To the Democrats:
While you were enthralled in supporting deprivation of the 2nd amendment without due process they removed the 4th amendment without due process.
At the end of the day, you won't even have harsh language with which to regain your liberty. You won't even have a whispered critique of disapproval.
To the Republicans:
When the total gun ban comes, the bill you just supported will be used against you. They will have all of the data needed to know what you have and which friends are "evil gun owners".
Anything she gets will likely be harsher than Karl Rove managed to get for outing Valerie Plame.
All of this has been done before. Complete BS if she gets harsher treatment than the previous administration. I agree that we need to clamp down on the problem, but some retro activity would be nice as well.
User 1 makes a statement that points out an injustice committed by a candidate of Political Party "A".
User 2 jumps in to claim that Political Party "B" had a worse injustice.
This situation plays out the same in comment threads across the internet. Switch the roles either way you want. A or B = Democrat, the other = Republican.
User 2 attempts to marginalize the injustice by claiming that party A did the same thing and received equal or less punishment than what is being suggested this time.
But who wins once the injustice supported by User 1 is carefully stuffed away in the margin? The same pattern will likely be made by User 1 when the roles are reversed. As this pattern continues, the punishment for injustice committed against citizens will only ever be reduced per situation. At best it will be matched.
I'm not looking for a weapon. I'm looking for a shield to neutralize it.
So, you're looking for a shield that's hard enough to stop a weapon, but soft enough that it can't be used as a weapon.
Are you sure that your requirement doesn't contradict itself?
For some rifles, such as the AR-15, the serialized part is the lower receiver.
For other rifles, such as the SCAR 16 and SCAR17S, the serialized part is the upper receiver.
On a Ruger Mark series pistol, the barrel is the serialized part.
I don't think the author realized that this depends on the weapon.
Actually:
"Assault Weapon" is the term made-up by gun-control spin doctors.
"Assault Rifle" is a US military term for a fighting rifle in intermediate caliber (not pistol, not long action) capable of full-auto and/or burst fire.
AR-15 is (as you know) not an Assault Rifle.
M4 is an Assault Rifle.
They function differently, but to most folks, they appear exactly the same. This is how gun-control types inject fear, uncertainty and doubt into the debate.
The GCA banned the manufacture of transferable "machine guns" made after May '86.
The GCA, therefore reduces the supply-side of the equation for transferable full-autos. Transferable M-16s cost in excess of $10,000, plus the $200 excise tax to transfer them from one owner to the next.
An individual may legally own a full-auto capable weapon provided that they pass the strict NFA (National Firearms Act) requirements and that the weapon was made before May of '86.
How do you support your argument that "obama probably had his heart in the right place when he started"?
What information leads you to this conclusion?
It's possible that you feel this way because it gives you an "out" for falling for the facade that Libertarians warned Democrats about prior to electing him.
I think that this "personal computer" thing is going to catch on and "web sites" like this one will be a common source of information to hundreds of people.
You assume that the answer is more important than the question.
Their end goal is not to produce plastic guns, but to show the futility of restricting guns.
An idea can be both weapon and expression. As a free individual, I have a right to both.
Senator Rand Paul, a Republican presidential candidate who has made opposition to overbroad surveillance central to his platform, tweeted: “The phone records of law abiding citizens are none of the NSA’s business! Pleased with the ruling this morning.”
How fast would his attitude towards surveillance change if were elected president?
Are you suggesting that it's best to elect someone who loves overly broad surveillance and despises the 4th amendment?
Are you justifying a bad design (connecting critical flights systems to entertainment systems) by taking the route that a $12 GPS chip and supporting circuitry is too expensive or weighs too much to add a dedicated one to the non-critical systems?
Because every example you just posted could be completed with a 4 ounces and $20 of electronics or less.
Using a private email server for mail doesn't change her status from a government actor to a civilian actor. Her status as a government actor changes the status of her private mail server to a government email account.
If it were otherwise, a government office could rent or borrow property from a private citizen and thereby censor the public's speech on that property.
There is precedent here. Take for example a state office censoring citizens' comments from their Facebook page is unconstitutional censorship. Lawsuits have been won on this doctrine.
So, armed robbery isn't a violent crime because they were only pretending that they would kill me? I know that the weapon in this case was a BB gun, but someone who uses the threat of violence to get money isn't in the same category as a common thief. If someone pulled a BB gun on me during a robbery, I would attempt to shoot them to save my own life.
1> I have no idea that the BB gun isn't a real gun.
2> Regardless of the criminal's words, I have no knowledge of their real intentions or capabilities beyond what they present to me.
3> I can't take their word that they only want my money, since they've already shown (by threatening my life) that they value life below property.
except it's the selfish assholes who equip themselves to guard what they have against anybody else getting it. The selfish assholes survive because they have the keys to the grain silo, everybody else (read: who hasn't got a copy of the key) can go die in a field. Selfish asshole (=selfish gene) survives, the meek inherit the Earth. From six feet beneath it.
Help me understand why it's selfish to protect your stuff but it's compassionate to give away someone else's.
"We should use the heavy hand of government to strongly regulate these dangerous devices.... because a drunken, government employee crashed one on government property."
I figured that some key details would get quickly overlooked, but I didn't expect so many people to ignore the fact that it was a government employee who crashed his private drone at the Whitehouse.
So, if an opposing campaign uses VPN to secure their communications, it makes them a target by the sitting executive branch party.
Guess we won't hear anything about this on the SOTU.
Slashdot Mirror
Gaggablaghblagh... Aga blah blah... AGA BLAHG BLAH!
To the Democrats: While you were enthralled in supporting deprivation of the 2nd amendment without due process they removed the 4th amendment without due process.
At the end of the day, you won't even have harsh language with which to regain your liberty. You won't even have a whispered critique of disapproval.
To the Republicans: When the total gun ban comes, the bill you just supported will be used against you. They will have all of the data needed to know what you have and which friends are "evil gun owners".
National Security Letter No need to hack anything.
Unless the law changes.
Not having backups doesn't make you incompetent when your employer doesn't want you to keep backups.
You're right. In this case, it makes you an accomplice.
I get the feeling that any normal citizen would receive a 4am no-knock raid with guns drawn and dogs shot.
Anything she gets will likely be harsher than Karl Rove managed to get for outing Valerie Plame.
All of this has been done before. Complete BS if she gets harsher treatment than the previous administration. I agree that we need to clamp down on the problem, but some retro activity would be nice as well.
User 1 makes a statement that points out an injustice committed by a candidate of Political Party "A".
User 2 jumps in to claim that Political Party "B" had a worse injustice.
This situation plays out the same in comment threads across the internet. Switch the roles either way you want. A or B = Democrat, the other = Republican.
User 2 attempts to marginalize the injustice by claiming that party A did the same thing and received equal or less punishment than what is being suggested this time.
But who wins once the injustice supported by User 1 is carefully stuffed away in the margin? The same pattern will likely be made by User 1 when the roles are reversed. As this pattern continues, the punishment for injustice committed against citizens will only ever be reduced per situation. At best it will be matched.
I'm not looking for a weapon. I'm looking for a shield to neutralize it.
So, you're looking for a shield that's hard enough to stop a weapon, but soft enough that it can't be used as a weapon.
Are you sure that your requirement doesn't contradict itself?
Tools and objects that can be used to make 3D printers and the programs that drive THEM must be regulated!
Ban the monkeys all the way down!
For some rifles, such as the AR-15, the serialized part is the lower receiver.
For other rifles, such as the SCAR 16 and SCAR17S, the serialized part is the upper receiver.
On a Ruger Mark series pistol, the barrel is the serialized part.
I don't think the author realized that this depends on the weapon.
Actually:
"Assault Weapon" is the term made-up by gun-control spin doctors.
"Assault Rifle" is a US military term for a fighting rifle in intermediate caliber (not pistol, not long action) capable of full-auto and/or burst fire.
AR-15 is (as you know) not an Assault Rifle.
M4 is an Assault Rifle.
They function differently, but to most folks, they appear exactly the same. This is how gun-control types inject fear, uncertainty and doubt into the debate.
The GCA banned the manufacture of transferable "machine guns" made after May '86.
The GCA, therefore reduces the supply-side of the equation for transferable full-autos. Transferable M-16s cost in excess of $10,000, plus the $200 excise tax to transfer them from one owner to the next.
An individual may legally own a full-auto capable weapon provided that they pass the strict NFA (National Firearms Act) requirements and that the weapon was made before May of '86.
IANAL etc
How do you support your argument that "obama probably had his heart in the right place when he started"?
What information leads you to this conclusion?
It's possible that you feel this way because it gives you an "out" for falling for the facade that Libertarians warned Democrats about prior to electing him.
I think that this "personal computer" thing is going to catch on and "web sites" like this one will be a common source of information to hundreds of people.
You assume that the answer is more important than the question.
Their end goal is not to produce plastic guns, but to show the futility of restricting guns.
An idea can be both weapon and expression. As a free individual, I have a right to both.
Senator Rand Paul, a Republican presidential candidate who has made opposition to overbroad surveillance central to his platform, tweeted: “The phone records of law abiding citizens are none of the NSA’s business! Pleased with the ruling this morning.”
How fast would his attitude towards surveillance change if were elected president?
Are you suggesting that it's best to elect someone who loves overly broad surveillance and despises the 4th amendment?
If the scale model was inconclusive. Increase scale.
700 Watts? Time to increase to 260 Kilowatts. It should be hard to ignore 250-300 HP results.
Either way, the result should be entertaining.
Are you justifying a bad design (connecting critical flights systems to entertainment systems) by taking the route that a $12 GPS chip and supporting circuitry is too expensive or weighs too much to add a dedicated one to the non-critical systems?
Because every example you just posted could be completed with a 4 ounces and $20 of electronics or less.
Using a private email server for mail doesn't change her status from a government actor to a civilian actor. Her status as a government actor changes the status of her private mail server to a government email account.
If it were otherwise, a government office could rent or borrow property from a private citizen and thereby censor the public's speech on that property.
There is precedent here. Take for example a state office censoring citizens' comments from their Facebook page is unconstitutional censorship. Lawsuits have been won on this doctrine.
So, armed robbery isn't a violent crime because they were only pretending that they would kill me? I know that the weapon in this case was a BB gun, but someone who uses the threat of violence to get money isn't in the same category as a common thief. If someone pulled a BB gun on me during a robbery, I would attempt to shoot them to save my own life.
1> I have no idea that the BB gun isn't a real gun.
2> Regardless of the criminal's words, I have no knowledge of their real intentions or capabilities beyond what they present to me.
3> I can't take their word that they only want my money, since they've already shown (by threatening my life) that they value life below property.
except it's the selfish assholes who equip themselves to guard what they have against anybody else getting it. The selfish assholes survive because they have the keys to the grain silo, everybody else (read: who hasn't got a copy of the key) can go die in a field. Selfish asshole (=selfish gene) survives, the meek inherit the Earth. From six feet beneath it.
Help me understand why it's selfish to protect your stuff but it's compassionate to give away someone else's.
"We should use the heavy hand of government to strongly regulate these dangerous devices.... because a drunken, government employee crashed one on government property."
http://gizmodo.com/guy-who-cra...
I figured that some key details would get quickly overlooked, but I didn't expect so many people to ignore the fact that it was a government employee who crashed his private drone at the Whitehouse.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-po...
The zone will be one of danger.
So, if an opposing campaign uses VPN to secure their communications, it makes them a target by the sitting executive branch party.
Guess we won't hear anything about this on the SOTU.
Why would either party stop it? Imagine the political power of a party that can eavesdrop on their opposition.
This is a corrupt game of musical chairs.
I'm surprised the music hasn't stopped for the last time.
If only we had real journalists and uncorrupted law enforcement to hold them accountable.
Pretty sure that Snowden released enough evidence to start the process.