A healthy distrust of the government is good for liberty. That doesn't mean one has to hate the gov't or actively try to subvert them - but once you let the government handle your responsibilities for you, it becomes impossible to get it back and very easy for the gov't to abuse the powers given. I'm concerned not just for what this law means, or the intentions behind it, but what it means 15 or 50 years from now. It's a slow erosion of all of our rights.
I don't hate people for not liking guns or not owning them - they're free to not take advantage of their rights (at their own peril) - but I have those rights too, and the ability/means to take advantage of them - and I understand what the 2nd meant regardless of the tripe passed around. Go ahead and give away your rights, but you can give away mine over my dead body.
The "gun control" lobby's goal is to remove all guns from society - a noble one, and one that I would support if it wasn't a utopic vision of how it could be. In the real world, some people are psychotic and are able to access guns - and most of the time, it's in a way that's already illegal. The CT shooting, for example, the perp stole the firearms and killed the owner with them before going on a spree.
I take a different tact - tinfoil hat on - the 2nd is about keeping the government in check. We are slowly having our rights eroded by more legislation and a more powerful government. Citizens are surveilled without warrant, jailed without charge, property seized without cause - all in the guise of "anti-terrorism". Local police forces all have SWAT teams (comprised mainly of the same "peace" officers) with automatic weapons. The National Guard is deployed in warzones to supplement the volunteer military. I've seen the argument of "what good is your gun against all that" - and that's the point.
I believe, whether or not it's the goal, that all this can be used to subdue the general populace and enslave them. And that's what the 2nd is supposed to fight against. According to many polls, apparently I'm not in the majority (but that's sketchy to believe based on the blatant control of the media machine) - but I believe as a lawful citizen of a sane state of mind I should be able to access the same weaponry as my peace police force. I face the same dangers they do, after all, and the Supreme Court upheld that the police have no duty to protect. Try suing them for a crime committed against you next time it happens, if you don't believe me.
It doesn't mean we should give automatic weapons to citizens either - we could go the other way and remove the ability of law enforcement to have automatic weapons.
Only back to 2005, but "other firearms" homicides in the latest year available was 2868, which assumingly includes rifles and long arms. High-capacity magazines will include handguns, but there is no data to back-up having 10 rounds in a handgun is any better than having more than 10.
In fact, the overall homicide rate has been falling over the past 25 years (which includes times with and without the AWB) - and that's why many in Congress agreed that the previous ban had no effect.
Because when I'm at the range I don't like reloading my magazine every 10 seconds. Because my personal carry firearm was designed to hold more than that. Because I may need more than 3 bullets.
Why do you think having less bullets in a magazine will stop violence? I ask you nicely. Please reply.
FYI - 3 10-round magazines weighs approx. the same as one 30-round magazine when loaded. The only difference is magazine-change time - which is about 5 seconds or less for anyone who has done so more than once.
Yes, they are designed to kill living things. That's because human beings kill living things. A firearm is the easiest tool to do so with, and without said tool, we would just find another. Would the replacement be more/less effective? Does it even matter? The problem isn't the tools with which we kill things - it's the reason why we decided to do so, and how to prevent THAT.
You would miss it when the reason why we have the right to own them comes to fruition. That reason being - keeping a free government from becoming a tyrannical one. One could argue that the day is nearing faster than before.
A senseless tragedy has occurred - and preventable, maybe. Banning firearms would not prevent this type of thing happening. In fact, I believe it encourages it - a school / movie theater / college / mall are all soft targets to a psycho. You don't see them shooting up VA hospitals, for example - why? Because even if they're old, disabled, or otherwise, veterans will still fuck you up - and are probably carrying a firearm.
Go ahead and give up your rights - in fact, feel free to move elsewhere. Our Constitution enables me to own a firearm. My state permits me to carry one. And I do every single day. Attempt to take away my and my family's protection at your own peril.
CCP - not an acronym (I think) - Iceland-based company that makes the game ISK - InterStellar Kredit - the game currency PLEX - pilot's license extension - purchased from CCP to receive an item, which can be bought/sold on the in-game market. "Using" the item will pay for a month's game time. Selling the item is the only "legal" way of using real money to get game money.
What I do in my home is my problem. Don't smoke in yours.
No problem. Just don't expect people to pay the same amount for your place as the guy's down the street who didn't smoke in theirs.
The bar thing drove me nuts too - I ended up having to join a 'club' instead so that I could still have a whiskey and a smoke when I felt like it instead of having to stand outside like dog.
Seems a bit contradictory to your previous statement. Your choice to smoke is your own... I choose not to because I don't want the health problems. I'd rather just plain kill my liver. Smoking in a bar means the bar patrons smoke with you. That's what the law is preventing. I rather enjoy going to the bar and not coming out smelling like it.
Speaking as someone who has been sued for $300,000 for a skiing accident involving nothing more than a torn ACL, THAT fear isn't completely irrational.
Funny you mention that. I was sued for getting hit by a ski patrol snowmobile while I was snowboarding for a similar sum of money. The snowmobiler fell off his ride and tore his ACL. His wife also sued for what amounted to "loss of companionship". I broke ribs and a snowboard.
They appealed and lost, and appealed and lost, made it to the state Supreme Court... but still. Only because the guy was a dumbass in the deposition.
Go to the boss, the highest you can barge in on, hand him in writing your objections and the passwords AND your resignation. Have them signed and don't look back.
Wish I had mod points for you, sir. Hindsight is 20/20 of course, but if there is a lesson learned from Mr. Childs' case this is most certainly it.
I think NBC should have ignored these opinions, and covered something else instead, like why Obama is asking people for donations to the U.S. Treasury.
Was that an attempt to say paying taxes is actually a "donation"? Sweet! I'll skip paying this year... sorry, it's the economy.
Or maybe he was making a stand against racial profiling. I mean, who would believe a curious-looking black man could be a tech for Verizon! He was surely there to rob the place. Maybe they both should get to have a beer with Obama next!
I can't understand your claim of Iran expanding its values into Israel.
I think the GP was tongue-in-cheek. Iran's government doesn't officially recognize Israel and Iran's president has publicly stated he desires Israel's government to collapse. Though he has also said pursing nuclear bombs is against his religion... I think you'd agree turning Israel into a glass crater is one way to do so. There are of course less violent ways. But recent history has shown radical Islamists seem to prefer violence to emphasize their beliefs and have little regard to themselves or others.
They don't need ICBMs to nuke Israel of course... they already have missiles that can hit Israel without difficulty. Iran has much to gain from political posturing though, and again, this launch is one way to do so. Whether or not they intend to actually create ICBMs isn't clear... but what is definitely clear is that Iran intends to become a world player.
My guess is that's what they're trying to find out? Having recently been there I can tell you that at its 10000+ ft summit, the clouds are "below" you, leaving unfettered access to the sky.
Slashdot Mirror
A healthy distrust of the government is good for liberty. That doesn't mean one has to hate the gov't or actively try to subvert them - but once you let the government handle your responsibilities for you, it becomes impossible to get it back and very easy for the gov't to abuse the powers given. I'm concerned not just for what this law means, or the intentions behind it, but what it means 15 or 50 years from now. It's a slow erosion of all of our rights.
I don't hate people for not liking guns or not owning them - they're free to not take advantage of their rights (at their own peril) - but I have those rights too, and the ability/means to take advantage of them - and I understand what the 2nd meant regardless of the tripe passed around. Go ahead and give away your rights, but you can give away mine over my dead body.
The "gun control" lobby's goal is to remove all guns from society - a noble one, and one that I would support if it wasn't a utopic vision of how it could be. In the real world, some people are psychotic and are able to access guns - and most of the time, it's in a way that's already illegal. The CT shooting, for example, the perp stole the firearms and killed the owner with them before going on a spree.
I take a different tact - tinfoil hat on - the 2nd is about keeping the government in check. We are slowly having our rights eroded by more legislation and a more powerful government. Citizens are surveilled without warrant, jailed without charge, property seized without cause - all in the guise of "anti-terrorism". Local police forces all have SWAT teams (comprised mainly of the same "peace" officers) with automatic weapons. The National Guard is deployed in warzones to supplement the volunteer military. I've seen the argument of "what good is your gun against all that" - and that's the point.
I believe, whether or not it's the goal, that all this can be used to subdue the general populace and enslave them. And that's what the 2nd is supposed to fight against. According to many polls, apparently I'm not in the majority (but that's sketchy to believe based on the blatant control of the media machine) - but I believe as a lawful citizen of a sane state of mind I should be able to access the same weaponry as my peace police force. I face the same dangers they do, after all, and the Supreme Court upheld that the police have no duty to protect. Try suing them for a crime committed against you next time it happens, if you don't believe me.
It doesn't mean we should give automatic weapons to citizens either - we could go the other way and remove the ability of law enforcement to have automatic weapons.
Not sure where you got the average of 9200 - but the interesting word there is "handgun" - which are not covered under the assault weapon ban.
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/homicide/tables/weaponstab.cfm
Only back to 2005, but "other firearms" homicides in the latest year available was 2868, which assumingly includes rifles and long arms. High-capacity magazines will include handguns, but there is no data to back-up having 10 rounds in a handgun is any better than having more than 10.
In fact, the overall homicide rate has been falling over the past 25 years (which includes times with and without the AWB) - and that's why many in Congress agreed that the previous ban had no effect.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban#Expiration_and_effect_on_crime
Because when I'm at the range I don't like reloading my magazine every 10 seconds. Because my personal carry firearm was designed to hold more than that. Because I may need more than 3 bullets.
Why do you think having less bullets in a magazine will stop violence? I ask you nicely. Please reply.
FYI - 3 10-round magazines weighs approx. the same as one 30-round magazine when loaded. The only difference is magazine-change time - which is about 5 seconds or less for anyone who has done so more than once.
So "20 people stabbed by a maniac" is somehow better than "20 people shot by a maniac" - that's pretty twisted logic.
Yes, they are designed to kill living things. That's because human beings kill living things. A firearm is the easiest tool to do so with, and without said tool, we would just find another. Would the replacement be more/less effective? Does it even matter? The problem isn't the tools with which we kill things - it's the reason why we decided to do so, and how to prevent THAT.
And yet, that hasn't stopped them from trying to blow up airplanes or killing people - none of which involved firearms. Not sure what you're arguing?
You would miss it when the reason why we have the right to own them comes to fruition. That reason being - keeping a free government from becoming a tyrannical one. One could argue that the day is nearing faster than before.
A senseless tragedy has occurred - and preventable, maybe. Banning firearms would not prevent this type of thing happening. In fact, I believe it encourages it - a school / movie theater / college / mall are all soft targets to a psycho. You don't see them shooting up VA hospitals, for example - why? Because even if they're old, disabled, or otherwise, veterans will still fuck you up - and are probably carrying a firearm.
Go ahead and give up your rights - in fact, feel free to move elsewhere. Our Constitution enables me to own a firearm. My state permits me to carry one. And I do every single day. Attempt to take away my and my family's protection at your own peril.
I want to live in a world where *everything* that makes me uncomfortable or might cause pain or conflict is excised from history.
I find your quest to avoid offending anybody offensive.
CCP - not an acronym (I think) - Iceland-based company that makes the game
ISK - InterStellar Kredit - the game currency
PLEX - pilot's license extension - purchased from CCP to receive an item, which can be bought/sold on the in-game market. "Using" the item will pay for a month's game time. Selling the item is the only "legal" way of using real money to get game money.
The PLEX did not survive. See the killmail.
http://eve-kill.net/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=7309710
You're not supposed to hold it that way.
What I do in my home is my problem. Don't smoke in yours.
No problem. Just don't expect people to pay the same amount for your place as the guy's down the street who didn't smoke in theirs.
The bar thing drove me nuts too - I ended up having to join a 'club' instead so that I could still have a whiskey and a smoke when I felt like it instead of having to stand outside like dog.
Seems a bit contradictory to your previous statement. Your choice to smoke is your own ... I choose not to because I don't want the health problems. I'd rather just plain kill my liver. Smoking in a bar means the bar patrons smoke with you. That's what the law is preventing. I rather enjoy going to the bar and not coming out smelling like it.
Speaking as someone who has been sued for $300,000 for a skiing accident involving nothing more than a torn ACL, THAT fear isn't completely irrational.
Funny you mention that. I was sued for getting hit by a ski patrol snowmobile while I was snowboarding for a similar sum of money. The snowmobiler fell off his ride and tore his ACL. His wife also sued for what amounted to "loss of companionship". I broke ribs and a snowboard.
They appealed and lost, and appealed and lost, made it to the state Supreme Court ... but still. Only because the guy was a dumbass in the deposition.
Go to the boss, the highest you can barge in on, hand him in writing your objections and the passwords AND your resignation. Have them signed and don't look back.
Wish I had mod points for you, sir. Hindsight is 20/20 of course, but if there is a lesson learned from Mr. Childs' case this is most certainly it.
I think NBC should have ignored these opinions, and covered something else instead, like why Obama is asking people for donations to the U.S. Treasury.
Was that an attempt to say paying taxes is actually a "donation"? Sweet! I'll skip paying this year... sorry, it's the economy.
Brit show with an incompetent IT boss, a pair of competent IT grunts, and bad English humor (humour?).
All you probably needed to say was "bad humour"
*ducks*
None of those things are going to make me run crying to the police for protection from you.
Same here. Though I'd probably punch the bastard in the face for it and subsequently be arrested for assault. Go USA!
Or maybe he was making a stand against racial profiling. I mean, who would believe a curious-looking black man could be a tech for Verizon! He was surely there to rob the place. Maybe they both should get to have a beer with Obama next!
Yes, I too *gasped* at having to actually read/view the content of the article. What is this site coming to? Informed commenting may be next!
... and install SilverLight!
See? A nerd can't even use the /. comment system ... how are laypeople supposed to set up a scheduler?
I can't understand your claim of Iran expanding its values into Israel.
I think the GP was tongue-in-cheek. Iran's government doesn't officially recognize Israel and Iran's president has publicly stated he desires Israel's government to collapse. Though he has also said pursing nuclear bombs is against his religion ... I think you'd agree turning Israel into a glass crater is one way to do so. There are of course less violent ways. But recent history has shown radical Islamists seem to prefer violence to emphasize their beliefs and have little regard to themselves or others.
They don't need ICBMs to nuke Israel of course ... they already have missiles that can hit Israel without difficulty. Iran has much to gain from political posturing though, and again, this launch is one way to do so. Whether or not they intend to actually create ICBMs isn't clear ... but what is definitely clear is that Iran intends to become a world player.
Silicon sucks.
Aww, you just hurt your processor's feelings! Say you're sorry!
My guess is that's what they're trying to find out? Having recently been there I can tell you that at its 10000+ ft summit, the clouds are "below" you, leaving unfettered access to the sky.