Newsflash - entering into a bar with friends doesn't automatically assume you're going to be drinking. There are already laws that prohibit carrying firearms on your person while under the influence of any drug - whether it be in public or otherwise.
They may not have any competition within their municipally-granted franchise authority - but I can virtually guarantee that their monopolies are in jeopardy when the neighboring cities get gigabit from Google, Cox, Verizon, CenturyLink, et.al. Local franchise authorities are well aware of the technology that's available, and are applying pressure to get it. They're also aware that their cities grow when the infrastructure is there.
And if you're a household in one of those communities, I suggest you contact the local franchise authority and complain. Squeaky wheels get the grease.
Comcast is slow and shitty and definitely won't hit their "goal" - but they're not completely stupid either. They're just following trends.
1) they don't have to employ a legion of tax specialists / lawyers for sales tax (which cuts at the bottom line) 2) they're betting the Federal framework will result in a lower overall rate (which keeps their competitive price advantage over brick-and-mortar)
but even if that was true, you would probably have to include 'faux news' viewers in that. ie, the gullible and most easily fooled.
I'm going to assume that you meant Fox News. I'd like to point out that while their bias is clear, there is also clear bias in all of the other news outlets in the US (to varying degrees). Deny that, and you're showing your bias also.
My point is - the "gullible and easily fooled" don't just watch Fox News. That category spans the political spectrum, believe it or not. I wouldn't confuse "gullible" with "too lazy to do own research" either.
There are thousands of people worldwide who want to get on an explosive on a plane, but have failed. Even the shoe bomber got nowhere.
He WAS on the plane, but his explosives failed to detonate. Same thing happened to the underwear bomber - failed to detonate, just burned the hell out of his private areas.
Both were subdued by passengers, which I'll argue is much more likely to happen now that we know the attackers' intent is to take over the plane and fly them into buildings. It used to be that the hijackers just wanted something so they'd hold everyone hostage. That made passengers compliant to demands - their lives weren't in imminent danger.
I'd argue we should go the other way - arm the pilots, arm the stewards, let the passengers be armed. It's widely known and statistics prove that attackers favor "soft" targets. It's also less-widely known but statistics prove that in a life-or-death situation, with seconds to decide, the police are often minutes away. We need to take personal security seriously and stop being sheep. Nobody can protect you from a person willing to do you and others harm... except yourself.
Like "more people are killed by baseball bats than guns", when it's actually more killed by baseball bats than LONG GUNS, but if you compare all guns to all blunt objects, it's overwhelmingly guns we have to thank for making homicide and suicide so easy.
The argument you referenced came about during the attempt to ban "assault rifles" as if they are somehow scarier and deadlier than anything else on the planet. When in fact, assault rifles are statistically less often the tool of choice for murder than blunt objects, as you pointed out. The issue many raised was that the knee-jerk reaction to the school and theatre shootings was just that - a knee-jerk - and wouldn't solve anything except show for the politicians and anti-gun folk. The point of the statistic was to reinforce that point - though one's "preconceptions to the truth" may lead them to another conclusion.
I honestly don't know, but I thought it was illegal for the FBI to spy on U.S. citizens as well?
Depends on the case law - but basically the 4th Amendment was supposed to protect everyone from this sort of thing - every gov't entity is supposed to get a warrant before spying. The fact that every gov't entity isn't disavowing this program, but instead saying "we get a warrant to look at the results" is really disingenuous. They shouldn't be collecting the information in the first place.
I don't think Google is doing this because they've been libeled - it seems they're doing this to "fight the good fight". How interesting (ironic?) the same government that corporations bribe through special interests and lobbying now have to fight against their bribers for Constitutionality.
Disagree. I, an American by birth, own firearms for several reasons (not necessarily in order).
1) Recreation - shooting a firearm is a great stress reliever and fun to boot. 2) Sport - I actively hunt game for food. 3) Protection - I am responsible for the safety of my family. 4) Rights - in this country, it seems if you don't exercise your rights, the gov't will have more fodder to take them away.
By the way - I may not represent all Americans with my ideals or standards, but I'm not the exception to the rule either - I'm not fearful at all.
First of all - we already have military-grade polymer firearms that are "detectable" by modern scanning technology.
Second - a plastic "printable" firearm is pretty worthless without ammunition. This would be the doomsday scenario you describe when they manage to make a plastic bullet, and a plastic casing, that won't fragment/explode in the firearm when the primer ignites the powder.
Finally - if instead of banning firearms from those places, we allowed those with the means and the methods to carry firearms where ever they wanted, this argument wouldn't be happening.
Freedom has its price - and that price is a little risk.
So it outsold the 7-series (top end full-size full-luxury sedan), the S-class (top end full-size full-luxury sedan) and the Audi A8 (full-size full-luxury sedan), which even BMW, Mercedes, and Audi would admit make up a small fraction of their overall sales, and this is a win?
The Model S is a top-end full-size full-luxury sedan. It makes complete sense to compare it to the top-end full-size full-luxury sedans of the incumbent manufacturers.
Except the Model S' dimensions are closer to the 5-series, A6, or E-class - and the price is similar also. Just because it's the "top" of Tesla's line doesn't mean it compares to the "top" of the German lines (which are much bigger, and considerably more expensive). In fact, the Model S has been directly compared to the Audi S6 and BMW M5 in a number of magazines - and it's notable that the Model S was declared the winner in many (save for the range "issues").
You should take some basic handgun safety classes followed by some active shooting classes before you consider a CCW permit.
Good CCW classes do all three.
Also, remember that in a city, you can't legally take your gun into most stores or offices. If you illegally take it in, you are subject to a felony and loss of your CCW permit.
You should really specify what municipality you live in prior to spouting off like that. In Minnesota, neither of those are true. The store/office has the duty to ask you to leave... and if you don't, you are subject to a misdemeanor and NOT loss of permit, nor loss of firearm, for first offense. MN is also technically open-carry, and I carry everywhere.
Besides, the whole point of concealed is that nobody knows you are carrying unless you show them or you submit to a check.
I understand what you're saying. My issue is that you're presenting that profiling Muslims as potential terrorists is racist. Calling someone "brown-skinned" or "cracker" is racist. Treating a Muslim (which are clearly differentiated by their choice of clothing) differently at a checkpoint versus others isn't racist. It's discriminatory to their religion, sure, but not racist.
Considering the imagery delivered by the article, the "2 rocket launchers" were really spent http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AT4 canisters - they are one-shot weapons, and cannot be reloaded. Trophies, and basically worthless. The LAPD paid money for innocuous tubes - makes for sensational headlines, however.
Especially when the "peaceful" police force in most American cities are now SWAT-capable, thanks to the funding secured when passing the Patriot Act and creation of Department of Homeland Security. If the peace force can access military-grade, I should be able to also. I face the same dangers they do, and the difference is, they have no duty to protect me.
The 2nd Amendment makes no mention of "hunting" with regards to bearing arms.
And apparently you missed the recent story about the home invasion, where the victim (a woman that never fired the firearm in question) shot the invader 6 times and he still managed to get out of the house and drive away. Maybe if she had 7 he wouldn't have?
Way to let emotion ruin a rational argument. You do realize that the 2nd Amendment was established by men who knew that a government, unchecked, would naturally turn into tyranny by those intoxicated with power. They set up checks and balances in all of the branches of government like a big rock-paper-scissors game. Think of the 2nd as the fail-safe switch to the checks and balances.
Slashdot Mirror
Newsflash - entering into a bar with friends doesn't automatically assume you're going to be drinking. There are already laws that prohibit carrying firearms on your person while under the influence of any drug - whether it be in public or otherwise.
They may not have any competition within their municipally-granted franchise authority - but I can virtually guarantee that their monopolies are in jeopardy when the neighboring cities get gigabit from Google, Cox, Verizon, CenturyLink, et.al. Local franchise authorities are well aware of the technology that's available, and are applying pressure to get it. They're also aware that their cities grow when the infrastructure is there.
And if you're a household in one of those communities, I suggest you contact the local franchise authority and complain. Squeaky wheels get the grease.
Comcast is slow and shitty and definitely won't hit their "goal" - but they're not completely stupid either. They're just following trends.
Amazon has been fighting against having to collect individual sales tax, while endorsing a Federal framework like The Marketplace Fairness Act.
Amazon wants this for at least two reasons:
1) they don't have to employ a legion of tax specialists / lawyers for sales tax (which cuts at the bottom line)
2) they're betting the Federal framework will result in a lower overall rate (which keeps their competitive price advantage over brick-and-mortar)
but even if that was true, you would probably have to include 'faux news' viewers in that. ie, the gullible and most easily fooled.
I'm going to assume that you meant Fox News. I'd like to point out that while their bias is clear, there is also clear bias in all of the other news outlets in the US (to varying degrees). Deny that, and you're showing your bias also.
My point is - the "gullible and easily fooled" don't just watch Fox News. That category spans the political spectrum, believe it or not. I wouldn't confuse "gullible" with "too lazy to do own research" either.
There are thousands of people worldwide who want to get on an explosive on a plane, but have failed. Even the shoe bomber got nowhere.
He WAS on the plane, but his explosives failed to detonate. Same thing happened to the underwear bomber - failed to detonate, just burned the hell out of his private areas.
Both were subdued by passengers, which I'll argue is much more likely to happen now that we know the attackers' intent is to take over the plane and fly them into buildings. It used to be that the hijackers just wanted something so they'd hold everyone hostage. That made passengers compliant to demands - their lives weren't in imminent danger.
I'd argue we should go the other way - arm the pilots, arm the stewards, let the passengers be armed. It's widely known and statistics prove that attackers favor "soft" targets. It's also less-widely known but statistics prove that in a life-or-death situation, with seconds to decide, the police are often minutes away. We need to take personal security seriously and stop being sheep. Nobody can protect you from a person willing to do you and others harm ... except yourself.
Like "more people are killed by baseball bats than guns", when it's actually more killed by baseball bats than LONG GUNS, but if you compare all guns to all blunt objects, it's overwhelmingly guns we have to thank for making homicide and suicide so easy.
The argument you referenced came about during the attempt to ban "assault rifles" as if they are somehow scarier and deadlier than anything else on the planet. When in fact, assault rifles are statistically less often the tool of choice for murder than blunt objects, as you pointed out. The issue many raised was that the knee-jerk reaction to the school and theatre shootings was just that - a knee-jerk - and wouldn't solve anything except show for the politicians and anti-gun folk. The point of the statistic was to reinforce that point - though one's "preconceptions to the truth" may lead them to another conclusion.
That's a broad assumption given many future congresscritters are staffing the current congresscritters' offices - and likely learning bad behaviors.
I honestly don't know, but I thought it was illegal for the FBI to spy on U.S. citizens as well?
Depends on the case law - but basically the 4th Amendment was supposed to protect everyone from this sort of thing - every gov't entity is supposed to get a warrant before spying. The fact that every gov't entity isn't disavowing this program, but instead saying "we get a warrant to look at the results" is really disingenuous. They shouldn't be collecting the information in the first place.
I don't think Google is doing this because they've been libeled - it seems they're doing this to "fight the good fight". How interesting (ironic?) the same government that corporations bribe through special interests and lobbying now have to fight against their bribers for Constitutionality.
Disagree. I, an American by birth, own firearms for several reasons (not necessarily in order).
1) Recreation - shooting a firearm is a great stress reliever and fun to boot.
2) Sport - I actively hunt game for food.
3) Protection - I am responsible for the safety of my family.
4) Rights - in this country, it seems if you don't exercise your rights, the gov't will have more fodder to take them away.
By the way - I may not represent all Americans with my ideals or standards, but I'm not the exception to the rule either - I'm not fearful at all.
Thanks for the sensationalist tripe.
First of all - we already have military-grade polymer firearms that are "detectable" by modern scanning technology.
Second - a plastic "printable" firearm is pretty worthless without ammunition. This would be the doomsday scenario you describe when they manage to make a plastic bullet, and a plastic casing, that won't fragment/explode in the firearm when the primer ignites the powder.
Finally - if instead of banning firearms from those places, we allowed those with the means and the methods to carry firearms where ever they wanted, this argument wouldn't be happening.
Freedom has its price - and that price is a little risk.
The Model S is a top-end full-size full-luxury sedan. It makes complete sense to compare it to the top-end full-size full-luxury sedans of the incumbent manufacturers.
Except the Model S' dimensions are closer to the 5-series, A6, or E-class - and the price is similar also. Just because it's the "top" of Tesla's line doesn't mean it compares to the "top" of the German lines (which are much bigger, and considerably more expensive). In fact, the Model S has been directly compared to the Audi S6 and BMW M5 in a number of magazines - and it's notable that the Model S was declared the winner in many (save for the range "issues").
Um, Hillary is actually not currently in Govt. any more; John Kerry now runs the State Department.
Don't go confusing the rightwingers with facts. If they actually had any facts, they'd be insufferable.
Interesting, as I could say the same about "leftwingers" and their "emotional" arguments.
You should take some basic handgun safety classes followed by some active shooting classes before you consider a CCW permit.
Good CCW classes do all three.
Also, remember that in a city, you can't legally take your gun into most stores or offices. If you illegally take it in, you are subject to a felony and loss of your CCW permit.
You should really specify what municipality you live in prior to spouting off like that. In Minnesota, neither of those are true. The store/office has the duty to ask you to leave ... and if you don't, you are subject to a misdemeanor and NOT loss of permit, nor loss of firearm, for first offense. MN is also technically open-carry, and I carry everywhere.
Besides, the whole point of concealed is that nobody knows you are carrying unless you show them or you submit to a check.
If profiling works, then you should be closely watched yourself. Right wing extremists being one of the notable terrorist groups.
Last I checked, most of the recent mass-shooting perps were Democrats.
I understand what you're saying. My issue is that you're presenting that profiling Muslims as potential terrorists is racist. Calling someone "brown-skinned" or "cracker" is racist. Treating a Muslim (which are clearly differentiated by their choice of clothing) differently at a checkpoint versus others isn't racist. It's discriminatory to their religion, sure, but not racist.
Don't try and pretend there's any difference simply because you're racist, terrorists are terrorists.
Since when is the Muslim religion a race?
Just like the newtown nut case doesn't represent gun owners?
He wasn't a gun owner. He stole the firearms used. Next strawman, please.
Considering the imagery delivered by the article, the "2 rocket launchers" were really spent http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AT4 canisters - they are one-shot weapons, and cannot be reloaded. Trophies, and basically worthless. The LAPD paid money for innocuous tubes - makes for sensational headlines, however.
I'll just leave this here for you: http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp#accidents
Especially when the "peaceful" police force in most American cities are now SWAT-capable, thanks to the funding secured when passing the Patriot Act and creation of Department of Homeland Security. If the peace force can access military-grade, I should be able to also. I face the same dangers they do, and the difference is, they have no duty to protect me.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html?_r=0
And if violent crime rates have been declining for 25 years, regardless of gun bans or not, why does my local police need SWAT and automatic rifles?
The 2nd Amendment makes no mention of "hunting" with regards to bearing arms.
And apparently you missed the recent story about the home invasion, where the victim (a woman that never fired the firearm in question) shot the invader 6 times and he still managed to get out of the house and drive away. Maybe if she had 7 he wouldn't have?
Way to let emotion ruin a rational argument. You do realize that the 2nd Amendment was established by men who knew that a government, unchecked, would naturally turn into tyranny by those intoxicated with power. They set up checks and balances in all of the branches of government like a big rock-paper-scissors game. Think of the 2nd as the fail-safe switch to the checks and balances.
Don't worry - the NSA already trapped this traffic and is sending the Secret Service to investigate as we speak. Carry on, citizen.
Let's stop pretending this one will be any more effective.