Arizona is not New York. Supposedly the stop and frisk law in New York is to find illegal weapons. It is not illegal to carry a weapon in Arizona. If there is a law in Arizona to allow police to stop and search people it is not the immigration laws or the weapons laws.
As I stated above in the GPP this does not mean that the police in Arizona won't abuse their powers to search people, it happens everywhere. SCOTUS struck down those portions of the law that made being an illegal immigrant a crime in Arizona. The only part that survives is the part where a person accused of a crime and in custody can have their immigration status verified with the federal government.
Effectively SCOTUS has ruled that being an illegal alien in Arizona is not a crime. It's a crime but not one the local police can enforce. This takes us back to where much of the problem started. Arizona has a problem with illegal aliens but had no law to charge them under. The feds failed to lock these people up. Arizona tried to enact a law to lock them up. SCOTUS struck it down. Now DOJ, DHS, DoS all decided that they don't want to deal with illegal aliens unless the are caught with drugs, are found with firearms... no, not even that holds any more. So what is left? What will the feds deport illegal aliens for doing? Murder? Rape? Human smuggling? Do they even care if they smuggle drugs any more? If they are caught with a Mitt Romney Campaign sticker I think that gets them the death penalty.
I don't know all the stop and frisk laws in Arizona. The carry of a weapon is not a crime in the state. I believe the carry of small amounts of marijuana is also legal. There are other controlled substances allowed in Arizona for personal use like peyote. I'm trying to figure out what the stop and frisk would produce in Arizona that is a crime. Not having any identifying papers on the person is not a crime either. So a search happens. They find the guns and drugs and no papers. A citizen does not need papers. Perhaps the marijuana needs papers, the cops can see that.
If the cops want to waste their time on stopping and searching people then they are going to be wasting their time. The law in Arizona is not like that in New York. Some one stopped in New York for guns and drugs are likely going to jail for a three year minimum term. Same thing happens in Arizona and the police apologize quickly and move on before a supervisor, a camera crew or a lawyer comes around.
Read the Second Amendment very carefully. The regulation of the militia is not the only reason for the right to keep and bear arms, it was just the one they thought most important to codify in the law of the land. It is going to be impossible to have a well regulated militia unless the people from which the militia is drawn have free access to arms. The authors of the US Constitution knew that the states would not agree to join this federation unless they knew the states would be guaranteed the ability to raise a militia.
To assure the state's ability to raise a militia the federal government was barred from infringing on the right to keep and bear arms. If the state militias are not trained, or regulated, then that is the fault of the states. The states are not required to maintain a militia, only that the federal government is barred from interfering in the ability of the states to do so.
What is your solution then? Stop all technological progress as we know it? Automobiles put a lot of horse whip makers out of business while the carriage makers found a way to keep going making car frames. These horse whip makers found something to do. The automated teller machines put a lot of bank employees out of work but they found something to keep themselves employed.
Things change and we adjust. Economies change and people have to find new jobs. What did we do with all those soldiers that came home after World War II was over? Keep them fighting so they'd have a job? Who would they fight? Each other? Obviously they found other jobs since history did not show a mass starvation once soldiers stopped being soldiers. What did happen was an economic boom since people were no longer occupied with something so wasteful as fighting a war.
Are we worse off now that automobile factories are highly automated? Did all those welders and wrench turners starve once the robots were put in their place? I don't think so, they found other jobs. We always find other jobs once freed from menial tasks that can be automated. Our lives as a society improve because of it. Certainly we have had a few people end up impoverished because they have been unable to find work. We have safety nets for such cases. There is Social Security Insurance, unemployment insurance, student aid for those that want to learn a new trade, and much more.
It seems you are suggesting that we are on the inevitable path of a large portion of the population being obsoleted by technology. What do you propose we do to avert the impending mass starvation?
The law says that people that are arrested can/may/should (I don't recall the exact words) have their immigration status checked. The important part is that the person must be arrested for some other crime FIRST before their "papers" are requested.
The law also specifically states that an officer cannot use this law as a primary offense for the arrest and cannot use race as the basis for checking immigration status. I realize that this does not really prevent officers from abusing the law but around here we generally look down on police officers breaking the law.
Driving while Hispanic is not against the law. Driving with a broken headlamp is against the law. If the person stopped for the broken headlamp speaks broken English, has no license to drive or other papers, then I would hope the officer not only arrests that person but also during the process attempts to verify the person is in the country legally.
If you were stopped with a broken headlamp in Arizona and you presented your Virginia license the officer would be required to make a best effort to see if you were in the country legally. I am not aware of any state that will issue licenses to people in the country illegally. Some might produce false papers to get a license from another state but having a license to drive from any state generally shows you are in the country legally.
This is not a blank check to stop anyone. As someone that lives in a state that licenses the carry of weapons I have to carry ID on me all the time. In Arizona there is no requirement to have a license to be armed so they cannot even stop people for ID just because they are armed. If there is something to get upset about for being stopped and requiring papers I'd think exercising one's right of self defense would be one of them. Thankfully Arizona has enacted a good law on that a couple years ago.
If you want to continue to claim that this is a blank check to stop people to ask them for immigration papers then please cite the section of the law. Here's my citation that they cannot: http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html
The beauty of capitalism is that we don't have to come up with the jobs that these newly unemployed will have to do, they will figure that out for themselves. The only way that automation can replace people is if it is cheaper than people. There will come a balance from wage reductions in which automation is no longer profitable, people will still find work. With the reduction of costs from automation the price of commodities go down, that means people will still be able to buy what they need to live even with the reduced wages. These people might not be living the high life but they will still live better than you and me. I say that because the advancement of technology has historically improved the lives of even the poorest of people. The so called "poor" of this country have refrigerators and microwave ovens. That's because such items are so cheap that I was able to get two of each for free recently only because the prior owners wanted something "better", not because they were broken.
Barring some technological quantum leap in which we create robots as capable as any human we will still need people to perform certain tasks. People will be reluctant to have a robot watch after their children for example. We'd still need police officers, lawyers, medical technicians, truck drivers, and all sorts of tasks where lives could be put at risk because of a malfunctioning machine. We'll need people to watch over the machines, build the machines, care for the machines, and install the machines.
If we come to a time where nearly all physical labor is unnecessary then I don't see people starving because they cannot find a job. I foresee a near utopia where items of all kinds are plentiful and cheap. People will buy this stuff through acts requiring certain skills or talents, engineers, physicians, lawyers, entertainers, and religious ministers. People could also buy stuff by just selling the excess from their personally owned machines to others. Someone with extra solar panels could probably sell enough electricity to live a comfortable life. These people might not go on extravagant vacations, but by spending wisely and doing their own home repairs they would have food, shelter, clothing, and entertainment.
Assuming everyone has their own "makerbot" that can make anything they need then all one needs to survive is one makerbot, energy, and raw materials. Energy could be from the sun, wind, pedal bike, running water, petroleum, nuclear reactor, or whatever. The raw materials could be just the air. The "job" of these people would be to keep the makerbot running so they can live. They'd search out the energy and raw materials to keep the bot running. If they can do that then they can live a life approximating permanent retirement.
This would be the futuristic equivalent of the subsistence farmer. Instead of a garden, cow, and coop of chickens the person would have a makerbot, solar panels, a windmill, a garden, and maybe even a coop of chickens. I see the future as very bright. We will always have the poor, nothing we do will eliminate all want in the world. People will find work if allowed the freedom to do so. If there is mass homelessness, widespread starvation, and extreme unemployment then what we have is a lack of freedom. Compare North Korea to South Korea, very similar cultures, people, climate, etc. and yet one has all the problems you describe and the other does not. That's because one nation is free and the other is not.
Pick nits all you want, I don't care any more. Instead of arguing over the definition of a republic I'll point out your hypocrisy. You claim that you want to hold someone responsible for their actions while also claiming we should restrict certain weapons. Why would we restrict the possession of any weapon if we are going to hold them responsible for the misuse of that weapon?
You also want to restrict certain behaviors? What kind of behaviors? Since the topic is about responsible gun ownership I can only assume you mean to restrict behaviors relating to responsible gun ownership.
You didn't say what behaviors you want to restrict but I have a few guesses. No carry of guns into schools, churches, hospitals, or airports. Did I guess right? If you do believe that a passenger should be able to carry a loaded handgun onto an airplane then I'll buy you an annual membership in the National Rifle Association. If you don't then you don't really believe in holding people responsible for their actions because you have just demonstrated that you believe people cannot be responsible, cannot be held responsible, that firearms are not just a tool (another claim you made) and hold some sort of spell over the owner, or some other nonsense.
I agree that people should be held responsible for their actions. Restricting responsible behavior and the mere possession of items is incompatible with holding people responsible. If you really believe that firearms are just inanimate tools then we don't need any laws restricting the possession of those weapons. If you believe that there are just some weapons that are too dangerous to possess then I only ask that the law be equally applied, that no exceptions be made for people in government.
This does not equal a "ban", it equals a normal political disagreement. Those are actually healthy, and good for Democracy.
That would be great if we lived in a democracy. We live in a republic, or at least we do in theory. I hate to use the argument of the slippery slope but when it comes to weapons that slippery slope is almost always inevitable. Once a nation has established a restriction on the right to keep and bear arms then it just becomes a matter of degree that the people are willing to put up with.
You are correct to point out that gun control is not real popular right now. Perhaps that is because whenever gun control has been tried it has failed. What is the intent of restricting certain classes of weapons to the public? To keep us safe? Assuming that is the case Ben Franklin had a few words on safety and liberty.
Why is it that with every gun control law there is an exception for those in government? The government is made of the same flawed humans as the rest of the population. If there is a weapon that is so dangerous that it cannot be in the hands of a civilian then it should also not appear in the hands of the military.
This is a republic. In a republic the people are the government and the people are the militia. If you believe that certain weapons are to be restricted then I ask that the restriction be applied equally to the government as it does to any one else.
The power of the sword, say the minority..., is in the hands of Congress. My friends and countrymen, it is not so, for The powers of the sword are in the hands of the yeomanry of America from sixteen to sixty. The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress has no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every terrible implement of the soldier are the birthright of Americans. The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments but where, I trust in God, it will always remain, in the hands of the people.
EE is more towards the hardware side while Comp Sci is more on the software side
It's more than that. Engineering disciplines are different than the science disciplines. Engineering majors will be required to take courses on the engineering process that are merely optional for a student of computer science.
Years ago I found myself with a BSEE and no job. At the time it seemed like every job interview ended with, "Thanks for your time but we're looking for someone with more programming experience." It didn't take me long to realize that I needed to go back to school.
I talked to a student counselor about my options and it quickly became a choice between a major in computer science or computer engineering. The computer science course took me on the path of a lot of math courses, computer architecture, and (since it was a major in the Liberal Arts college) things like public speaking, foreign languages, and such. In the computer engineering program, and electrical engineering program, I was offered courses on software design along with the other courses on programming languages.
Where I went to school it was possible to take a nearly identical set of courses while majoring in either the electrical engineering or computer science. The difference was that the courses on the design process, good engineering practice, and so on, were required in electrical and computer engineering where in computer science the mind set was more on gaining a wide knowledge set in programming languages, mathematics, and theory.
In other words, computer science focused on the "what" while engineering focused on the "how".
At the time I recall hearing people talk about how recruiters were looking for electrical engineers to be programmers. This was because electrical engineers were taught good design practice along with a lot of computer theory. The computer science majors typically knew the language the recruiters were looking for but it was much easier to teach someone a programming language than teach them good design practice after getting the job.
I believe this is where the software engineering program came from where I went to school. There was a demand for people that both knew the programming languages and good design practice. The computer science program was not teaching people this. Rather than turn the computer science program into something it was not intended to be they created a new program to fill in the hole.
I realize my experience may be somewhat unique. Some colleges have treated computer science more like what we now know as software engineering for a very long time.
Also, don't think that I'm knocking the computer science majors out there. We need computer scientists. The problem was that people were going into computer science thinking they were going to learn how to engineer software. Employers found out quickly that students in computer science weren't being taught good engineering practice. I feel sorry for all of those people that were essentially duped by so many about what computer science meant, both the students and the hiring managers.
I went through my own suffering because of this war on some drugs. I was injured in the military and as a result I now have chronic pain. I went from one drug to another over the course of years. Each drug had their own side effects, which at some point caused me more suffering than the pain they were intended to relieve which meant a switch to try something else. It took YEARS before I finally got something that both relieved the pain and didn't cause more suffering.
I was ultimately prescribed codeine. I have to wonder why it took them so long to prescribe something that I found to be so effective, simple, and cheap. I didn't care so much about the cost since the Department of Veterans Affairs was paying the bill so it wasn't money out of my pocket, at least not directly. All tax payers in the USA are going to be stuck with paying for my care to some level so all tax payers should be upset that the VA was wasting their money on expensive drugs that did not work instead of the cheap one that does.
The DEA has been cracking down on "pill mills" that are trying to treat pain in the most medically effective and cost effective means. Opiates are probably the cheapest, safest, and most effective means to treat pain. We, as in all of humanity, have been using opiates to treat pain since the start of recorded history and likely for a very long time before that. We have literally thousands of years of history to show how safe and effective these drugs are. How we ended up with an effective ban on its use just baffles me.
Since being prescribed codeine I have started to wonder why this stuff is not available over the counter.
Not every state requires a marksmanship and/or safe gun handling training. I have three concealed weapons permits and the requirements are quite different among them.
Many states will take a hunter education certificate as training. There was no live fire in my hunter education class. Many states will take proof of military service as proof of sufficient training. I was in the military and I never fired a pistol while in uniform. Some states just run a criminal background check, or have a person complete a written test.
Last I checked about half of the states allow a person to carry a loaded pistol, in plain view, with no permit or training required. Four states allow the concealed carry of a pistol without a training requirement. I don't hear about a problem with accidental shootings with these states.
I remember North Dakota recently reported an entire calendar year without one death by firearm. They don't require training to carry a firearm. Where they do have problems with people getting killed accidentally is in those places where the training is so extensive that no one bothers with it and they carry a weapon in violation of the law.
IMHO, there is nothing "nice" about CCW legislation.
100% of Homicides are linked to humans killing each other, regardless of implement.
Right! Let's ban people! ... Oh, right, that means me since I am people. I got it! Let's ban murder! ... Oh, we tried that already. Let's ban it again!
There is no simple solution to a complex problem like homicide. People kill people for all kinds of reasons. Banning guns will not work since I've yet to see a place where it did work. I can't say definitively that more guns means less crime but I can say that gun bans have always preceded government massacres.
If we decriminalize the drugs then what exactly is the role of the DEA? I thought the regulation of prescription drugs was the FDA's job.
If there is no crime in access to what are now controlled substances then would not all these controlled substances become over the counter products? No more regulated than Tylenol?
I suppose one could argue that the drugs would still need a prescription but no longer be a controlled substance but I'm confused on how that would work. If there is no crime in providing the drugs without a prescription then what is going to stop a pharmacy from providing the drugs to whomever asks for them? There would be a profit motive to provide the products, just like how there is profit in selling bananas. There's money to be made in the trade of bananas, they are legal to sell without a prescription, therefore many people with buy and sell them.
If you argue that there would still be criminal penalties for having these substances without a prescription then they have not really been decriminalized. I feel like I'm missing an important point. Please enlighten me on what I'm missing here. Mostly I'm trying to see what role the DEA plays in a government that already has the FDA and Department of Agriculture to regulate the quality of the products we consume as food and medicine.
Time to get rid of the DEA. They just keep thinking up new ways to pry into our lives with the intent of ensuring the purity of our bodily fluids.
Billions of taxpayers' dollars are spent on these yahoos every year and what do we get out of it. Money spent so they can set quotas on the production of medicines and now we have shortages of common medications for the treatment of pain, cancer, and mental disorders.
This has become very personal for me. Because of an injury from military service I get my pain medications from the VA clinic in town. Since it is a controlled substance the physician can only write a prescription for 30 days. The VA clinic has a nice system where I just go into the office and fill out a form so the physician can rubber stamp the prescription for the next month. I have it pretty good, relatively. I feel sorry for those that don't have their meds handed out by the government.
I can only imagine what someone else, someone that has to get the same meds by a private entity. Would they have to schedule a face to face examination with their physician every month? How much would that cost them? Would any insurance company cover the cost of providing a monthly supply of narcotics for a condition that existed prior to signing up for their plan?
I've heard all kinds of horror stories of people that happened to be caught with a pill bottle, or just a single pill, that a friend or relative had forgotten and was left in the person's car, bag, or apartment. Being in the possession of a controlled substance is a felony unless prescribed by a physician. Do we want people to get sent to prison for five years because they tried to return the medicine that grandma left behind when she went to see her grandkids?
FTFA:
"I'll be quite frank with you," Oda told Newcomb. "A lot of us in Utah don't trust the federal government."
I don't either. They claim they won't use this database for the purpose of enforcing misdemeanors and traffic violations. What keeps them from breaking this promise?
I can see this already, someone will get the great idea of placing two of these along a well traveled route. The computers controlling these two stations will be connected together to compute the average speed of anyone that crosses these two points. Automatic speeding tickets will get mailed to the registered owner of the vehicle.
I'd bet dollars to donuts that would happen if these license plate scanners get installed.
No one knows how many unlicensed drivers are on the roads because as long as they drive safely there is no cause to check if they are licensed. As shown by the large numbers of licensed drivers that drive unsafely the presence of the license is insufficient to assure safe driving.
Without some sort of scientific study I find it real difficult to believe the licensing of drivers is what keeps us safe. Considering that the primary killer of children is motor vehicle accidents it seems to me that licensing of drivers is doing a very poor job of keeping us safe.
It isn't supposed to protect you from people who want to use it to kill you, it's supposed to protect you from accidents.
How does a piece of paper protect one from accidents? What keeps people safe is the desire to be safe. The people that wish to be safe will seek out the traffic laws, they are not difficult to find, and apply them. Those that don't care about being safe will ignore the training even if required by law. Those that don't care about being safe will still drive even if they don't have training, a license, or what ever piece of paper that a government requires.
You know what keeps unsafe drivers off the road? What has been shown most effective in keeping unsafe drivers from causing accidents? Police officers on the road enforcing traffic law. We don't need licenses to enforce traffic law. All those people pushing papers around to manage licenses to drive are just a waste of my tax dollars. Again, get those people out of an office and out where they can do some good.
So, we should have a piece of paper to have a swimming pool? A bathtub? A toilet? A water pail larger than an infant's head? A lot of people die from drowning.
How about step ladders? Stairs? Or a roof higher than four feet? People die from falls.
What of kitchen knives, ovens, large skillets? A lot of people end up dead from kitchen accidents or from being attacked by someone wielding a kitchen implement.
What of baseball bats, golf clubs, and hockey sticks? All of those have been used as weapons and have caused numerous injuries as a result of their intended use. Should we need a piece of paper issued by a government agent to purchase, own, or transport these items?
Claiming that we need a license to possess any object that can be lethal is nonsense. A plastic shopping bag can be lethal if placed over a person's head. A brick can be lethal if thrown with any force at another. A belt can be lethal if wrapped around someone's neck. There are all kinds of things I can think of that can be lethal to another if used to suffocate, bludgeon, or cut another.
Explain to me how this piece of paper is supposed to change any thing? How does the piece of paper prevent a person from picking up a brick, rock, tree branch, or tire iron and beating another to death with it?
How does the piece of paper keep a person from driving a car? It doesn't. There's all kinds of people driving today without a license. It's not like this piece of paper radiates some sort of aura about it that keeps a car from starting if it is not present in the pocket or purse of the driver.
Instead of having all these busybodies in these licensing offices around the world lets have them out in the world in uniform armed with radar guns, ticket pads, handcuffs, and firearms. If they see someone driving too fast, not obeying traffic signals and signs, or otherwise causing hazards on the road then they should put a stop to that. We don't need a license to enforce traffic laws. We need officers on the streets to enforce traffic laws.
Why should I care if the person has obtained the prior permission of the government to drive if they demonstrate the ability to drive safely every day?
This is just one of many reason that I want to see the need to have a license to drive. They cannot ask for papers if there is no requirement to have one.
The license to drive has become a bane to our freedom. The license to drive has become the de facto internal passport in this country. Since nearly every adult drives in this country it has become common for people to have one on them at all times. Police have been trained to ask for a license during every traffic stop and people have been trained to comply. This has translated into an almost reflexive routine with every encounter between a citizen and government official, may I see your drivers license?
Its been years now that I had to take a bus but it was only after I got my license back from the ticket agent did I realize the oddity of the action and how quickly I responded. The ticket agent asked to see my drivers license and I gave it to him. He looked at it for a few seconds, seemingly to verify it was not faked or altered, and then handed it back to me. It was that seemingly innocent incident almost a decade ago now that got me very upset.
The government has now made it nearly impossible to travel in this country without ID. Getting on a plane, train, or bus has become exceedingly difficult without having to show a state issued ID. This all started a century ago with the requirement to have a license to drive as a matter of safety. How does a piece of paper keep me safe? It does not. We've handed over our freedom to travel out of an empty promise for our safety. I think it is long over due for us to take our freedom back.
I can't comment on the rest of your tirade as I am ignorant of veracity of your claims. I do know a few things about the following comment you made and so I will comment on it.
Twenty years ago, a ban on assault weapons was a reasonable compromise in gun control. Today, even after the near assassination of a Representative and murder of several bystanders, we can't manage to pass a law against extended magazines -- weapons that have no purpose other than mass murder.
There is a very reasonable reason that we can't pass laws against extended magazines, it's because the people don't want the law. After the passing of the federal assault weapons ban there were quite a few of the politicians that voted for it that were looking for work after the next election. The assault weapons ban had no measurable effect on crime. This should not be a surprise to anyone since the ban was based mostly on cosmetic features and not anything related to the function of the weapon.
Your comment that "extended magazines" have no purpose other than mass murder just shows to me that it is highly unlikely you have ever even touched a firearm in your life. One thing I have to ask is, how do you define an "extended" magazine? How many cartridges in a firearm is "enough" and how many is "too much" in your mind?
One of the most popular firearms ever constructed is the AR-15. It has a standard capacity magazine of 30 cartridges. Is that considered an "extended" magazine in your mind? I ask because this is only three fewer cartridges than the one used by the person that shot Rep. Giffords in 2011. Does this mean that 30 cartridges is just fine in your mind but having just three more should be a crime?
This brings up another reason why it is quite unlikely that we will not see an extended magazine ban, no one can agree on how to define an "extended" magazine. With millions of 30 round magazines to go along with the millions of AR-15 rifles in the hands of law abiding Americans I have a serious doubt that any elected official is going to vote for any such ban. I'm assuming that elected officials like to continue remaining as elected officials.
Twenty years ago people wanted gun control. Now the people don't. Gun control just is not popular any more. I have a suspicion on why that is the case. I believe that people have realized in the last twenty years that gun control is not crime control. The people, or at least those that vote, realized that firearms of all shapes, sizes, and types have purposes other than mass murder.
Oh, there is another reason that we are not likely to see another assault weapons ban. The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that the Second Amendment actually means something. Creating another assault weapons ban that does not contradict existing judicial precedent is going to be very difficult.
If the DOD is concerned about the effects that CO2 will have on the atmosphere then they, as one of the largest consumers of energy in this federation, are in a unique position to actually do something about it.
Every US Navy ship of a certain minimum size should be nuclear powered. They've retired the last oil fired aircraft carrier not too long ago. As far as I know all the submarines in the fleet are nuclear powered. Now move that technology to the amphibious assault ships, frigates, destroyers, oilers, supply ships, hospital ships, and so on. Only the smallest vessels of the Navy should still run on oil.
When it comes to tanks, jeeps, helicopters, airplanes, and other vehicles where nuclear power would not be practical the DOD has the opportunity to invest in research in synthetic fuels. It appears that they are doing this but it's going to take a lot more research before the price can compete with petroleum fuels. Even if the process works the energy has to come from somewhere. That "somewhere' is likely going to be nuclear power.
The DOD has all kinds of large bases in this federation (and other nations) and these bases require all the infrastructure of a city. This includes needs for electricity. Because of things like radar, communications, heavy equipment, and other such necessities to run a military base the power needs are often much higher than your typical city. Also, to avoid panic and issues of warrior morale there should be a means to provide power to the surrounding community as well. A soldier is not going to be as effective if they know that the base is all lit up and running but his/her family is off base, in the dark, stuck in traffic, or whatever. In this case all military bases should have an on site nuclear power plant capable of powering the base and the community that surrounds it.
While I feel that nuclear power will play a very very large part in the future of our federation's security and independence I do see needs for investment into wind and solar power. I recall a Marine General talk about the "river of diesel" that has to flow into the small bases out in the battlefield. These places are where the trucks, tanks, and self propelled artillery go to get refueled, repaired, and take on a new crew. These vehicles need fuel. The people working at these bases need electricity for cooking, refrigeration, heating, cooling, lights, communications, and so on. Right now that mean diesel generators.
For every truck carrying diesel fuel there is a risk that some driver will lose his or her life to an attack. Reducing the need to bring in that fuel means fewer lives lost. It's not likely that they can remove the need for diesel fuel but they can reduce it by not running those generators. This could mean putting up solar panels and windmills for electricity. If the technology becomes more advanced then we might see nuclear reactors that fit on a 40 foot ISO trailer.
My point is that the DOD should not be complaining about the problem that carbon output has on the climate but should instead do everything in its power to remove their own need for fossil fuels. They are already doing some of this but this does not yet seem to be a priority. If it were a priority then there would no longer be a debate on whether the next generation destroyers would be nuclear powered or not. If carbon output were a priority then we should be reading about how every military base is building nuclear power plants, putting up solar panels, and seeking out the best spots for windmills on base.
Even if we got all these windmills, solar panels, and nuclear power plants the DOD will still be sucking up large amounts of petroleum to power existing aircraft, surface ships, trucks, tanks, and so on. This will likely continue for more than thirty years since that is the typical lifespan of a military design. With that in mind we need the DOD to speak up in favor of sources of petroleum that is domestic and from friendly nations. The DOD needs to speak up in favor
It's even easier than that. No bribing needed. I know people that have private pilot licenses. They fly out of small airports with no security and then into major airports all the time. Their bags aren't checked by TNA... I mean TSA. They are sometimes even allowed to drive their cars up to their planes. How much cocaine, explosives, or whatever can you fit in a car?
One person flying alone in a cheap two seat airplane can carry 200 pounds of cocaine, or whatever, right into any major airport in the USA you can think of. They can then drive their car up to the plane, load the whatever into the trunk, and drive off. I know this because a pilot I know had to get a very expensive machine very quickly from one place to another. The so called "airport security" people saw a box labeled "pin ball machine parts" or something and waved it by.
My theory has been that the TSA is not about keeping us safe. It's about keeping the powers that be safe. They don't want to see another jumbo jet get landed on their lap. It happened once at the Pentagon. Next time it might be the US Capitol.
Slashdot Mirror
Arizona is not New York. Supposedly the stop and frisk law in New York is to find illegal weapons. It is not illegal to carry a weapon in Arizona. If there is a law in Arizona to allow police to stop and search people it is not the immigration laws or the weapons laws.
As I stated above in the GPP this does not mean that the police in Arizona won't abuse their powers to search people, it happens everywhere. SCOTUS struck down those portions of the law that made being an illegal immigrant a crime in Arizona. The only part that survives is the part where a person accused of a crime and in custody can have their immigration status verified with the federal government.
Effectively SCOTUS has ruled that being an illegal alien in Arizona is not a crime. It's a crime but not one the local police can enforce. This takes us back to where much of the problem started. Arizona has a problem with illegal aliens but had no law to charge them under. The feds failed to lock these people up. Arizona tried to enact a law to lock them up. SCOTUS struck it down. Now DOJ, DHS, DoS all decided that they don't want to deal with illegal aliens unless the are caught with drugs, are found with firearms ... no, not even that holds any more. So what is left? What will the feds deport illegal aliens for doing? Murder? Rape? Human smuggling? Do they even care if they smuggle drugs any more? If they are caught with a Mitt Romney Campaign sticker I think that gets them the death penalty.
I don't know all the stop and frisk laws in Arizona. The carry of a weapon is not a crime in the state. I believe the carry of small amounts of marijuana is also legal. There are other controlled substances allowed in Arizona for personal use like peyote. I'm trying to figure out what the stop and frisk would produce in Arizona that is a crime. Not having any identifying papers on the person is not a crime either. So a search happens. They find the guns and drugs and no papers. A citizen does not need papers. Perhaps the marijuana needs papers, the cops can see that.
If the cops want to waste their time on stopping and searching people then they are going to be wasting their time. The law in Arizona is not like that in New York. Some one stopped in New York for guns and drugs are likely going to jail for a three year minimum term. Same thing happens in Arizona and the police apologize quickly and move on before a supervisor, a camera crew or a lawyer comes around.
Read the Second Amendment very carefully. The regulation of the militia is not the only reason for the right to keep and bear arms, it was just the one they thought most important to codify in the law of the land. It is going to be impossible to have a well regulated militia unless the people from which the militia is drawn have free access to arms. The authors of the US Constitution knew that the states would not agree to join this federation unless they knew the states would be guaranteed the ability to raise a militia.
To assure the state's ability to raise a militia the federal government was barred from infringing on the right to keep and bear arms. If the state militias are not trained, or regulated, then that is the fault of the states. The states are not required to maintain a militia, only that the federal government is barred from interfering in the ability of the states to do so.
The right to keep and bear arms is not dependent on being trained for militia service. Cite: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller
What is your solution then? Stop all technological progress as we know it? Automobiles put a lot of horse whip makers out of business while the carriage makers found a way to keep going making car frames. These horse whip makers found something to do. The automated teller machines put a lot of bank employees out of work but they found something to keep themselves employed.
Things change and we adjust. Economies change and people have to find new jobs. What did we do with all those soldiers that came home after World War II was over? Keep them fighting so they'd have a job? Who would they fight? Each other? Obviously they found other jobs since history did not show a mass starvation once soldiers stopped being soldiers. What did happen was an economic boom since people were no longer occupied with something so wasteful as fighting a war.
Are we worse off now that automobile factories are highly automated? Did all those welders and wrench turners starve once the robots were put in their place? I don't think so, they found other jobs. We always find other jobs once freed from menial tasks that can be automated. Our lives as a society improve because of it. Certainly we have had a few people end up impoverished because they have been unable to find work. We have safety nets for such cases. There is Social Security Insurance, unemployment insurance, student aid for those that want to learn a new trade, and much more.
It seems you are suggesting that we are on the inevitable path of a large portion of the population being obsoleted by technology. What do you propose we do to avert the impending mass starvation?
The law says that people that are arrested can/may/should (I don't recall the exact words) have their immigration status checked. The important part is that the person must be arrested for some other crime FIRST before their "papers" are requested.
The law also specifically states that an officer cannot use this law as a primary offense for the arrest and cannot use race as the basis for checking immigration status. I realize that this does not really prevent officers from abusing the law but around here we generally look down on police officers breaking the law.
Driving while Hispanic is not against the law. Driving with a broken headlamp is against the law. If the person stopped for the broken headlamp speaks broken English, has no license to drive or other papers, then I would hope the officer not only arrests that person but also during the process attempts to verify the person is in the country legally.
If you were stopped with a broken headlamp in Arizona and you presented your Virginia license the officer would be required to make a best effort to see if you were in the country legally. I am not aware of any state that will issue licenses to people in the country illegally. Some might produce false papers to get a license from another state but having a license to drive from any state generally shows you are in the country legally.
This is not a blank check to stop anyone. As someone that lives in a state that licenses the carry of weapons I have to carry ID on me all the time. In Arizona there is no requirement to have a license to be armed so they cannot even stop people for ID just because they are armed. If there is something to get upset about for being stopped and requiring papers I'd think exercising one's right of self defense would be one of them. Thankfully Arizona has enacted a good law on that a couple years ago.
If you want to continue to claim that this is a blank check to stop people to ask them for immigration papers then please cite the section of the law. Here's my citation that they cannot:
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html
The beauty of capitalism is that we don't have to come up with the jobs that these newly unemployed will have to do, they will figure that out for themselves. The only way that automation can replace people is if it is cheaper than people. There will come a balance from wage reductions in which automation is no longer profitable, people will still find work. With the reduction of costs from automation the price of commodities go down, that means people will still be able to buy what they need to live even with the reduced wages. These people might not be living the high life but they will still live better than you and me. I say that because the advancement of technology has historically improved the lives of even the poorest of people. The so called "poor" of this country have refrigerators and microwave ovens. That's because such items are so cheap that I was able to get two of each for free recently only because the prior owners wanted something "better", not because they were broken.
Barring some technological quantum leap in which we create robots as capable as any human we will still need people to perform certain tasks. People will be reluctant to have a robot watch after their children for example. We'd still need police officers, lawyers, medical technicians, truck drivers, and all sorts of tasks where lives could be put at risk because of a malfunctioning machine. We'll need people to watch over the machines, build the machines, care for the machines, and install the machines.
If we come to a time where nearly all physical labor is unnecessary then I don't see people starving because they cannot find a job. I foresee a near utopia where items of all kinds are plentiful and cheap. People will buy this stuff through acts requiring certain skills or talents, engineers, physicians, lawyers, entertainers, and religious ministers. People could also buy stuff by just selling the excess from their personally owned machines to others. Someone with extra solar panels could probably sell enough electricity to live a comfortable life. These people might not go on extravagant vacations, but by spending wisely and doing their own home repairs they would have food, shelter, clothing, and entertainment.
Assuming everyone has their own "makerbot" that can make anything they need then all one needs to survive is one makerbot, energy, and raw materials. Energy could be from the sun, wind, pedal bike, running water, petroleum, nuclear reactor, or whatever. The raw materials could be just the air. The "job" of these people would be to keep the makerbot running so they can live. They'd search out the energy and raw materials to keep the bot running. If they can do that then they can live a life approximating permanent retirement.
This would be the futuristic equivalent of the subsistence farmer. Instead of a garden, cow, and coop of chickens the person would have a makerbot, solar panels, a windmill, a garden, and maybe even a coop of chickens. I see the future as very bright. We will always have the poor, nothing we do will eliminate all want in the world. People will find work if allowed the freedom to do so. If there is mass homelessness, widespread starvation, and extreme unemployment then what we have is a lack of freedom. Compare North Korea to South Korea, very similar cultures, people, climate, etc. and yet one has all the problems you describe and the other does not. That's because one nation is free and the other is not.
Pick nits all you want, I don't care any more. Instead of arguing over the definition of a republic I'll point out your hypocrisy. You claim that you want to hold someone responsible for their actions while also claiming we should restrict certain weapons. Why would we restrict the possession of any weapon if we are going to hold them responsible for the misuse of that weapon?
You also want to restrict certain behaviors? What kind of behaviors? Since the topic is about responsible gun ownership I can only assume you mean to restrict behaviors relating to responsible gun ownership.
You didn't say what behaviors you want to restrict but I have a few guesses. No carry of guns into schools, churches, hospitals, or airports. Did I guess right? If you do believe that a passenger should be able to carry a loaded handgun onto an airplane then I'll buy you an annual membership in the National Rifle Association. If you don't then you don't really believe in holding people responsible for their actions because you have just demonstrated that you believe people cannot be responsible, cannot be held responsible, that firearms are not just a tool (another claim you made) and hold some sort of spell over the owner, or some other nonsense.
I agree that people should be held responsible for their actions. Restricting responsible behavior and the mere possession of items is incompatible with holding people responsible. If you really believe that firearms are just inanimate tools then we don't need any laws restricting the possession of those weapons. If you believe that there are just some weapons that are too dangerous to possess then I only ask that the law be equally applied, that no exceptions be made for people in government.
This does not equal a "ban", it equals a normal political disagreement. Those are actually healthy, and good for Democracy.
That would be great if we lived in a democracy. We live in a republic, or at least we do in theory. I hate to use the argument of the slippery slope but when it comes to weapons that slippery slope is almost always inevitable. Once a nation has established a restriction on the right to keep and bear arms then it just becomes a matter of degree that the people are willing to put up with.
You are correct to point out that gun control is not real popular right now. Perhaps that is because whenever gun control has been tried it has failed. What is the intent of restricting certain classes of weapons to the public? To keep us safe? Assuming that is the case Ben Franklin had a few words on safety and liberty.
Why is it that with every gun control law there is an exception for those in government? The government is made of the same flawed humans as the rest of the population. If there is a weapon that is so dangerous that it cannot be in the hands of a civilian then it should also not appear in the hands of the military.
This is a republic. In a republic the people are the government and the people are the militia. If you believe that certain weapons are to be restricted then I ask that the restriction be applied equally to the government as it does to any one else.
Here you go:
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Tench_Coxe
The power of the sword, say the minority..., is in the hands of Congress. My friends and countrymen, it is not so, for The powers of the sword are in the hands of the yeomanry of America from sixteen to sixty. The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress has no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every terrible implement of the soldier are the birthright of Americans. The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments but where, I trust in God, it will always remain, in the hands of the people.
EE is more towards the hardware side while Comp Sci is more on the software side
It's more than that. Engineering disciplines are different than the science disciplines. Engineering majors will be required to take courses on the engineering process that are merely optional for a student of computer science.
Years ago I found myself with a BSEE and no job. At the time it seemed like every job interview ended with, "Thanks for your time but we're looking for someone with more programming experience." It didn't take me long to realize that I needed to go back to school.
I talked to a student counselor about my options and it quickly became a choice between a major in computer science or computer engineering. The computer science course took me on the path of a lot of math courses, computer architecture, and (since it was a major in the Liberal Arts college) things like public speaking, foreign languages, and such. In the computer engineering program, and electrical engineering program, I was offered courses on software design along with the other courses on programming languages.
Where I went to school it was possible to take a nearly identical set of courses while majoring in either the electrical engineering or computer science. The difference was that the courses on the design process, good engineering practice, and so on, were required in electrical and computer engineering where in computer science the mind set was more on gaining a wide knowledge set in programming languages, mathematics, and theory.
In other words, computer science focused on the "what" while engineering focused on the "how".
At the time I recall hearing people talk about how recruiters were looking for electrical engineers to be programmers. This was because electrical engineers were taught good design practice along with a lot of computer theory. The computer science majors typically knew the language the recruiters were looking for but it was much easier to teach someone a programming language than teach them good design practice after getting the job.
I believe this is where the software engineering program came from where I went to school. There was a demand for people that both knew the programming languages and good design practice. The computer science program was not teaching people this. Rather than turn the computer science program into something it was not intended to be they created a new program to fill in the hole.
I realize my experience may be somewhat unique. Some colleges have treated computer science more like what we now know as software engineering for a very long time.
Also, don't think that I'm knocking the computer science majors out there. We need computer scientists. The problem was that people were going into computer science thinking they were going to learn how to engineer software. Employers found out quickly that students in computer science weren't being taught good engineering practice. I feel sorry for all of those people that were essentially duped by so many about what computer science meant, both the students and the hiring managers.
I went through my own suffering because of this war on some drugs. I was injured in the military and as a result I now have chronic pain. I went from one drug to another over the course of years. Each drug had their own side effects, which at some point caused me more suffering than the pain they were intended to relieve which meant a switch to try something else. It took YEARS before I finally got something that both relieved the pain and didn't cause more suffering.
I was ultimately prescribed codeine. I have to wonder why it took them so long to prescribe something that I found to be so effective, simple, and cheap. I didn't care so much about the cost since the Department of Veterans Affairs was paying the bill so it wasn't money out of my pocket, at least not directly. All tax payers in the USA are going to be stuck with paying for my care to some level so all tax payers should be upset that the VA was wasting their money on expensive drugs that did not work instead of the cheap one that does.
The DEA has been cracking down on "pill mills" that are trying to treat pain in the most medically effective and cost effective means. Opiates are probably the cheapest, safest, and most effective means to treat pain. We, as in all of humanity, have been using opiates to treat pain since the start of recorded history and likely for a very long time before that. We have literally thousands of years of history to show how safe and effective these drugs are. How we ended up with an effective ban on its use just baffles me.
Since being prescribed codeine I have started to wonder why this stuff is not available over the counter.
You mean like marijuana?
Not every state requires a marksmanship and/or safe gun handling training. I have three concealed weapons permits and the requirements are quite different among them.
Many states will take a hunter education certificate as training. There was no live fire in my hunter education class. Many states will take proof of military service as proof of sufficient training. I was in the military and I never fired a pistol while in uniform. Some states just run a criminal background check, or have a person complete a written test.
Last I checked about half of the states allow a person to carry a loaded pistol, in plain view, with no permit or training required. Four states allow the concealed carry of a pistol without a training requirement. I don't hear about a problem with accidental shootings with these states.
I remember North Dakota recently reported an entire calendar year without one death by firearm. They don't require training to carry a firearm. Where they do have problems with people getting killed accidentally is in those places where the training is so extensive that no one bothers with it and they carry a weapon in violation of the law.
IMHO, there is nothing "nice" about CCW legislation.
100% of Homicides are linked to humans killing each other, regardless of implement.
Right! Let's ban people!
...
...
Oh, right, that means me since I am people. I got it! Let's ban murder!
Oh, we tried that already. Let's ban it again!
There is no simple solution to a complex problem like homicide. People kill people for all kinds of reasons. Banning guns will not work since I've yet to see a place where it did work. I can't say definitively that more guns means less crime but I can say that gun bans have always preceded government massacres.
Explain to me how you are going to fight a M1 tank or an F35 jet with your Desert Eagle.
I'll shoot the crew when they get out to take a piss.
If we decriminalize the drugs then what exactly is the role of the DEA? I thought the regulation of prescription drugs was the FDA's job.
If there is no crime in access to what are now controlled substances then would not all these controlled substances become over the counter products? No more regulated than Tylenol?
I suppose one could argue that the drugs would still need a prescription but no longer be a controlled substance but I'm confused on how that would work. If there is no crime in providing the drugs without a prescription then what is going to stop a pharmacy from providing the drugs to whomever asks for them? There would be a profit motive to provide the products, just like how there is profit in selling bananas. There's money to be made in the trade of bananas, they are legal to sell without a prescription, therefore many people with buy and sell them.
If you argue that there would still be criminal penalties for having these substances without a prescription then they have not really been decriminalized. I feel like I'm missing an important point. Please enlighten me on what I'm missing here. Mostly I'm trying to see what role the DEA plays in a government that already has the FDA and Department of Agriculture to regulate the quality of the products we consume as food and medicine.
Time to get rid of the DEA. They just keep thinking up new ways to pry into our lives with the intent of ensuring the purity of our bodily fluids.
Billions of taxpayers' dollars are spent on these yahoos every year and what do we get out of it. Money spent so they can set quotas on the production of medicines and now we have shortages of common medications for the treatment of pain, cancer, and mental disorders.
This has become very personal for me. Because of an injury from military service I get my pain medications from the VA clinic in town. Since it is a controlled substance the physician can only write a prescription for 30 days. The VA clinic has a nice system where I just go into the office and fill out a form so the physician can rubber stamp the prescription for the next month. I have it pretty good, relatively. I feel sorry for those that don't have their meds handed out by the government.
I can only imagine what someone else, someone that has to get the same meds by a private entity. Would they have to schedule a face to face examination with their physician every month? How much would that cost them? Would any insurance company cover the cost of providing a monthly supply of narcotics for a condition that existed prior to signing up for their plan?
I've heard all kinds of horror stories of people that happened to be caught with a pill bottle, or just a single pill, that a friend or relative had forgotten and was left in the person's car, bag, or apartment. Being in the possession of a controlled substance is a felony unless prescribed by a physician. Do we want people to get sent to prison for five years because they tried to return the medicine that grandma left behind when she went to see her grandkids?
FTFA:
"I'll be quite frank with you," Oda told Newcomb. "A lot of us in Utah don't trust the federal government."
I don't either. They claim they won't use this database for the purpose of enforcing misdemeanors and traffic violations. What keeps them from breaking this promise?
I can see this already, someone will get the great idea of placing two of these along a well traveled route. The computers controlling these two stations will be connected together to compute the average speed of anyone that crosses these two points. Automatic speeding tickets will get mailed to the registered owner of the vehicle.
I'd bet dollars to donuts that would happen if these license plate scanners get installed.
Of course. Close enough counts with horseshoes, hand grenades, and nuclear ordnance.
Sigh. Did you even read what I wrote?
No one knows how many unlicensed drivers are on the roads because as long as they drive safely there is no cause to check if they are licensed. As shown by the large numbers of licensed drivers that drive unsafely the presence of the license is insufficient to assure safe driving.
Without some sort of scientific study I find it real difficult to believe the licensing of drivers is what keeps us safe. Considering that the primary killer of children is motor vehicle accidents it seems to me that licensing of drivers is doing a very poor job of keeping us safe.
It isn't supposed to protect you from people who want to use it to kill you, it's supposed to protect you from accidents.
How does a piece of paper protect one from accidents? What keeps people safe is the desire to be safe. The people that wish to be safe will seek out the traffic laws, they are not difficult to find, and apply them. Those that don't care about being safe will ignore the training even if required by law. Those that don't care about being safe will still drive even if they don't have training, a license, or what ever piece of paper that a government requires.
You know what keeps unsafe drivers off the road? What has been shown most effective in keeping unsafe drivers from causing accidents? Police officers on the road enforcing traffic law. We don't need licenses to enforce traffic law. All those people pushing papers around to manage licenses to drive are just a waste of my tax dollars. Again, get those people out of an office and out where they can do some good.
So, we should have a piece of paper to have a swimming pool? A bathtub? A toilet? A water pail larger than an infant's head? A lot of people die from drowning.
How about step ladders? Stairs? Or a roof higher than four feet? People die from falls.
What of kitchen knives, ovens, large skillets? A lot of people end up dead from kitchen accidents or from being attacked by someone wielding a kitchen implement.
What of baseball bats, golf clubs, and hockey sticks? All of those have been used as weapons and have caused numerous injuries as a result of their intended use. Should we need a piece of paper issued by a government agent to purchase, own, or transport these items?
Claiming that we need a license to possess any object that can be lethal is nonsense. A plastic shopping bag can be lethal if placed over a person's head. A brick can be lethal if thrown with any force at another. A belt can be lethal if wrapped around someone's neck. There are all kinds of things I can think of that can be lethal to another if used to suffocate, bludgeon, or cut another.
Explain to me how this piece of paper is supposed to change any thing? How does the piece of paper prevent a person from picking up a brick, rock, tree branch, or tire iron and beating another to death with it?
How does the piece of paper keep a person from driving a car? It doesn't. There's all kinds of people driving today without a license. It's not like this piece of paper radiates some sort of aura about it that keeps a car from starting if it is not present in the pocket or purse of the driver.
Instead of having all these busybodies in these licensing offices around the world lets have them out in the world in uniform armed with radar guns, ticket pads, handcuffs, and firearms. If they see someone driving too fast, not obeying traffic signals and signs, or otherwise causing hazards on the road then they should put a stop to that. We don't need a license to enforce traffic laws. We need officers on the streets to enforce traffic laws.
Why should I care if the person has obtained the prior permission of the government to drive if they demonstrate the ability to drive safely every day?
This is just one of many reason that I want to see the need to have a license to drive. They cannot ask for papers if there is no requirement to have one.
The license to drive has become a bane to our freedom. The license to drive has become the de facto internal passport in this country. Since nearly every adult drives in this country it has become common for people to have one on them at all times. Police have been trained to ask for a license during every traffic stop and people have been trained to comply. This has translated into an almost reflexive routine with every encounter between a citizen and government official, may I see your drivers license?
Its been years now that I had to take a bus but it was only after I got my license back from the ticket agent did I realize the oddity of the action and how quickly I responded. The ticket agent asked to see my drivers license and I gave it to him. He looked at it for a few seconds, seemingly to verify it was not faked or altered, and then handed it back to me. It was that seemingly innocent incident almost a decade ago now that got me very upset.
The government has now made it nearly impossible to travel in this country without ID. Getting on a plane, train, or bus has become exceedingly difficult without having to show a state issued ID. This all started a century ago with the requirement to have a license to drive as a matter of safety. How does a piece of paper keep me safe? It does not. We've handed over our freedom to travel out of an empty promise for our safety. I think it is long over due for us to take our freedom back.
We need to get rid of the drivers license.
I can't comment on the rest of your tirade as I am ignorant of veracity of your claims. I do know a few things about the following comment you made and so I will comment on it.
Twenty years ago, a ban on assault weapons was a reasonable compromise in gun control. Today, even after the near assassination of a Representative and murder of several bystanders, we can't manage to pass a law against extended magazines -- weapons that have no purpose other than mass murder.
There is a very reasonable reason that we can't pass laws against extended magazines, it's because the people don't want the law. After the passing of the federal assault weapons ban there were quite a few of the politicians that voted for it that were looking for work after the next election. The assault weapons ban had no measurable effect on crime. This should not be a surprise to anyone since the ban was based mostly on cosmetic features and not anything related to the function of the weapon.
Your comment that "extended magazines" have no purpose other than mass murder just shows to me that it is highly unlikely you have ever even touched a firearm in your life. One thing I have to ask is, how do you define an "extended" magazine? How many cartridges in a firearm is "enough" and how many is "too much" in your mind?
One of the most popular firearms ever constructed is the AR-15. It has a standard capacity magazine of 30 cartridges. Is that considered an "extended" magazine in your mind? I ask because this is only three fewer cartridges than the one used by the person that shot Rep. Giffords in 2011. Does this mean that 30 cartridges is just fine in your mind but having just three more should be a crime?
This brings up another reason why it is quite unlikely that we will not see an extended magazine ban, no one can agree on how to define an "extended" magazine. With millions of 30 round magazines to go along with the millions of AR-15 rifles in the hands of law abiding Americans I have a serious doubt that any elected official is going to vote for any such ban. I'm assuming that elected officials like to continue remaining as elected officials.
Twenty years ago people wanted gun control. Now the people don't. Gun control just is not popular any more. I have a suspicion on why that is the case. I believe that people have realized in the last twenty years that gun control is not crime control. The people, or at least those that vote, realized that firearms of all shapes, sizes, and types have purposes other than mass murder.
Oh, there is another reason that we are not likely to see another assault weapons ban. The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that the Second Amendment actually means something. Creating another assault weapons ban that does not contradict existing judicial precedent is going to be very difficult.
If the DOD is concerned about the effects that CO2 will have on the atmosphere then they, as one of the largest consumers of energy in this federation, are in a unique position to actually do something about it.
Every US Navy ship of a certain minimum size should be nuclear powered. They've retired the last oil fired aircraft carrier not too long ago. As far as I know all the submarines in the fleet are nuclear powered. Now move that technology to the amphibious assault ships, frigates, destroyers, oilers, supply ships, hospital ships, and so on. Only the smallest vessels of the Navy should still run on oil.
When it comes to tanks, jeeps, helicopters, airplanes, and other vehicles where nuclear power would not be practical the DOD has the opportunity to invest in research in synthetic fuels. It appears that they are doing this but it's going to take a lot more research before the price can compete with petroleum fuels. Even if the process works the energy has to come from somewhere. That "somewhere' is likely going to be nuclear power.
The DOD has all kinds of large bases in this federation (and other nations) and these bases require all the infrastructure of a city. This includes needs for electricity. Because of things like radar, communications, heavy equipment, and other such necessities to run a military base the power needs are often much higher than your typical city. Also, to avoid panic and issues of warrior morale there should be a means to provide power to the surrounding community as well. A soldier is not going to be as effective if they know that the base is all lit up and running but his/her family is off base, in the dark, stuck in traffic, or whatever. In this case all military bases should have an on site nuclear power plant capable of powering the base and the community that surrounds it.
While I feel that nuclear power will play a very very large part in the future of our federation's security and independence I do see needs for investment into wind and solar power. I recall a Marine General talk about the "river of diesel" that has to flow into the small bases out in the battlefield. These places are where the trucks, tanks, and self propelled artillery go to get refueled, repaired, and take on a new crew. These vehicles need fuel. The people working at these bases need electricity for cooking, refrigeration, heating, cooling, lights, communications, and so on. Right now that mean diesel generators.
For every truck carrying diesel fuel there is a risk that some driver will lose his or her life to an attack. Reducing the need to bring in that fuel means fewer lives lost. It's not likely that they can remove the need for diesel fuel but they can reduce it by not running those generators. This could mean putting up solar panels and windmills for electricity. If the technology becomes more advanced then we might see nuclear reactors that fit on a 40 foot ISO trailer.
My point is that the DOD should not be complaining about the problem that carbon output has on the climate but should instead do everything in its power to remove their own need for fossil fuels. They are already doing some of this but this does not yet seem to be a priority. If it were a priority then there would no longer be a debate on whether the next generation destroyers would be nuclear powered or not. If carbon output were a priority then we should be reading about how every military base is building nuclear power plants, putting up solar panels, and seeking out the best spots for windmills on base.
Even if we got all these windmills, solar panels, and nuclear power plants the DOD will still be sucking up large amounts of petroleum to power existing aircraft, surface ships, trucks, tanks, and so on. This will likely continue for more than thirty years since that is the typical lifespan of a military design. With that in mind we need the DOD to speak up in favor of sources of petroleum that is domestic and from friendly nations. The DOD needs to speak up in favor
3...
2...
Hey! You! Stop that! I didn't say you could start yet!
It's even easier than that. No bribing needed. I know people that have private pilot licenses. They fly out of small airports with no security and then into major airports all the time. Their bags aren't checked by TNA... I mean TSA. They are sometimes even allowed to drive their cars up to their planes. How much cocaine, explosives, or whatever can you fit in a car?
One person flying alone in a cheap two seat airplane can carry 200 pounds of cocaine, or whatever, right into any major airport in the USA you can think of. They can then drive their car up to the plane, load the whatever into the trunk, and drive off. I know this because a pilot I know had to get a very expensive machine very quickly from one place to another. The so called "airport security" people saw a box labeled "pin ball machine parts" or something and waved it by.
My theory has been that the TSA is not about keeping us safe. It's about keeping the powers that be safe. They don't want to see another jumbo jet get landed on their lap. It happened once at the Pentagon. Next time it might be the US Capitol.