The average American has an IQ of 98. The average American with European or Asian ancestry has an IQ of 100. The average American of African or Hispanic ancestry has an IQ of 95. While males and females have the same average IQ the distribution of IQ among males is wider than that of females, which means more geniuses and more... not geniuses.
The average IQ of a person in a computer related field is 110. Someone doing software/computer/electrical engineering will be slightly higher at 115. Those that graduate with a degree in computer science, information science, and most engineering disciplines, will have an IQ around 125.
Statistically speaking the people with the intelligence to graduate in computer science and related fields will be predominately white or Asian, and male. Those with the intelligence to be successful in an occupation writing computer code will the predominately white or Asian, and male. Claiming to be able to double the number of Hispanic and Black students into computer science means, as best I can tell, one was able to increase their intelligence.
I guess the alternative is they found a way to handicap the competition for these classes. Colleges and universities have been handicapping white and Asian applicants to get more Black and Hispanic students. All they did was double the drop out rate of Black and Hispanic students at their schools. Affirmative action is not helping these people. Don't put people in classes and jobs for which they are unsuited, that's only displacing someone that might be better suited for that position.
We've effectively ended racism in the USA. That's not saying there are not any racist people in the USA, only that it's been made socially unacceptable and punishable under the law if used to keep people from jobs and services.
There is no easy answer for the disparity of women and minorities in STEM, because there is no easy answer to correct for the varied genetics in these populations we generally describe as races and genders. Genetics is a very large part of IQ. Maybe IQ is 50/50 genetics and things like nutrition and education. Maybe IQ is only 20% genetics. What portion of IQ that is genetics is not all that important, what is important is to realize that we can't just "fix" the uneven distribution of IQ over race and gender with better schools and better nutrition.
Trying to blame this on racism or sexism gets us nowhere but continued frustration on reality not fitting the fantasy people create for themselves.
DisplayLink is a USB based video adapter, that's just fucked up to begin with. Do the math on a 1080p/60 display... 1920 (horizontal) x 1080 (vertical) x 24 (bits of color) x 60 (frames per second) = 3 Gbps
3 Gbps the raw data rate for a 1080p/60 display on a bus that has a max speed of 5 Gbps data, 4K/60 needs 4 times that bandwidth. DisplayLink is trying to squeeze 4K and 5K video on a 5 Gbps, or maybe 10 Gbps if they use USB 3.1, and to do that they compress the frames and expand them on a chip they made. If they can't figure out how to make that work on MacOS then maybe they should get better code writers or use the built-in DisplayPort chip in every Apple computer with a USB-C port.
Other vendors can figure this out by using Thunderbolt and/or DisplayPort which can achieve 20 or 40 Gbps on the same USB-C port. With 20 Gbps that gets 5K/60 or 2x4K/30 without compression, with compression (which again is built-in to the DisplayPort chip in every Apple with USB-C and DisplayPort 1.4 displays) and/or 40 Gbps cables/adapters it gets up to 5K/120 or 4K/240.
A quick Google search tells me that DisplayLink and Linux have their own problems. Don't blame Apple on this. Blame the maker of your dongle for using DisplayLink chips for passing video or blame yourself for choosing crap dongles.
I had to take support calls on DisplayLink shit and so I have all kinds of hate for them. This isn't an Apple thing, or Linux thing, because even in Windows DisplayLink support sucks balls. DisplayLink can go fuck themselves.
I bought a laptop with 16 GB before because at the time I was taking training for VM certifications and it was nice to take the laptop to class to play with and have the same setup still there when I went home. I still use multiple VMs on my laptop for testing websites on different operating systems, gaining access to software that's unique to Windows or Linux, and just separating work spaces.
Having access to 32GB isn't necessary but it would be nice in my next laptop for the same reasons I had bought what was then the most RAM I could get in a laptop last time I was shopping.
I fixed the problem with a magnetic breakaway USB-C charge cable. The one I have is from Griffin Technology but there are others.
I haven't had a laptop destroyed or damaged from a cord being tripped over, but I had a few close calls. I had problems with MagSafe not making contact, and also seen laptops at work made worthless because the charge port was worn or damaged.
I'm torn on the Lightning port vs. USB-C. Since Lightning predates USB-C, and especially things like HDMI/MHL/DisplayPort/video over USB-C, I see why Apple went with it and stuck with it.
Here's my guess, Apple will stick with Lightning until whatever that replaces USB-C comes along.
I was also torn on the MagSafe vs. USB-C for charging port. I resolved that with a magnetic breakaway USB-C charging cable. There's small ones for 5V/15W phones and bigger ones for 20V/60W tablets and laptops. I don't miss MagSafe all that much any more.
I guess that Apple and others will stick with USB-C until some kind of standard comes along for a safe breakaway connector.
Maybe Apple will release MagSafe into a licensed standard and others will grab onto it. It might need an update for things like more power and/or have some kind of data pass through. It was nice but got to be expensive if a replacement or spare charger was needed.
Same reason they removed the headphone socket and dropped down to a single combined USB/charging port.
I guess that way they can sell more dongles.
Right, because only Apple does that. Except most every maker of high end cell phones, they have only a USB-C port now. Oh, and Lenovo that has that silly proprietary micro-Ethernet port, and the adapter is not included with the laptop.
Yep, only Apple is looking to sell more dongles. Except all the other manufacturers doing away with everything but the USB-C port on their laptops, cell phones, and tablets.
Give the Apple bashing a break for once. Everyone making everything electronic is trying to cut down on the variety of ports they offer. I quite enjoy not having to track a dozen different kinds of chargers and power supplies at work now. I quite enjoy that Lenovo standardized on their one port for powering their displays, laptops, and other stuff. If they can't stick with USB-C then I'm happy that they stuck with something standard across their many products. I miss the magnetic power ports on Apple and other laptops but there are products out there that can bring something real close as an adapter or cable.
In all fairness The current Macbook pro isn't that much different then for the Titanium Powebook back in 2002. Thinner, more powerful, but still a Gray Metal Laptop With a clamshell design, with a keyboard and a track pad.
I worked on a solar car competition in college and in the early years the cars came in all kinds of shapes. The size was constrained by the rules on height, width, and length, so size didn't vary all that much but inside that box the cars filled that in the best way they thought at the time.
The next couple competitions the more outrageous shapes disappeared and the more successful shapes were copied and varied upon by others. Another couple competitions and all the cars looked basically the same, a wide and flat wedge with a bubble on top for the driver.
Why mention solar cars in a thread about laptops? Because when it comes down to the evolution of the shapes of the things we deal with everyday there are shapes that just evolve naturally. This has been true for all laptops since the demise of the trackball in the 1990s. Of course the current Macbook Pro looks like the PowerBook from 2002, because that is a shape and size that has a nice compromise of cost and convenience. I'm guessing if people had their way they might like some variations on the shape and color but a brushed aluminum, titanium, or stainless steel shell is durable that looks nice enough that people will buy it. A thin flat clamshell design is well suited to a keyboard and screen, and being folding shut to fit in a purse, briefcase, or backpack. For pointing devices it's a trackpad, because nobody wants a trackball or pencil eraser sized joystick any more.
In all fairness The current Macbook pro isn't that much different then for the Titanium Powebook back in 2002. Thinner, more powerful, but still a Gray Metal Laptop With a clamshell design, with a keyboard and a track pad.
Just like those solar cars where the shape and size settled into really just variation on a single theme the real competition comes with what's under the hood. This includes the ports offered. I'll hear people complain about the lack of ports on Apple laptops and yet we find other high end laptops copying it. Sure, we might still see a single USB-A port alongside the USB-C ports but for the most part the choice of ports on high end laptops is thinning. If there is an Ethernet port then it's a flimsy pop-out thing or a proprietary micro-port which may or may not have the adapter included. Video ports will be HDMI, mini-DisplayPort, or just video out of one of the USB-C ports. Maybe there is a slot for SD cards but those seem to be disappearing. Charger ports are switching over to USB-C. I miss the magnetic charger ports but I'll take the standard USB-C until we figure out a standardized magnetic charge port that doesn't require buying only those expensive chargers from the manufacturer.
That being said, Apple is the only major player, offering a Non-Windows Laptops. While Apple hasn't been offering a major Redesign in appearance, the Hardware upgrade is actually the more important part then the appearance.
Yep. We'll be getting plain metal grey laptops with only 2 or 3 ports, maybe 5 ports on the high priced ones, for a long time. Gone are the days with laptops with 12 ports on them. Remember those days? I have an old laptop here with headphone, microphone, PCMCIA, power, serial, VGA, parallel, Ethernet, modem, S-video, and 2x USB-A. Dealing with only USB-C and a combo headphone/mic port is annoying sometimes but I'll take that over the heavy, colorful, and many ported, laptops of the past.
Just because someone disagrees with your idea on how a schools should be secured does not mean one is unwilling or unable to secure the schools.
Metal detectors cost money, armed volunteers cost nothing. No one is leaving children in a building with a murderer in either case. All you are doing, by your own admission, is shifting the target rich environment from inside the school to the students waiting outside the school to get through the metal detectors. You, YOU, admitted that the students would be outside and unguarded while waiting to get through security, therefore leaving them vulnerable to a mass murderer. Get them in the school, do it quickly, and if someone goes ape shit and tries killing innocent children then they'd have to go through locked doors and armed guards to do it. It doesn't require metal detectors to keep schools safe, and keeping armed guards only at the perimeter of the school, even with metal detectors, means someone that breaks that layer of security leaves them alone in the school with helpless children and unarmed adults.
You mentioned earlier that airports and courtrooms keep armed security outside the "gun free zone" inside. That's a lie. There are armed guards inside this "gun free zone". It's not a gun free zone, the guards still have guns. You might not see them but they have guns. The only exception that I know of in this is prisons, the guards in the walls don't have guns. The guards on top of the walls have guns though.
You want metal detectors at school doors? Fine, you do that. You can pay for them. While you go about raising funds we can have armed volunteers in no time and with no funding.
Fortunately, our Constitution was amended by people with more wisdom and compassion than that.
Don't the people in the USA legally deserve some compassion? Without having gone through some vetting process we don't know if these illegal aliens have the best intentions in mind for the USA. Having entered illegally it would seem they might not have the best intentions.
That's completely irrelevant. If the parents came here illegally while the woman was pregnant, and managed to stay within the U.S. border long enough to give birth, their child would automatically be a U.S. citizen (see the 14th Amendment). That applies even if the parents stole money, bought a house, gave birth in the U.S., and then got caught.
That has been the standard in the past but that does not mean that has to be the standard in the future. A diplomat visiting the USA giving birth to a child does not grant the child citizenship, and neither does the child of a member of a foreign enemy invasion have automatic citizenship. There is already a standard for children being born here not being granted citizenship, apply that same standard to illegal aliens. Maybe the parents don't need to be citizens but at least need to be lawful residents. An alien in this nation should not automatically be allowed to claim citizenship for the child, especially those here unlawfully.
As wise authors of the 14th Amendment they left "wiggle room" in that a person must be both born in and "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" the USA. An illegal alien is a subject of a foreign nation by the nature of being born of a citizen of another nation. That newborn child is a citizen of the same nation of the parent or parents. That child may have the right of residency, but that is distinct from being a citizen.
What's happening is that our laws are being used against us. We are having people violate our immigration laws, and if they violate them to the point of having their child born here then they are rewarded by having their child gaining citizenship. They are violating our laws for the sole purpose of violating them again and continually. They have their anchor baby and with our "compassion" of not separating the parents from the child we reward the criminal behavior of the parents by allowing them to stay in the USA. Well, "compassion" does not require we reward criminal behavior. The child can stay with the parents, just not in the USA.
Granting citizenship based only on being born inside the borders is actually quite rare throughout the world. We are not obligated to grant these children citizenship. There is a legal mechanism to not grant citizenship to the children of illegal aliens and still be within the bounds of the 14th Amendment.
I'd have more "compassion" for granting citizenship if this wasn't being abused to the level it has been. Again, we are not obligated to grant these children citizenship. By granting citizenship we are rewarding criminal behavior and we are having our "compassion" rewarded with waves of illegal aliens breaking our laws, imposing themselves on us, creating burdens for the border patrol, emergency rooms, public schools, and getting very little in return. If we stop rewarding this illegal behavior then we should see this anchor baby behavior end and the burdens we bear for this reduced.
Deterrence only works when your adversary isn't a suicidal maniac.
Agreed. A question though, how does not having armed responsible adults in the school improve the situation in the case of a suicidal maniac?
Unless you're suggesting the lunacy of arming other students, the "good guy with a gun" will be an adult. Unless they are psychic or have the fastest draw in the west, it's just likely they'll be the first target.
Agreed. Again, how does not having armed responsible adults in the school improve the situation in the case of someone murdering innocent children?
If the person is there to kill everyone in the building then disarming the responsible adults is lowering their survival chances from maybe 50/50 to very slim chances. It's quite likely the adults would be targeted first regardless, armed or not. A maintenance man charging the murderous fuck can maybe stop the maniac, slow him down enough that some kids could run away, because unarmed the maintenance man likely knows he's already dead, and the murderous fuck likely knows the math too. Arm this maintenance man and he's not on what is most likely a suicide mission any more, he's got a chance to shoot the fucker before he does more harm.
Minimizing casualties sounds good if we were talking about an armed conflict. However, we're talking about kids who are going to school, not into battle.
Minimizing casualties sounds good regardless of where we are. What the fuck are you smoking? You think it's a good idea to leave innocent children in a building with a murderer and just make a phone call and hope the police arrive before everyone is dead?
That's the entire point - everyone with guns, good guys and bad guys, stay outside the security checkpoint. Again, this works for airports, courthouses, theme parks. The whole reason we're okay with kids getting shot up while they're trying to take a math test is because implementing security at every public school would simply be too expensive. It's just cheaper to let a few kids die every once in awhile. Ironically, this comes from the same politicians pushing a "pro life" agenda.
Implementing armed security costs nothing. Parents, teachers, and probably that maintenance man, are willing to volunteer to get trained and armed at their own expense for defending our children. How do I know this? Because people have announced they'd be willing to do this. You want them to pass background checks first? Fine, make them pass the same checks as a person would need to be a school teacher, to purchase a firearm, carry a firearm in that state, or whatever has the highest standard. You want them trained? Fine, set the standard the same as the local police, for those carrying a concealed firearm, draw up something new, or whatever. It costs nothing to allow parents to guard the lives of their children in the school, all it takes is a state law allowing parents to do so. There is a federal gun free school zone law that sets a minimum standard for the nation and in that is the allowance for schools to allow armed guards as they determine is fitting. If the state determines a parent is fit to be an armed guard then federal law allows it.
Here's the thing, states are now writing such laws. We are seeing volunteers show up to guard children in schools. They've had background checks, they've had training, and it costs nothing.
There is no reason to leave innocent children in a free fire zone for some murderous fuck to kill them all unopposed until a good guy with a gun happens to show up.
Forcefully sending that family to Mexico is a cruel punishment, even though the parents violated our immigration laws. The children did nothing wrong, and there is no benefit to separating them from their parents. The parents should be given the naturalization test and allowed to stay, and the children granted retroactive citizenship.
I agree the children did nothing wrong but the crimes of the parents should not grant the children citizenship. If the parents stole money and used it to buy a house would it be "cruel punishment" to remove the children from the house? The parents' "stole" citizenship and that does not mean the children get to benefit from it. If we allow children that were brought in illegally to retain this stolen citizenship then we are rewarding criminal behavior. It was not the government that imposed "cruel punishment" on the children, it was the parents. Had they stayed in the country they had citizenship then the children would not be in this situation. If the parents had immigrated legally then the children would not be in this situation.
Let's look at this part specifically:
The children did nothing wrong, and there is no benefit to separating them from their parents.
I agree, the children should not be separated from the parents, they should be deported with the parents. Children born in the USA of illegal aliens should no longer be considered citizens of the USA. At least one parent should be a citizen, and I'd even consider that both parents should be citizens before the children be considered a citizen.
If the parents wanted to be law abiding citizens then they are off to a bad start by being criminals in the USA for years. We don't typically allow criminals to take the naturalization exam. Those that committed a felony cannot be citizens, and multiple violations of immigration law is a felony. Gaining employment under false pretenses is a crime, perhaps a felony. To pay income taxes means having a social security number or tax identification number, and illegal aliens have neither. So either they weren't paying their taxes or they paid taxes under identity fraud. Again, the parents are likely felons and felons are not allowed to be naturalized.
The parents should be punished and deported. Any "cruelty" that is imposed on the children for being deported or being separated from the parents because they were imprisoned was the fault of the parents. If we don't punish these people as spelled out in the law then we only encourage more law breaking.
If the parents don't want to be separated from their children then the first thing they should do is NOT BREAK THE LAW! It's common knowledge that felons are separated from their children by going to prison. It's common knowledge that multiple violations of immigration law is a felony. Felons go to prison and therefore are separated from their children.
Again, if they don't want to be separated from their children then they should not have broken the law. The government didn't separate the children from the parents, the parents separated THEMSELVES from their children by breaking the law.
Don't give me this "think of the children" bullshit! If the parents thought of their children then they would not have this problem. Maybe the parents SHOULD be separated from the children. If they were careless enough to carry their children in the USA without documents, kept them from their homeland for over a decade, had them live under a lie for this time, then they are unfit parents.
I agree that is a problem. I'd prefer the Constitution be followed and the Army and Air Force be under the control of the states except in times that Congress has declared war. Alternatively the Constitution could be amended to allow for a standing air defense force and/or land defense force.
In my mind this can only be resolved by the states standing up to the federal government and forcing the federal government to abide by the limits set by the Constitution. I'd like to know how to get the states to grow a backbone.
I'd also like to know how we got this far off the rails. I suspect finding where this went off the rails would reveal how to get back on.
Dude, you literally just argued that average citizens should be allowed to own jet fighters and anti aircraft weaponry.
Yes I did.
Where was I supposed to go to establish that some weapons are too dangerous? It was like, the next actual step.
Right, because the next step up from a 50 year old F-14 Tomcat is a nuclear warhead. I'm pretty sure that there's a few steps in between them.
And I am curious to hear your magic plan for identifying off balance people who might misuse their shiny new bomber before it gets into their hands.
Tell me, what's your magic plan on identifying the off balance people from getting a sharpened stick? If there is a way to keep off balance people from getting pointy sticks, knives, handguns, rifles, grenades, or wherever you decide the line should be drawn then we can apply that to fighter jets with auto-cannons.
To answer your question more directly what mostly stops crazed people from flying a fighter jet is the intelligence, mental discipline, and the background checks required for every pilot would need to get a license to fly. These are not perfect tests since intelligent people still have criminal tendencies, mental discipline may have no correlation to criminal tendencies, and background checks can only predict criminal behavior in those that already committed a crime. If someone can pass all those tests needed to get a license to fly a plane then we trust them with the lives of many others already. Adding weapons to the plane adds very little to that risk to the public. What we'd do though with more armed planed in private ownership is add to the ability of the nation to defend itself from threats, both foreign and domestic.
Trusting the government to keep you safe is placing your trust in the people that make up the government. The people in the government is drawn from the public at large. If you can trust the government with your life then you can trust the public with your life. I'm assuming you've driven a car before, or at least rode in one. In order to do that you have to trust a lot of random people to not cross that center line and crash into you head on. Nothing separates you from severe injury and potentially death but a yellow line and the good behavior of the driver in the opposing lane. If you can trust them to not kill you at 60 miles per hour on the ground then you can trust them to not kill you at mach 2 and 30,000 feet above the ground.
I've seen the statistics of gun ownership in the USA and estimates are that 2/3rds of adults own a firearm or live with someone that does. Even with such ready access to firearms the number of people that go murdering others is very small. We can trust people with guns on the ground, so we can trust them with guns in the air.
Mostly what keeps the crazy people from shooting up the place is knowing that the sane people will shoot back. The same would apply in the air, people will shoot back.
Wouldn't that make a double-barrelled shotgun a machine gun?
Just for giggles one day I did some math comparing a Joe Biden approved double barrel shotgun to an "evil" machine gun. A double barrel 12 gauge shotgun loaded with 000 (triple aught) buckshot will fire 10 lead pellets of approximately 0.36 inch diameter with each pull of the trigger. You know what else can fire 10 lead pellets of approximately 0.36 inch diameter with a single pull of the trigger? The MAC-11, a machine gun under federal law and an "assault weapon" in many states. A shotgun pellet leaves the barrel at about 1200 feet per second, which is coincidentally about the same speed a.380 ACP bullet leaves the barrel of that MAC-11.
A double barrel shotgun will fire 20 lead pellets in a small cone with two pulls of the trigger, just like a MAC-11 could with a 20 round magazine and two short pulls of the trigger. A common inland bird shotgun will hold three 12 gauge shells, meaning 30 lead pellets. That's a lot like a MAC-11 with a 30 round magazine. Many shotguns for deer hunting and other uses will hold 5 or 6 shells, that's potentially 60 lead pellets of similar lethality of a MAC-11 with two 30 round magazines but not having to stop to reload.
Then there's the whole "armor piercing" ammunition crap that's tossed about. "You don't need armor piercing ammunition to hunt deer!" I saw a very interesting YouTube video comparing the ability of various rounds to defeat "bullet proof" glass. They started with several handgun rounds, and they did nothing to the glass. They moved on to several rifles rounds and at best they took a couple chips out of the glass. Then they fired a slug from a 12 gauge shotgun. After that they had to stop the test, that's because there was not enough left of the sample of bullet proof glass to continue. Where I live the law requires people to hunt deer with a shotgun slug. That means hunting deer with a weapon and ammunition capable of defeating "bullet proof" glass with a single shot.
That just demonstrates to me the lies that are behind gun control. I also have a new respect for the 12 gauge shotgun.
Meanwhile, in the SANE world, we recognize that there are certain standards of lethality that it is irresponsible for all people have access to.
I agree. I've read my history and there was a time when the US Army Chemical Corps (I believe that is the correct name) stockpiled mustard gas and chlorine gas. Later it was decided that these were weapons that were irresponsible and inhumane to use, these weapons were destroyed. The US Army still maintains a chemical corps but only in defense against an enemy that does not share the belief on the use of these weapons. The chemical corps is trained in the protection from chemical weapons and how to properly dispose of those that are discovered or confiscated.
Unless you are suggesting that we allow the crazy old man down the street who thinks trespassing is justification for murder to own a nuke, you do too.
The "crazy old man" is not a responsible person and therefore cannot be trusted with a weapon, any more than we trust a child or household pet with a weapon. In a sane world no one would need to be armed. This is not a sane world therefore the sane people need to be armed against the insane.
Now, as responsible citizens, we should be talking about where that line is.
Sure, lets discuss where that line is. If you have to jump to where crazy men have nuclear weapons then you have already gone to a point of where I am unsure that you are sane enough to draw that line.
But it's more fun to pretend that the government is coming for all your guns, and to pretend that you will somehow heave yourself out of your comfy computer chair and become rambo.
Pretend? It's not paranoia if they are in fact out to get you. I follow national news and there's an attempt to disarm the public nearly every day.
Meanwhile, if the government DID decide to come get your guns, and you put up a resistance, it would end like every active shooter situation does today.
I agree, though perhaps not precisely how you imagine it. I'm not the only "Rambo" in the world. If the government tried to disarm the public all at once we'd have a lot of dead police officers. The petty tyrants know this. What they do instead is try to boil the frog and hope no one notices.
Also, I would go into why it is a bad idea to allow private armies within your borders, but I feel the nuance might be lost on you.
If you must leap to "crazy old man with a nuke" to make your point then I believe you lack the ability to understand nuance.
That is demonstrably false. If small arms granted no power then police officers would not carry them. If small arms granted no power then governments would not take them from their subjects.
Let's assume what you say is true, that small arms in the hands of citizens do not prevent a tyranny from abusing the population. What that means is a free people would have access to "large arms" (or whatever the term is for things that are bigger than small arms). I hear this all the time, the government could wipe out anyone it wants from 5 miles up by dropping precision guided bombs therefore your puny little pistol is worthless and you don't need it. It's true that a government with access to aerial bombardment can level large numbers of people with little risk to itself. If they have access to precision weapons then they could conceivably kill an individual from afar. What this does though is leave the government with the option of kill or not kill, there's no in between. It also leaves the government with a very expensive option of kill or not kill, because a guided munition is not cheap.
People are worthless to the government if they do not produce. Dead people don't produce. Only slaves produce. To enslave a people means getting more out than is put in to enslave them. To conquer a people means not to kill them but to achieve an agreement to have peace. Neither can be done from 5 miles up and a payload of bombs. This means boots on the ground. When it comes to enslaving a people or conquering them that means getting up close and personal. Maybe not to where you can see the whites of their eyes or smelling their breath but it does mean getting close enough that there is an option other than kill or not kill, an option of speaking to them, an option of where they can shoot back with a rifle.
It's because of small arms that Afghanistan is the "land where empires go to die". Many governments tried to conquer or enslave Afghanistan but failed because the people there figured out how to fashion small arms from forges built in caves.
If small arms granted no power then the petty little tyrants in the US Congress would not be making up excuses to disarm the people. They claim by disarming people they'd reduce crime but this is also demonstrably false. There are states with very little controls on what small arms people may carry, and how they carry them, and crime is not a problem. Where crime is a problem in the USA is where gun laws are most restrictive. Did crime create the gun laws or did the gun laws create the crime? That's irrelevant since there is little evidence that gun laws have any correlation to crime. Gun control is not crime control, gun control is people control. If the politicians want to stop crime then they go after criminals. If politicians want to control the people then they go after the guns.
I hate the term "judicial activism" and "legislating from the bench" as that more often than not can simply mean "I don't agree with the opinion".
Just because a right was not spelled out in the Bill of Rights does not mean it does not exist. Do I have the right to hop on one foot? It's not in the Bill of Rights so I guess not. But wait, I believe it is there...
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Where is my right to hop on one foot? It's there because the federal government was never empowered to prevent me from doing so. Where's my right to privacy? I have the right to privacy because if the government follows the Bill of Rights my right to privacy is preserved. Nearly every sentence in the Bill of Rights preserves some aspect or another of my right to privacy. The Constitution assumes I have some right to privacy, it's there from the government being prevented from quartering troops in my home, to not disarming me, to needing a warrant to look through my pockets.
What rights did the courts "invent"? People seem to forget that the federal government is a construct of the states, and therefore is subordinate to the states. Somehow and at some time we lost "These United States" and became "The United States". The states used to be sovereign nations under a mutually beneficial federation to administrative regions of a national government. What I've been seeing is not the courts creating rights for the people but instead the courts creating powers for the federal government.
I really dislike that whole argument of "find that in the Constitution", as if a document written over 200 years ago has every future technology, invention, social change, etc written in it.
I really dislike people calling the Constitution a "living document" and forget what makes the document "alive". The Constitution lives in that it can be amended. Saying it "lives" in that it can be reinterpreted to fit the norms of today only says that the words mean nothing. It means what it meant when it was written, that's true. It still means what it meant today, if that means it doesn't fit the norms and needs of today then it should be amended.
I've heard the same argument about the EPA, Department of Education, the IRS, etc. By that logic, we should disband the Air Force and the Marines, since the Constitution only mentions the Army and Navy.
The IRS was a construct of an amendment that allowed for direct taxation of the citizens by the federal government. The EPA should not exist, and neither should the Department of Education, if we interpreted the Constitution as written. A lack of a federal agency to oversee pollution and education does not mean people dump toxins into the water without punishment or that children go uneducated. What it means is that the states manage such things. If the lack of such federal agencies bother you then lobby to amend the Constitution.
When it comes to the US Air Force I can on one hand agree with you that it is outside the Constitution. On the other hand I can see it as merely an extension of the land forces. The US Marine Corps is legally a part of the US Navy and so is constitutionally sound for it to exist. Over time it has evolved into a "separate but equal" (to use the words from POTUS describing a future space force) military force but it's still in many ways an extension of the Navy. Again, if it bothered people enough then I suspect we'd have enough support to amend the constitution to allow the USAF and USMC to exist as is.
It doesn't mention electricity at all, or have any comprehension of ideas like nuclear weapons, so therefor the government shouldn't regulate those either, right?
Correct. The federal government is a construct of the states and therefore only has the authority granted to it. I'd prefer it if the states stood up for its rights and told the federal government to go back to doing only what it was created to do. When it comes to electricity though there is the provision that the federal government is to regulate interstate commerce. When electricity crosses state borders the federal government is involved in making this "regular". When electricity crosses international borders, such as with the wires that cross into Mexico and Canada, the federal government is charged with regulating international trade and treaties with other nations that make that happen. We don't need an amendment for this because the constitution already covers this.
With nuclear weapons the Constitution was quite clear, the federal government was explicitly barred from regulating weapons. Does that mean that uranium can be bought and sold at the corner drug store? Not necessarily, because again the states are empowered to do many things that the federal government is barred from doing. If this is a problem then amend the constitution.
We should just return to an 18th century agrarian society, abandon any law having anything to do with anything not specifically listed in the Constitution.
Right, because unless the government permits it then people are barred from doing it. Except that's not how the federal government works. The federal government was explicitly defined to be very small from the start and to leave many things to the control of the states and to leave people to be free to do as they wish. Let's go back to the USAF. If the people wanted an air force to defend the skies then the people were
Are these armed guards supposed to be psychic? There is a point the "we need more good guys with guns" contingent seems to keep missing: Some kid shoots up a few students and then gets capped by an armed guard (or armed teacher) - that's still a school shooting.
That is true, that would still be a mass murder at a school. The difference though is that instead of 20 dead there would be 5 dead. That's still an improvement, no?
The guards don't need to be psychic, they only need to be present. The reason schools are such targets is because the attackers know that there will be no one to resist them. Make it known that schools are guarded by good guys with guns and these maniacs are less likely to even attempt to kill children in a school. The best result of a gunfight is the one that didn't happen.
Here's what you seem to be missing, all mass murders stop when a good guy with a gun shows up. Maybe that person is wearing a uniform, maybe not. The murderer tends to keep killing until that good guy with a gun shows up. We can have those good guys with a gun on site as guards, or we can allow the murderers to keep murdering while the police are driving to the scene from miles away. Having the good guys with a gun in the schools may not mean the gun fight didn't happen but it does mean that the body count will be much lower.
Do you have a better idea?
If you actually want to keep guns out of schools, we've already figured this shit out at airports, courtrooms, and theme parks. Send everybody through a metal detector. Of course, some psycho could still shoot up the security queue, but technically you've kept guns out of the school, so not a school shooting.
Have you noticed anything about those people running the metal detectors? They have guns. I'm not sure what you think you've proven. Even if you've prevented a "school shooting" by having it happen on a sidewalk instead of in the school that didn't stop the murder. What stops the murdering is good guys with guns.
I haven't seen Democrats this upset since the Republicans took away their slaves. You got yourself so worked up in a rabid madness you can't even make a proper insult.
I don't get his argument, since an AR-15 is useless against an invading force then you may as well not have one. Okay then, let's say I agree that an AR-15 is useless. Would not the proper response be to allow the average citizen to own anti-tank and anti-aircraft weapons?
Saying the guns allowed by law are now useless to stop an invasion or a tyrannical government means that the laws have gone outside the bounds of the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment meant that the people could not be disarmed by their government to the point that the government could prevent the people from raising their own militia. If the threat now takes the form of drones dropping bombs on houses then that means everyone should have access to weapons to fight effectively against such an attack.
"But the invaders will come with supersonic jets and fire missiles at you!" If that's the case then people should be allowed to purchase their own supersonic jets and the anti-aircraft missiles and cannon ammunition to arm them. We should be able to meet them with like force.
If the government has disarmed us to the point that we cannot defend ourselves then that does not mean they now have an excuse to disarm us further. What that means is that the government has exceeded their authority and the laws need to be repealed to the point the people can defend themselves again.
But it's just an administrative policy change. The next administration could swap it back at any time.
That's true but in the mean time there will be many months or years of people posting these plans on the internet, other people downloading them, and the machines capable of producing firearms getting cheaper and more numerous.
Any administration that follows that wants to change this rule will have to find a way to put this toothpaste back in the tube. The DOJ obviously stepped out of line in preventing these plans from being distributed. Perhaps they took the steps they did out of an abundance of caution and to have time to decide on where to best draw the line on what the rules need to be. They've made their decision, and going back on it will be very difficult. I assume that they are aware that going back will be difficult.
It needs Congress to pass a law protecting blueprints and plans, or for the Supreme Court to decide a case in favor of the First Amendment to prevent future victims.
I wonder if the shifting of the membership of SCOTUS had anything to do with their rule change.
These plastic guns though... how many children can you murder before it breaks?
Then bring more than one.
These plastic guns are small, light, and cost very little. It shouldn't be that difficult to carry multiple plastic guns.
That's the important bit. I mean, if you're a psychopath that has to surround yourself with guns to feel safe, who knows what could set you off, so you really need that information while you're relatively rational.
Rational adults need to realize very soon that gun control laws of any kind will not keep children safe. What keeps children safe are armed rational adults.
Irrational law: Felons are barred from owning a firearm. Rational law: Those that cannot be trusted to possess a firearm need to be confined to prison or a mental health facility.
Irrational law: Parents are barred from being armed while picking up their children from school. Rational law: Weapons are to be on the parents in a proper holster, not left in a vehicle or at home.
I'll see armed men driving armored trucks to bring cash to an ATM. We'll also have our children in buses driven by unarmed drivers and maybe with an unarmed "security officer" on the bus. We're fine with guarding money with lethal force but not our children? That's a fucked up world we live in.
It's videos like that which demonstrate the lie that is the "assault weapon". The gun grabbers say they want to take those "evil weapons of war" from the public but leave us with our hunting rifles. That's a lie and if they know anything about rifles or hunting then they know it's a lie. So either they are ignorant or they assume the people are ignorant.
Oh, and an "assault rifle" is a real thing. An assault rifle is a weapon capable of switching between single shot with each trigger pull (semi-automatic) and multiple shots per trigger pull (burst or fully-automatic). To the DOJ anything that is capable of firing more than one cartridge with a pull of a trigger is a "machine gun". A shotgun fires multiple projectiles with each pull of the trigger but that does not make it a machine gun so long as all the projectiles are in a single cartridge. There are air guns that can fire multiple projectiles but since the projectiles are not contained in a cartridge that is also not a machine gun. State laws vary on this such as my own where any "dangerous weapon" is categorized along with firearms, so even pepper spray or a taser needs a permit to carry concealed.
The definition of an assault weapon varies by state. There was a big deal made about some insane person murdering schoolchildren with an "assault weapon" which was a lie. Assault weapons, by their definition, are banned and so no one has committed a mass murder in a school with an assault weapon as defined in that state. Now that we've seen a handful of murders done with handguns and pump action shotguns it seems, to me at least, the concept of the "assault weapon" is fading. Banning shotguns will not go over well, and finally people are discussing things that will actually stop murders such as armed guards at schools.
Those files were either A) also potentially in violation until this administrative court ruling or B) not covered under this rule as those plans are not compatible with a computer controlled mill or 3D printer
The DOJ ruled that a computer readable file to produce certain kinds of firearms violated the regulations under ITAR. This was flawed from the start, as you imply, as these were already plans in human readable form that have been printed and spread by electronic means in human readable form since the 1960s or perhaps even earlier.
Human readable forms of plans for automatic weapons has not, to my knowledge, been restricted. Same goes for plans to create nuclear weapons, there was an earlier court case on that. 1000 Internet points for the first person that can provide a link to a web page detailing the court case that decided it was legal to print nuclear weapons plans and distribute them to the public.
Slashdot Mirror
The average American has an IQ of 98. The average American with European or Asian ancestry has an IQ of 100. The average American of African or Hispanic ancestry has an IQ of 95. While males and females have the same average IQ the distribution of IQ among males is wider than that of females, which means more geniuses and more... not geniuses.
The average IQ of a person in a computer related field is 110. Someone doing software/computer/electrical engineering will be slightly higher at 115. Those that graduate with a degree in computer science, information science, and most engineering disciplines, will have an IQ around 125.
Statistically speaking the people with the intelligence to graduate in computer science and related fields will be predominately white or Asian, and male. Those with the intelligence to be successful in an occupation writing computer code will the predominately white or Asian, and male. Claiming to be able to double the number of Hispanic and Black students into computer science means, as best I can tell, one was able to increase their intelligence.
I guess the alternative is they found a way to handicap the competition for these classes. Colleges and universities have been handicapping white and Asian applicants to get more Black and Hispanic students. All they did was double the drop out rate of Black and Hispanic students at their schools. Affirmative action is not helping these people. Don't put people in classes and jobs for which they are unsuited, that's only displacing someone that might be better suited for that position.
We've effectively ended racism in the USA. That's not saying there are not any racist people in the USA, only that it's been made socially unacceptable and punishable under the law if used to keep people from jobs and services.
There is no easy answer for the disparity of women and minorities in STEM, because there is no easy answer to correct for the varied genetics in these populations we generally describe as races and genders. Genetics is a very large part of IQ. Maybe IQ is 50/50 genetics and things like nutrition and education. Maybe IQ is only 20% genetics. What portion of IQ that is genetics is not all that important, what is important is to realize that we can't just "fix" the uneven distribution of IQ over race and gender with better schools and better nutrition.
Trying to blame this on racism or sexism gets us nowhere but continued frustration on reality not fitting the fantasy people create for themselves.
DisplayLink is a USB based video adapter, that's just fucked up to begin with. Do the math on a 1080p/60 display...
1920 (horizontal) x 1080 (vertical) x 24 (bits of color) x 60 (frames per second) = 3 Gbps
3 Gbps the raw data rate for a 1080p/60 display on a bus that has a max speed of 5 Gbps data, 4K/60 needs 4 times that bandwidth. DisplayLink is trying to squeeze 4K and 5K video on a 5 Gbps, or maybe 10 Gbps if they use USB 3.1, and to do that they compress the frames and expand them on a chip they made. If they can't figure out how to make that work on MacOS then maybe they should get better code writers or use the built-in DisplayPort chip in every Apple computer with a USB-C port.
Other vendors can figure this out by using Thunderbolt and/or DisplayPort which can achieve 20 or 40 Gbps on the same USB-C port. With 20 Gbps that gets 5K/60 or 2x4K/30 without compression, with compression (which again is built-in to the DisplayPort chip in every Apple with USB-C and DisplayPort 1.4 displays) and/or 40 Gbps cables/adapters it gets up to 5K/120 or 4K/240.
A quick Google search tells me that DisplayLink and Linux have their own problems. Don't blame Apple on this. Blame the maker of your dongle for using DisplayLink chips for passing video or blame yourself for choosing crap dongles.
I had to take support calls on DisplayLink shit and so I have all kinds of hate for them. This isn't an Apple thing, or Linux thing, because even in Windows DisplayLink support sucks balls. DisplayLink can go fuck themselves.
I bought a laptop with 16 GB before because at the time I was taking training for VM certifications and it was nice to take the laptop to class to play with and have the same setup still there when I went home. I still use multiple VMs on my laptop for testing websites on different operating systems, gaining access to software that's unique to Windows or Linux, and just separating work spaces.
Having access to 32GB isn't necessary but it would be nice in my next laptop for the same reasons I had bought what was then the most RAM I could get in a laptop last time I was shopping.
I fixed the problem with a magnetic breakaway USB-C charge cable. The one I have is from Griffin Technology but there are others.
I haven't had a laptop destroyed or damaged from a cord being tripped over, but I had a few close calls. I had problems with MagSafe not making contact, and also seen laptops at work made worthless because the charge port was worn or damaged.
I'm torn on the Lightning port vs. USB-C. Since Lightning predates USB-C, and especially things like HDMI/MHL/DisplayPort/video over USB-C, I see why Apple went with it and stuck with it.
Here's my guess, Apple will stick with Lightning until whatever that replaces USB-C comes along.
I was also torn on the MagSafe vs. USB-C for charging port. I resolved that with a magnetic breakaway USB-C charging cable. There's small ones for 5V/15W phones and bigger ones for 20V/60W tablets and laptops. I don't miss MagSafe all that much any more.
I guess that Apple and others will stick with USB-C until some kind of standard comes along for a safe breakaway connector.
Maybe Apple will release MagSafe into a licensed standard and others will grab onto it. It might need an update for things like more power and/or have some kind of data pass through. It was nice but got to be expensive if a replacement or spare charger was needed.
Same reason they removed the headphone socket and dropped down to a single combined USB/charging port.
I guess that way they can sell more dongles.
Right, because only Apple does that. Except most every maker of high end cell phones, they have only a USB-C port now. Oh, and Lenovo that has that silly proprietary micro-Ethernet port, and the adapter is not included with the laptop.
Yep, only Apple is looking to sell more dongles. Except all the other manufacturers doing away with everything but the USB-C port on their laptops, cell phones, and tablets.
Give the Apple bashing a break for once. Everyone making everything electronic is trying to cut down on the variety of ports they offer. I quite enjoy not having to track a dozen different kinds of chargers and power supplies at work now. I quite enjoy that Lenovo standardized on their one port for powering their displays, laptops, and other stuff. If they can't stick with USB-C then I'm happy that they stuck with something standard across their many products. I miss the magnetic power ports on Apple and other laptops but there are products out there that can bring something real close as an adapter or cable.
In all fairness The current Macbook pro isn't that much different then for the Titanium Powebook back in 2002. Thinner, more powerful, but still a Gray Metal Laptop With a clamshell design, with a keyboard and a track pad.
I worked on a solar car competition in college and in the early years the cars came in all kinds of shapes. The size was constrained by the rules on height, width, and length, so size didn't vary all that much but inside that box the cars filled that in the best way they thought at the time.
The next couple competitions the more outrageous shapes disappeared and the more successful shapes were copied and varied upon by others. Another couple competitions and all the cars looked basically the same, a wide and flat wedge with a bubble on top for the driver.
Why mention solar cars in a thread about laptops? Because when it comes down to the evolution of the shapes of the things we deal with everyday there are shapes that just evolve naturally. This has been true for all laptops since the demise of the trackball in the 1990s. Of course the current Macbook Pro looks like the PowerBook from 2002, because that is a shape and size that has a nice compromise of cost and convenience. I'm guessing if people had their way they might like some variations on the shape and color but a brushed aluminum, titanium, or stainless steel shell is durable that looks nice enough that people will buy it. A thin flat clamshell design is well suited to a keyboard and screen, and being folding shut to fit in a purse, briefcase, or backpack. For pointing devices it's a trackpad, because nobody wants a trackball or pencil eraser sized joystick any more.
In all fairness The current Macbook pro isn't that much different then for the Titanium Powebook back in 2002. Thinner, more powerful, but still a Gray Metal Laptop With a clamshell design, with a keyboard and a track pad.
Just like those solar cars where the shape and size settled into really just variation on a single theme the real competition comes with what's under the hood. This includes the ports offered. I'll hear people complain about the lack of ports on Apple laptops and yet we find other high end laptops copying it. Sure, we might still see a single USB-A port alongside the USB-C ports but for the most part the choice of ports on high end laptops is thinning. If there is an Ethernet port then it's a flimsy pop-out thing or a proprietary micro-port which may or may not have the adapter included. Video ports will be HDMI, mini-DisplayPort, or just video out of one of the USB-C ports. Maybe there is a slot for SD cards but those seem to be disappearing. Charger ports are switching over to USB-C. I miss the magnetic charger ports but I'll take the standard USB-C until we figure out a standardized magnetic charge port that doesn't require buying only those expensive chargers from the manufacturer.
That being said, Apple is the only major player, offering a Non-Windows Laptops. While Apple hasn't been offering a major Redesign in appearance, the Hardware upgrade is actually the more important part then the appearance.
Yep. We'll be getting plain metal grey laptops with only 2 or 3 ports, maybe 5 ports on the high priced ones, for a long time. Gone are the days with laptops with 12 ports on them. Remember those days? I have an old laptop here with headphone, microphone, PCMCIA, power, serial, VGA, parallel, Ethernet, modem, S-video, and 2x USB-A. Dealing with only USB-C and a combo headphone/mic port is annoying sometimes but I'll take that over the heavy, colorful, and many ported, laptops of the past.
Just because someone disagrees with your idea on how a schools should be secured does not mean one is unwilling or unable to secure the schools.
Metal detectors cost money, armed volunteers cost nothing. No one is leaving children in a building with a murderer in either case. All you are doing, by your own admission, is shifting the target rich environment from inside the school to the students waiting outside the school to get through the metal detectors. You, YOU, admitted that the students would be outside and unguarded while waiting to get through security, therefore leaving them vulnerable to a mass murderer. Get them in the school, do it quickly, and if someone goes ape shit and tries killing innocent children then they'd have to go through locked doors and armed guards to do it. It doesn't require metal detectors to keep schools safe, and keeping armed guards only at the perimeter of the school, even with metal detectors, means someone that breaks that layer of security leaves them alone in the school with helpless children and unarmed adults.
You mentioned earlier that airports and courtrooms keep armed security outside the "gun free zone" inside. That's a lie. There are armed guards inside this "gun free zone". It's not a gun free zone, the guards still have guns. You might not see them but they have guns. The only exception that I know of in this is prisons, the guards in the walls don't have guns. The guards on top of the walls have guns though.
You want metal detectors at school doors? Fine, you do that. You can pay for them. While you go about raising funds we can have armed volunteers in no time and with no funding.
Fortunately, our Constitution was amended by people with more wisdom and compassion than that.
Don't the people in the USA legally deserve some compassion? Without having gone through some vetting process we don't know if these illegal aliens have the best intentions in mind for the USA. Having entered illegally it would seem they might not have the best intentions.
That's completely irrelevant. If the parents came here illegally while the woman was pregnant, and managed to stay within the U.S. border long enough to give birth, their child would automatically be a U.S. citizen (see the 14th Amendment). That applies even if the parents stole money, bought a house, gave birth in the U.S., and then got caught.
That has been the standard in the past but that does not mean that has to be the standard in the future. A diplomat visiting the USA giving birth to a child does not grant the child citizenship, and neither does the child of a member of a foreign enemy invasion have automatic citizenship. There is already a standard for children being born here not being granted citizenship, apply that same standard to illegal aliens. Maybe the parents don't need to be citizens but at least need to be lawful residents. An alien in this nation should not automatically be allowed to claim citizenship for the child, especially those here unlawfully.
As wise authors of the 14th Amendment they left "wiggle room" in that a person must be both born in and "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" the USA. An illegal alien is a subject of a foreign nation by the nature of being born of a citizen of another nation. That newborn child is a citizen of the same nation of the parent or parents. That child may have the right of residency, but that is distinct from being a citizen.
What's happening is that our laws are being used against us. We are having people violate our immigration laws, and if they violate them to the point of having their child born here then they are rewarded by having their child gaining citizenship. They are violating our laws for the sole purpose of violating them again and continually. They have their anchor baby and with our "compassion" of not separating the parents from the child we reward the criminal behavior of the parents by allowing them to stay in the USA. Well, "compassion" does not require we reward criminal behavior. The child can stay with the parents, just not in the USA.
Granting citizenship based only on being born inside the borders is actually quite rare throughout the world. We are not obligated to grant these children citizenship. There is a legal mechanism to not grant citizenship to the children of illegal aliens and still be within the bounds of the 14th Amendment.
I'd have more "compassion" for granting citizenship if this wasn't being abused to the level it has been. Again, we are not obligated to grant these children citizenship. By granting citizenship we are rewarding criminal behavior and we are having our "compassion" rewarded with waves of illegal aliens breaking our laws, imposing themselves on us, creating burdens for the border patrol, emergency rooms, public schools, and getting very little in return. If we stop rewarding this illegal behavior then we should see this anchor baby behavior end and the burdens we bear for this reduced.
Deterrence only works when your adversary isn't a suicidal maniac.
Agreed. A question though, how does not having armed responsible adults in the school improve the situation in the case of a suicidal maniac?
Unless you're suggesting the lunacy of arming other students, the "good guy with a gun" will be an adult. Unless they are psychic or have the fastest draw in the west, it's just likely they'll be the first target.
Agreed. Again, how does not having armed responsible adults in the school improve the situation in the case of someone murdering innocent children?
If the person is there to kill everyone in the building then disarming the responsible adults is lowering their survival chances from maybe 50/50 to very slim chances. It's quite likely the adults would be targeted first regardless, armed or not. A maintenance man charging the murderous fuck can maybe stop the maniac, slow him down enough that some kids could run away, because unarmed the maintenance man likely knows he's already dead, and the murderous fuck likely knows the math too. Arm this maintenance man and he's not on what is most likely a suicide mission any more, he's got a chance to shoot the fucker before he does more harm.
Minimizing casualties sounds good if we were talking about an armed conflict. However, we're talking about kids who are going to school, not into battle.
Minimizing casualties sounds good regardless of where we are. What the fuck are you smoking? You think it's a good idea to leave innocent children in a building with a murderer and just make a phone call and hope the police arrive before everyone is dead?
That's the entire point - everyone with guns, good guys and bad guys, stay outside the security checkpoint. Again, this works for airports, courthouses, theme parks. The whole reason we're okay with kids getting shot up while they're trying to take a math test is because implementing security at every public school would simply be too expensive. It's just cheaper to let a few kids die every once in awhile. Ironically, this comes from the same politicians pushing a "pro life" agenda.
Implementing armed security costs nothing. Parents, teachers, and probably that maintenance man, are willing to volunteer to get trained and armed at their own expense for defending our children. How do I know this? Because people have announced they'd be willing to do this. You want them to pass background checks first? Fine, make them pass the same checks as a person would need to be a school teacher, to purchase a firearm, carry a firearm in that state, or whatever has the highest standard. You want them trained? Fine, set the standard the same as the local police, for those carrying a concealed firearm, draw up something new, or whatever. It costs nothing to allow parents to guard the lives of their children in the school, all it takes is a state law allowing parents to do so. There is a federal gun free school zone law that sets a minimum standard for the nation and in that is the allowance for schools to allow armed guards as they determine is fitting. If the state determines a parent is fit to be an armed guard then federal law allows it.
Here's the thing, states are now writing such laws. We are seeing volunteers show up to guard children in schools. They've had background checks, they've had training, and it costs nothing.
There is no reason to leave innocent children in a free fire zone for some murderous fuck to kill them all unopposed until a good guy with a gun happens to show up.
Forcefully sending that family to Mexico is a cruel punishment, even though the parents violated our immigration laws. The children did nothing wrong, and there is no benefit to separating them from their parents. The parents should be given the naturalization test and allowed to stay, and the children granted retroactive citizenship.
I agree the children did nothing wrong but the crimes of the parents should not grant the children citizenship. If the parents stole money and used it to buy a house would it be "cruel punishment" to remove the children from the house? The parents' "stole" citizenship and that does not mean the children get to benefit from it. If we allow children that were brought in illegally to retain this stolen citizenship then we are rewarding criminal behavior. It was not the government that imposed "cruel punishment" on the children, it was the parents. Had they stayed in the country they had citizenship then the children would not be in this situation. If the parents had immigrated legally then the children would not be in this situation.
Let's look at this part specifically:
The children did nothing wrong, and there is no benefit to separating them from their parents.
I agree, the children should not be separated from the parents, they should be deported with the parents. Children born in the USA of illegal aliens should no longer be considered citizens of the USA. At least one parent should be a citizen, and I'd even consider that both parents should be citizens before the children be considered a citizen.
If the parents wanted to be law abiding citizens then they are off to a bad start by being criminals in the USA for years. We don't typically allow criminals to take the naturalization exam. Those that committed a felony cannot be citizens, and multiple violations of immigration law is a felony. Gaining employment under false pretenses is a crime, perhaps a felony. To pay income taxes means having a social security number or tax identification number, and illegal aliens have neither. So either they weren't paying their taxes or they paid taxes under identity fraud. Again, the parents are likely felons and felons are not allowed to be naturalized.
The parents should be punished and deported. Any "cruelty" that is imposed on the children for being deported or being separated from the parents because they were imprisoned was the fault of the parents. If we don't punish these people as spelled out in the law then we only encourage more law breaking.
If the parents don't want to be separated from their children then the first thing they should do is NOT BREAK THE LAW! It's common knowledge that felons are separated from their children by going to prison. It's common knowledge that multiple violations of immigration law is a felony. Felons go to prison and therefore are separated from their children.
Again, if they don't want to be separated from their children then they should not have broken the law. The government didn't separate the children from the parents, the parents separated THEMSELVES from their children by breaking the law.
Don't give me this "think of the children" bullshit! If the parents thought of their children then they would not have this problem. Maybe the parents SHOULD be separated from the children. If they were careless enough to carry their children in the USA without documents, kept them from their homeland for over a decade, had them live under a lie for this time, then they are unfit parents.
I agree that is a problem. I'd prefer the Constitution be followed and the Army and Air Force be under the control of the states except in times that Congress has declared war. Alternatively the Constitution could be amended to allow for a standing air defense force and/or land defense force.
In my mind this can only be resolved by the states standing up to the federal government and forcing the federal government to abide by the limits set by the Constitution. I'd like to know how to get the states to grow a backbone.
I'd also like to know how we got this far off the rails. I suspect finding where this went off the rails would reveal how to get back on.
Dude, you literally just argued that average citizens should be allowed to own jet fighters and anti aircraft weaponry.
Yes I did.
Where was I supposed to go to establish that some weapons are too dangerous? It was like, the next actual step.
Right, because the next step up from a 50 year old F-14 Tomcat is a nuclear warhead. I'm pretty sure that there's a few steps in between them.
And I am curious to hear your magic plan for identifying off balance people who might misuse their shiny new bomber before it gets into their hands.
Tell me, what's your magic plan on identifying the off balance people from getting a sharpened stick? If there is a way to keep off balance people from getting pointy sticks, knives, handguns, rifles, grenades, or wherever you decide the line should be drawn then we can apply that to fighter jets with auto-cannons.
To answer your question more directly what mostly stops crazed people from flying a fighter jet is the intelligence, mental discipline, and the background checks required for every pilot would need to get a license to fly. These are not perfect tests since intelligent people still have criminal tendencies, mental discipline may have no correlation to criminal tendencies, and background checks can only predict criminal behavior in those that already committed a crime. If someone can pass all those tests needed to get a license to fly a plane then we trust them with the lives of many others already. Adding weapons to the plane adds very little to that risk to the public. What we'd do though with more armed planed in private ownership is add to the ability of the nation to defend itself from threats, both foreign and domestic.
Trusting the government to keep you safe is placing your trust in the people that make up the government. The people in the government is drawn from the public at large. If you can trust the government with your life then you can trust the public with your life. I'm assuming you've driven a car before, or at least rode in one. In order to do that you have to trust a lot of random people to not cross that center line and crash into you head on. Nothing separates you from severe injury and potentially death but a yellow line and the good behavior of the driver in the opposing lane. If you can trust them to not kill you at 60 miles per hour on the ground then you can trust them to not kill you at mach 2 and 30,000 feet above the ground.
I've seen the statistics of gun ownership in the USA and estimates are that 2/3rds of adults own a firearm or live with someone that does. Even with such ready access to firearms the number of people that go murdering others is very small. We can trust people with guns on the ground, so we can trust them with guns in the air.
Mostly what keeps the crazy people from shooting up the place is knowing that the sane people will shoot back. The same would apply in the air, people will shoot back.
Wouldn't that make a double-barrelled shotgun a machine gun?
Just for giggles one day I did some math comparing a Joe Biden approved double barrel shotgun to an "evil" machine gun. A double barrel 12 gauge shotgun loaded with 000 (triple aught) buckshot will fire 10 lead pellets of approximately 0.36 inch diameter with each pull of the trigger. You know what else can fire 10 lead pellets of approximately 0.36 inch diameter with a single pull of the trigger? The MAC-11, a machine gun under federal law and an "assault weapon" in many states. A shotgun pellet leaves the barrel at about 1200 feet per second, which is coincidentally about the same speed a .380 ACP bullet leaves the barrel of that MAC-11.
A double barrel shotgun will fire 20 lead pellets in a small cone with two pulls of the trigger, just like a MAC-11 could with a 20 round magazine and two short pulls of the trigger. A common inland bird shotgun will hold three 12 gauge shells, meaning 30 lead pellets. That's a lot like a MAC-11 with a 30 round magazine. Many shotguns for deer hunting and other uses will hold 5 or 6 shells, that's potentially 60 lead pellets of similar lethality of a MAC-11 with two 30 round magazines but not having to stop to reload.
Then there's the whole "armor piercing" ammunition crap that's tossed about. "You don't need armor piercing ammunition to hunt deer!" I saw a very interesting YouTube video comparing the ability of various rounds to defeat "bullet proof" glass. They started with several handgun rounds, and they did nothing to the glass. They moved on to several rifles rounds and at best they took a couple chips out of the glass. Then they fired a slug from a 12 gauge shotgun. After that they had to stop the test, that's because there was not enough left of the sample of bullet proof glass to continue. Where I live the law requires people to hunt deer with a shotgun slug. That means hunting deer with a weapon and ammunition capable of defeating "bullet proof" glass with a single shot.
That just demonstrates to me the lies that are behind gun control. I also have a new respect for the 12 gauge shotgun.
Meanwhile, in the SANE world, we recognize that there are certain standards of lethality that it is irresponsible for all people have access to.
I agree. I've read my history and there was a time when the US Army Chemical Corps (I believe that is the correct name) stockpiled mustard gas and chlorine gas. Later it was decided that these were weapons that were irresponsible and inhumane to use, these weapons were destroyed. The US Army still maintains a chemical corps but only in defense against an enemy that does not share the belief on the use of these weapons. The chemical corps is trained in the protection from chemical weapons and how to properly dispose of those that are discovered or confiscated.
Unless you are suggesting that we allow the crazy old man down the street who thinks trespassing is justification for murder to own a nuke, you do too.
The "crazy old man" is not a responsible person and therefore cannot be trusted with a weapon, any more than we trust a child or household pet with a weapon. In a sane world no one would need to be armed. This is not a sane world therefore the sane people need to be armed against the insane.
Now, as responsible citizens, we should be talking about where that line is.
Sure, lets discuss where that line is. If you have to jump to where crazy men have nuclear weapons then you have already gone to a point of where I am unsure that you are sane enough to draw that line.
But it's more fun to pretend that the government is coming for all your guns, and to pretend that you will somehow heave yourself out of your comfy computer chair and become rambo.
Pretend? It's not paranoia if they are in fact out to get you. I follow national news and there's an attempt to disarm the public nearly every day.
Meanwhile, if the government DID decide to come get your guns, and you put up a resistance, it would end like every active shooter situation does today.
I agree, though perhaps not precisely how you imagine it. I'm not the only "Rambo" in the world. If the government tried to disarm the public all at once we'd have a lot of dead police officers. The petty tyrants know this. What they do instead is try to boil the frog and hope no one notices.
Also, I would go into why it is a bad idea to allow private armies within your borders, but I feel the nuance might be lost on you.
If you must leap to "crazy old man with a nuke" to make your point then I believe you lack the ability to understand nuance.
Small arms are *not* power.
That is demonstrably false. If small arms granted no power then police officers would not carry them. If small arms granted no power then governments would not take them from their subjects.
Let's assume what you say is true, that small arms in the hands of citizens do not prevent a tyranny from abusing the population. What that means is a free people would have access to "large arms" (or whatever the term is for things that are bigger than small arms). I hear this all the time, the government could wipe out anyone it wants from 5 miles up by dropping precision guided bombs therefore your puny little pistol is worthless and you don't need it. It's true that a government with access to aerial bombardment can level large numbers of people with little risk to itself. If they have access to precision weapons then they could conceivably kill an individual from afar. What this does though is leave the government with the option of kill or not kill, there's no in between. It also leaves the government with a very expensive option of kill or not kill, because a guided munition is not cheap.
People are worthless to the government if they do not produce. Dead people don't produce. Only slaves produce. To enslave a people means getting more out than is put in to enslave them. To conquer a people means not to kill them but to achieve an agreement to have peace. Neither can be done from 5 miles up and a payload of bombs. This means boots on the ground. When it comes to enslaving a people or conquering them that means getting up close and personal. Maybe not to where you can see the whites of their eyes or smelling their breath but it does mean getting close enough that there is an option other than kill or not kill, an option of speaking to them, an option of where they can shoot back with a rifle.
It's because of small arms that Afghanistan is the "land where empires go to die". Many governments tried to conquer or enslave Afghanistan but failed because the people there figured out how to fashion small arms from forges built in caves.
If small arms granted no power then the petty little tyrants in the US Congress would not be making up excuses to disarm the people. They claim by disarming people they'd reduce crime but this is also demonstrably false. There are states with very little controls on what small arms people may carry, and how they carry them, and crime is not a problem. Where crime is a problem in the USA is where gun laws are most restrictive. Did crime create the gun laws or did the gun laws create the crime? That's irrelevant since there is little evidence that gun laws have any correlation to crime. Gun control is not crime control, gun control is people control. If the politicians want to stop crime then they go after criminals. If politicians want to control the people then they go after the guns.
I hate the term "judicial activism" and "legislating from the bench" as that more often than not can simply mean "I don't agree with the opinion".
Just because a right was not spelled out in the Bill of Rights does not mean it does not exist. Do I have the right to hop on one foot? It's not in the Bill of Rights so I guess not. But wait, I believe it is there...
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Where is my right to hop on one foot? It's there because the federal government was never empowered to prevent me from doing so. Where's my right to privacy? I have the right to privacy because if the government follows the Bill of Rights my right to privacy is preserved. Nearly every sentence in the Bill of Rights preserves some aspect or another of my right to privacy. The Constitution assumes I have some right to privacy, it's there from the government being prevented from quartering troops in my home, to not disarming me, to needing a warrant to look through my pockets.
What rights did the courts "invent"? People seem to forget that the federal government is a construct of the states, and therefore is subordinate to the states. Somehow and at some time we lost "These United States" and became "The United States". The states used to be sovereign nations under a mutually beneficial federation to administrative regions of a national government. What I've been seeing is not the courts creating rights for the people but instead the courts creating powers for the federal government.
I really dislike that whole argument of "find that in the Constitution", as if a document written over 200 years ago has every future technology, invention, social change, etc written in it.
I really dislike people calling the Constitution a "living document" and forget what makes the document "alive". The Constitution lives in that it can be amended. Saying it "lives" in that it can be reinterpreted to fit the norms of today only says that the words mean nothing. It means what it meant when it was written, that's true. It still means what it meant today, if that means it doesn't fit the norms and needs of today then it should be amended.
I've heard the same argument about the EPA, Department of Education, the IRS, etc. By that logic, we should disband the Air Force and the Marines, since the Constitution only mentions the Army and Navy.
The IRS was a construct of an amendment that allowed for direct taxation of the citizens by the federal government. The EPA should not exist, and neither should the Department of Education, if we interpreted the Constitution as written. A lack of a federal agency to oversee pollution and education does not mean people dump toxins into the water without punishment or that children go uneducated. What it means is that the states manage such things. If the lack of such federal agencies bother you then lobby to amend the Constitution.
When it comes to the US Air Force I can on one hand agree with you that it is outside the Constitution. On the other hand I can see it as merely an extension of the land forces. The US Marine Corps is legally a part of the US Navy and so is constitutionally sound for it to exist. Over time it has evolved into a "separate but equal" (to use the words from POTUS describing a future space force) military force but it's still in many ways an extension of the Navy. Again, if it bothered people enough then I suspect we'd have enough support to amend the constitution to allow the USAF and USMC to exist as is.
It doesn't mention electricity at all, or have any comprehension of ideas like nuclear weapons, so therefor the government shouldn't regulate those either, right?
Correct. The federal government is a construct of the states and therefore only has the authority granted to it. I'd prefer it if the states stood up for its rights and told the federal government to go back to doing only what it was created to do. When it comes to electricity though there is the provision that the federal government is to regulate interstate commerce. When electricity crosses state borders the federal government is involved in making this "regular". When electricity crosses international borders, such as with the wires that cross into Mexico and Canada, the federal government is charged with regulating international trade and treaties with other nations that make that happen. We don't need an amendment for this because the constitution already covers this.
With nuclear weapons the Constitution was quite clear, the federal government was explicitly barred from regulating weapons. Does that mean that uranium can be bought and sold at the corner drug store? Not necessarily, because again the states are empowered to do many things that the federal government is barred from doing. If this is a problem then amend the constitution.
We should just return to an 18th century agrarian society, abandon any law having anything to do with anything not specifically listed in the Constitution.
Right, because unless the government permits it then people are barred from doing it. Except that's not how the federal government works. The federal government was explicitly defined to be very small from the start and to leave many things to the control of the states and to leave people to be free to do as they wish. Let's go back to the USAF. If the people wanted an air force to defend the skies then the people were
Are these armed guards supposed to be psychic? There is a point the "we need more good guys with guns" contingent seems to keep missing: Some kid shoots up a few students and then gets capped by an armed guard (or armed teacher) - that's still a school shooting.
That is true, that would still be a mass murder at a school. The difference though is that instead of 20 dead there would be 5 dead. That's still an improvement, no?
The guards don't need to be psychic, they only need to be present. The reason schools are such targets is because the attackers know that there will be no one to resist them. Make it known that schools are guarded by good guys with guns and these maniacs are less likely to even attempt to kill children in a school. The best result of a gunfight is the one that didn't happen.
Here's what you seem to be missing, all mass murders stop when a good guy with a gun shows up. Maybe that person is wearing a uniform, maybe not. The murderer tends to keep killing until that good guy with a gun shows up. We can have those good guys with a gun on site as guards, or we can allow the murderers to keep murdering while the police are driving to the scene from miles away. Having the good guys with a gun in the schools may not mean the gun fight didn't happen but it does mean that the body count will be much lower.
Do you have a better idea?
If you actually want to keep guns out of schools, we've already figured this shit out at airports, courtrooms, and theme parks. Send everybody through a metal detector. Of course, some psycho could still shoot up the security queue, but technically you've kept guns out of the school, so not a school shooting.
Have you noticed anything about those people running the metal detectors? They have guns. I'm not sure what you think you've proven. Even if you've prevented a "school shooting" by having it happen on a sidewalk instead of in the school that didn't stop the murder. What stops the murdering is good guys with guns.
I haven't seen Democrats this upset since the Republicans took away their slaves. You got yourself so worked up in a rabid madness you can't even make a proper insult.
I don't get his argument, since an AR-15 is useless against an invading force then you may as well not have one. Okay then, let's say I agree that an AR-15 is useless. Would not the proper response be to allow the average citizen to own anti-tank and anti-aircraft weapons?
Saying the guns allowed by law are now useless to stop an invasion or a tyrannical government means that the laws have gone outside the bounds of the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment meant that the people could not be disarmed by their government to the point that the government could prevent the people from raising their own militia. If the threat now takes the form of drones dropping bombs on houses then that means everyone should have access to weapons to fight effectively against such an attack.
"But the invaders will come with supersonic jets and fire missiles at you!" If that's the case then people should be allowed to purchase their own supersonic jets and the anti-aircraft missiles and cannon ammunition to arm them. We should be able to meet them with like force.
If the government has disarmed us to the point that we cannot defend ourselves then that does not mean they now have an excuse to disarm us further. What that means is that the government has exceeded their authority and the laws need to be repealed to the point the people can defend themselves again.
But it's just an administrative policy change. The next administration could swap it back at any time.
That's true but in the mean time there will be many months or years of people posting these plans on the internet, other people downloading them, and the machines capable of producing firearms getting cheaper and more numerous.
Any administration that follows that wants to change this rule will have to find a way to put this toothpaste back in the tube. The DOJ obviously stepped out of line in preventing these plans from being distributed. Perhaps they took the steps they did out of an abundance of caution and to have time to decide on where to best draw the line on what the rules need to be. They've made their decision, and going back on it will be very difficult. I assume that they are aware that going back will be difficult.
It needs Congress to pass a law protecting blueprints and plans, or for the Supreme Court to decide a case in favor of the First Amendment to prevent future victims.
I wonder if the shifting of the membership of SCOTUS had anything to do with their rule change.
These plastic guns though... how many children can you murder before it breaks?
Then bring more than one.
These plastic guns are small, light, and cost very little. It shouldn't be that difficult to carry multiple plastic guns.
That's the important bit. I mean, if you're a psychopath that has to surround yourself with guns to feel safe, who knows what could set you off, so you really need that information while you're relatively rational.
Rational adults need to realize very soon that gun control laws of any kind will not keep children safe. What keeps children safe are armed rational adults.
Irrational law: Felons are barred from owning a firearm.
Rational law: Those that cannot be trusted to possess a firearm need to be confined to prison or a mental health facility.
Irrational law: Parents are barred from being armed while picking up their children from school.
Rational law: Weapons are to be on the parents in a proper holster, not left in a vehicle or at home.
I'll see armed men driving armored trucks to bring cash to an ATM. We'll also have our children in buses driven by unarmed drivers and maybe with an unarmed "security officer" on the bus. We're fine with guarding money with lethal force but not our children? That's a fucked up world we live in.
It's videos like that which demonstrate the lie that is the "assault weapon". The gun grabbers say they want to take those "evil weapons of war" from the public but leave us with our hunting rifles. That's a lie and if they know anything about rifles or hunting then they know it's a lie. So either they are ignorant or they assume the people are ignorant.
Oh, and an "assault rifle" is a real thing. An assault rifle is a weapon capable of switching between single shot with each trigger pull (semi-automatic) and multiple shots per trigger pull (burst or fully-automatic). To the DOJ anything that is capable of firing more than one cartridge with a pull of a trigger is a "machine gun". A shotgun fires multiple projectiles with each pull of the trigger but that does not make it a machine gun so long as all the projectiles are in a single cartridge. There are air guns that can fire multiple projectiles but since the projectiles are not contained in a cartridge that is also not a machine gun. State laws vary on this such as my own where any "dangerous weapon" is categorized along with firearms, so even pepper spray or a taser needs a permit to carry concealed.
The definition of an assault weapon varies by state. There was a big deal made about some insane person murdering schoolchildren with an "assault weapon" which was a lie. Assault weapons, by their definition, are banned and so no one has committed a mass murder in a school with an assault weapon as defined in that state. Now that we've seen a handful of murders done with handguns and pump action shotguns it seems, to me at least, the concept of the "assault weapon" is fading. Banning shotguns will not go over well, and finally people are discussing things that will actually stop murders such as armed guards at schools.
Those files were either
A) also potentially in violation until this administrative court ruling or
B) not covered under this rule as those plans are not compatible with a computer controlled mill or 3D printer
The DOJ ruled that a computer readable file to produce certain kinds of firearms violated the regulations under ITAR. This was flawed from the start, as you imply, as these were already plans in human readable form that have been printed and spread by electronic means in human readable form since the 1960s or perhaps even earlier.
Human readable forms of plans for automatic weapons has not, to my knowledge, been restricted. Same goes for plans to create nuclear weapons, there was an earlier court case on that. 1000 Internet points for the first person that can provide a link to a web page detailing the court case that decided it was legal to print nuclear weapons plans and distribute them to the public.