia's program netted, at the low end, 650,000 guns, and at the high end, a million. That was approximately a fifth to a third of Australian firearms. There are about as many guns in America as there are people: 310 million of both in 2009. A fifth to a third would be between 60 and 105 million guns. To achieve in America what was done in Australia, in other words, the government would have to confiscate as many as 105 million firearms.
Some percentage of gun owners will decide that a government which confiscates guns is Literally Hitler and it is their patriotic duty to die fighting it. So you'll need the National Guard. Maybe the army too - though at that point you've admitted it's a civil war. Though it's fair to say that people who join the army and National Guard might sympathize rather more with the people who believe in the 2nd Amendment than the politicians telling them to confiscate guns. But hey, don't worry. The US's armed forces are pretty well indoctrinated into the importance of following orders from civilians, even if they disagree with them. There hasn't been a mutiny since troops in Vietnam fragged their superiors.
Still do you see gun deaths going up or down in this process? Do you see civil liberties being enhanced or radically curtailed as the government ends up fighting an insurgency on its own territory and supported at the very least by ex military types? If you're the delicate sort who cries when a few dozen people get killed in gun violence, be prepared to be crying all the time as the ATF and right wing militias duke it out and a few people in the armed forces announce they're going over to the rebel side.
American gun control would be like trying to put the toothpaste back in the tube, i.e. a complete mess. On the other hand it's not like putting the toothpaste back in the tube causes a bloody civil war. So actually it's significantly worse than putting the toothpaste back in the tube.
Meanwhile the Russians and Chinese will be celebrating because the government of their only strategic competitor has just done something which makes overseas military action impossible. And they'll be sure to take advantage of that. If the US is having a civil war, what's top stop Russian sending troops into the Eastern members of NATO or China sending troops into Taiwan?