Switzerland's murder rate is lower than all in Europe save those three tiny countries of Lichtenstein, Monaco, and Iceland. OTHER countries may illegally smuggle those guns out and use them - but the culture in Switzerland is different, they don't seem to have an issue with murder, even with the mandatory ownership of guns. It's the culture, not the inanimate object that leads to violence.
In most States, gun show sales MUST be reported and have NICS checks. In California, for example, you cannot transfer any firearm without going through an FFL and a NICS check (even at a gun show). Some States don't have that restriction - and they also tend to have lower gun violence rates as well. I don't say one follows the other, but if you have very low gun violence rates - why implement a big list of gun sale restrictions?
Baltimore, DC, Chicago, and NYC all have extremely strict gun laws - and all see rising gun murder rates as well. It's not the presence or absence of guns that's the issue - it's the culture of the city.
Per the Supreme Court - it means well functioning. The right to keep and bear arms applies for personal protection (DC v Heller) and is incorporated across the States (Chicago v. McDonald). The right to own - and carry - a firearm in defense of oneself is the crux of the 2nd Amendment.
Guns are also ubiquitous (mandatory, even) in Switzerland - and it has a very strong republican-style of Government. Maybe it's not the presence or absence of guns that's the problem - it's the culture of the citizens.
Heck no! The whole reason to buy mobile tablets and such is to allow the computer to be the parent, thereby freeing the parent from the drudgery of actually interacting with their children and doing things like playing outside, going for hikes or bike rides, and such...
The Constitution explicitly gives the Federal Government the right to create and control the armed forces (article 1, section 8, clause 12) and the judiciary (article 3). Not so much about Social Security and Medicare, though (and the 10th Amendment would actually bar the Federal Government from doing either SS or Medicare, if it were actually followed).
Good luck covering every possible combination. Simply changing the shape of the "+" sign would get you around a design patent. A design patent is actually more restrictive of "creator" rights than a copyright. Imagine if you wrote a unique song and somehow got a design patent on it. Then I can create the exact same song, but because I use an acoustic guitar rather than your electric guitar - I'm in the clear. Design patents are EXTREMELY narrow in scope - any change at all and you're around the scope of the patent.
A design patent covers the look ONLY - the ornamental design. For the MS patent, change the center pointer to a diamond, or to a rounded (rather than pointy) design and you're in the clear. They are EXTREMELY easy to get around, and interpreted VERY narrowly. Basically any change to the look and you're in the clear.
Design patents tend to be sops to engineers/designers as a way to "pad their resumes", or as ways to simply increase the number-patents-issued list of companies. It's so much more impressive to say you got 138 patents versus saying you got 1 - but if the 1 is a utility patent, and the 138 are design patents, the actual IP-use (restriction of competiton) value is most likely in favor of the singular utility patent.
Well, the Courts benefit from funding. And the elected judges (as opposed to those appointed - who have to take the Government's position because of their appointment) need to play the game and support asset forfeiture in order to garner the ever-important local/regional police endorsements. I mean, in an election, is Joe Voter going to vote for the judge who was endorsed and supported by the local police and prosecutor, or the judge that "the law" says is no good? So you play along to get along, get a job, hopefully move up the food chain - and personally benefit. If a few "eggs" get cracked along the way - so be it.
No, the Feds are NOT stopping it. They are no longer sharing the spoils of asset forfeiture with local jurisdictions. Prior to this, if the local police used the Federal law to sieze property, the Feds would share the value of the asset with the local police. No longer - the Feds keep it all. Asset forfeiture is still alive and kicking - the Feds are just getting more possessive of the income stream.
Simple answer: is the asset one that the actual criminal owns (or controls, in the case of leases or mortgages)? No? Then the actual owner - not involved in the activity - gets the asset back. Id even go so far as to say that assets of the criminal's immediate family are also fair game (trying to claim that a wife didn't materially participate or benefit from the criminal actions of her husband would be a stretch).
Here's a question for you. If I stop on your lawn and sell a rock of crack cocaine, should you lose your house because it was used for a drug deal? That's what happens when the rental car is used to transport illicit items, or a rental home is used for criminal activities. Unless you can show the owner of the asset had actual knowledge (and thus was an accomplice) of the crimes - how does it make any moral or even legal sense to penalize them? How about just penalizing the people who commit the crimes, not the innocent bystanders...
See the first sentence of the preamble of the Declation of Independence that you quote - that answers it all, and is the basis for the creation of the US Constitution and general original approach to citizenship and Governance. Government is created by men to secure these rights - but the rights already exist prior to the creation - or even the operation - of Government. Unfortunately it's been corrupted over the centuries to your twisted view - that we get what we have from Government, we're but subjects to the bureaucracy in DC and your local State capital...
PS: the 1st Amendment deals with a LOT more than just establishment of an official church of the country; it's mainly about the right to free political speech and the freedom to petition the Government with your grievances. Of course, with attitudes like yours, we're just servants begging the master to not whip us so hard...
Born and raised in Ballard, moved to Lynnwood after graduating from college, then to Edmonds. Bounced around the world a bit, now settled in Ventura, CA - but opened my/. account back in the Lynnwood days!
For the REAL record, it started with RICO back in 1970 with Congress passing a veto-proof RICO bill. It's grown out of that, reaching full-swing back in the 1970s - and not stopping since then.
Unfortunately, many assets are seized and kept without charges even being brought. Seizing assets should only be accompanied by an actual criminal charge (per the 4th Amendment), and kept by the Government only if a conviction is upheld (8th Amendment). Any other seizure and retention is patently unconstitutional.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. - US Constitution, 4th Amendment
Asset seizures and forfeiture, especially without charges or conviction, are inherently unconstitutional. Of course, when Government gets to arbitrate what is Constitutional, it will naturally decide that a nice, open-ended income stream will always be constitutional - regardless of the actual fact.
If only more people remembered our rights existed before the Government was founded, our rights do not come from Government.
Slashdot Mirror
So it's the availability of guns, not the crime-celebrating culture that is to blame. Got it...
That's illegal. You cannot do that - it violates Federal Law.
Switzerland's murder rate is lower than all in Europe save those three tiny countries of Lichtenstein, Monaco, and Iceland. OTHER countries may illegally smuggle those guns out and use them - but the culture in Switzerland is different, they don't seem to have an issue with murder, even with the mandatory ownership of guns. It's the culture, not the inanimate object that leads to violence.
In most States, gun show sales MUST be reported and have NICS checks. In California, for example, you cannot transfer any firearm without going through an FFL and a NICS check (even at a gun show). Some States don't have that restriction - and they also tend to have lower gun violence rates as well. I don't say one follows the other, but if you have very low gun violence rates - why implement a big list of gun sale restrictions?
Baltimore, DC, Chicago, and NYC all have extremely strict gun laws - and all see rising gun murder rates as well. It's not the presence or absence of guns that's the issue - it's the culture of the city.
Per the Supreme Court - it means well functioning. The right to keep and bear arms applies for personal protection (DC v Heller) and is incorporated across the States (Chicago v. McDonald). The right to own - and carry - a firearm in defense of oneself is the crux of the 2nd Amendment.
Guns are also ubiquitous (mandatory, even) in Switzerland - and it has a very strong republican-style of Government. Maybe it's not the presence or absence of guns that's the problem - it's the culture of the citizens.
No, you got it right... Your definotion for IRS is a very appropriate description of the IRS!
None needed. The Government is MUCH more trustworthy than private enterprise, you NEVER have to worry about it...
Do I really need the /sarc?
Better to take the Islamic solution and slit their throat (pennies) or break a branch from a tree and beat them to death (free).
Heck no! The whole reason to buy mobile tablets and such is to allow the computer to be the parent, thereby freeing the parent from the drudgery of actually interacting with their children and doing things like playing outside, going for hikes or bike rides, and such...
The Constitution explicitly gives the Federal Government the right to create and control the armed forces (article 1, section 8, clause 12) and the judiciary (article 3). Not so much about Social Security and Medicare, though (and the 10th Amendment would actually bar the Federal Government from doing either SS or Medicare, if it were actually followed).
Good luck covering every possible combination. Simply changing the shape of the "+" sign would get you around a design patent. A design patent is actually more restrictive of "creator" rights than a copyright. Imagine if you wrote a unique song and somehow got a design patent on it. Then I can create the exact same song, but because I use an acoustic guitar rather than your electric guitar - I'm in the clear. Design patents are EXTREMELY narrow in scope - any change at all and you're around the scope of the patent.
A design patent covers the look ONLY - the ornamental design. For the MS patent, change the center pointer to a diamond, or to a rounded (rather than pointy) design and you're in the clear. They are EXTREMELY easy to get around, and interpreted VERY narrowly. Basically any change to the look and you're in the clear.
Design patents tend to be sops to engineers/designers as a way to "pad their resumes", or as ways to simply increase the number-patents-issued list of companies. It's so much more impressive to say you got 138 patents versus saying you got 1 - but if the 1 is a utility patent, and the 138 are design patents, the actual IP-use (restriction of competiton) value is most likely in favor of the singular utility patent.
That would be 66 (liu shi liu) bots. Only makes sense if you speak Mandarin... ;)
Well, the Courts benefit from funding. And the elected judges (as opposed to those appointed - who have to take the Government's position because of their appointment) need to play the game and support asset forfeiture in order to garner the ever-important local/regional police endorsements. I mean, in an election, is Joe Voter going to vote for the judge who was endorsed and supported by the local police and prosecutor, or the judge that "the law" says is no good? So you play along to get along, get a job, hopefully move up the food chain - and personally benefit. If a few "eggs" get cracked along the way - so be it.
No, the Feds are NOT stopping it. They are no longer sharing the spoils of asset forfeiture with local jurisdictions. Prior to this, if the local police used the Federal law to sieze property, the Feds would share the value of the asset with the local police. No longer - the Feds keep it all. Asset forfeiture is still alive and kicking - the Feds are just getting more possessive of the income stream.
Simple answer: is the asset one that the actual criminal owns (or controls, in the case of leases or mortgages)? No? Then the actual owner - not involved in the activity - gets the asset back. Id even go so far as to say that assets of the criminal's immediate family are also fair game (trying to claim that a wife didn't materially participate or benefit from the criminal actions of her husband would be a stretch).
Here's a question for you. If I stop on your lawn and sell a rock of crack cocaine, should you lose your house because it was used for a drug deal? That's what happens when the rental car is used to transport illicit items, or a rental home is used for criminal activities. Unless you can show the owner of the asset had actual knowledge (and thus was an accomplice) of the crimes - how does it make any moral or even legal sense to penalize them? How about just penalizing the people who commit the crimes, not the innocent bystanders...
See the first sentence of the preamble of the Declation of Independence that you quote - that answers it all, and is the basis for the creation of the US Constitution and general original approach to citizenship and Governance. Government is created by men to secure these rights - but the rights already exist prior to the creation - or even the operation - of Government. Unfortunately it's been corrupted over the centuries to your twisted view - that we get what we have from Government, we're but subjects to the bureaucracy in DC and your local State capital...
PS: the 1st Amendment deals with a LOT more than just establishment of an official church of the country; it's mainly about the right to free political speech and the freedom to petition the Government with your grievances. Of course, with attitudes like yours, we're just servants begging the master to not whip us so hard...
Born and raised in Ballard, moved to Lynnwood after graduating from college, then to Edmonds. Bounced around the world a bit, now settled in Ventura, CA - but opened my /. account back in the Lynnwood days!
For the REAL record, it started with RICO back in 1970 with Congress passing a veto-proof RICO bill. It's grown out of that, reaching full-swing back in the 1970s - and not stopping since then.
Getting rid of their "SWAT" team would probably save a ton of cash as well...
Too bad many States willfully (even gleefully) trample on the 2nd Amendment.
Unfortunately, many assets are seized and kept without charges even being brought. Seizing assets should only be accompanied by an actual criminal charge (per the 4th Amendment), and kept by the Government only if a conviction is upheld (8th Amendment). Any other seizure and retention is patently unconstitutional.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. - US Constitution, 4th Amendment
Asset seizures and forfeiture, especially without charges or conviction, are inherently unconstitutional. Of course, when Government gets to arbitrate what is Constitutional, it will naturally decide that a nice, open-ended income stream will always be constitutional - regardless of the actual fact.
If only more people remembered our rights existed before the Government was founded, our rights do not come from Government.