That's a great quote but it only serves to highlight the "do as I say, not as I do" mentality of U.S. politics.
That's why I'm not a big fan of Reagan, as previously stated. I do, however, agree with the sentiment of his statement. Own up to your actions.
And yet countries that ban ownership of assault rifles and handguns by the average person don't have these crimes. They just don't.
How many of those countries have the Second Amendment?
Don't even go there with the whole interpretation issue; you'll lose that battle.
State and federal courts historically have used two models to interpret the Second Amendment: the now generally accepted individual rights model, and the "collective rights" model, which holds that the right is dependent on militia membership. While having influenced a number of past court cases, the "collective rights" model has been discarded by the U.S. Supreme Court, in favor of the individual rights model.
And that action drove the usually civil-liberty-loving liberals into the hands of the NRA's opponents. Take a step back a moment: does it really make much sense that liberals, who detest restrictions on speech, on what you can do with your own bodies, on people being jailed, would actually, normally, be in favor - in principle - of someone owning a device as long as they used it responsibly?
What or who are you referring to as a liberal? Some people hate it because it supposedly is still too simplified of a model, but the political compass is a more granular way of describing political views.
A libertarian-leaning liberal is much more likely to be "hands off" on many issues. Unfortunately it appears that both the left and right have a double heapin' helping of authoritarians that want to legislate what you do as a rule, and in some cases more insidiously, tell you what to think. There are very few true liberals, and quite a few authoritarian cappuccino swilling "nanny staters" who love to preach social engineering and liberal values as long as you agree with their exact version of them.
Maybe, just maybe, the NRA should change its strategy.
According to a piece recently aired on NPR, the NRA is nowhere as influential as they would have people think. I have no opinion on the matter since I haven't read anything in depth on the topic, but the idea is interesting.
As somebody who owns multiple firearms, I keep a loaded six shot
Yes, I know the crux of the issue for many is the ammunition capacity and the easy reload ability, but my point is that crazy will find a way to be crazy, no matter the laws. In addition, I find it unnerving that many of my local police seem to be former high school jocks with a limited amount of training (and no time in the armed forces to compensate for it) and are running around with AR-15 variants in the trunks of their cars. If the M16 and its ilk like the AR15 are war machines, why are they packing them? How often do they engage an active shooter wielding an AK or an AR? Isn't that what SWAT is for?
Now.. if the jerkoffs in the media would quit giving these maniacs so much coverage. What a feedback loop that is.. sigh.
I know guys.. TL;DR
Welcome to being a target... right along with gun owners
Indeed!
I'm not a big fan of Reagan, but this fits:
We must reject the idea that every time a law's broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions. Ronald Reagan
Yet they do not require any skill to kill anybody you wish to, particularly random by passers and elementary school kids.
Apparently they do.
*snicker*
I can make almost anything into a lethal weapon. The only reasonable solution is obviously to ban ME.
Mr. Norris, is that you?
of cowardly, fractional men.
*Smirk*
Is that the best shaming language you have?
You're just like the guy who tried to run me down in the crosswalk in Boston while I was in uniform during the runup to Gulf War I, then stops half a block a way, screams "fuck you" and flips me off through the sunroof.. then takes off when I break into a full sprint after him.
You've got nothing, and your hoplophobia is showing.
You know, even at the NSA there's probably people using the same password on several accounts.
I would be very surprised if the NSA didn't use dual factor authentication. Hell, my ex-wife was an engineer for Sun Microsystems and wherever they went they had an "Enigma Card" (secure token device). I would hope if Sun/Oracle is doing it (love it when they call them "snorkle" now) one would hope that agencies like the NSA is doing it.
Maybe the GCSB will say their methods are secret and can't be disclosed in open court, and the court will dismiss the charges against Dotcom, giving the government a way out. It's happened in the US a few times.
I'm wondering how much of GCSB's equipment and methodologies are genuinely indigenous, versus how much is supplied by larger Echelon nations like the UK and US. It's pretty amazing that a nation of less than five million has a full-blown NSA equivalent. Then again, with manufacturers like this floating around I suppose it has gotten easier.
My bet is on "Hand-crafted workmanship! (we had to manually solder extra jumper wires in these units to fix early production bugs)"
For some reason I hear Ricardo Montalban in the background reading "Hand crafted workmanship.. the highest quality last minute jumpers.. all with the smell of fine Corinthian leather..."
People underestimate low-tech.
What I don't underestimate is the ability of 2nd Infantry Division and the South Koreans to act as a 15 minute speed bump to get the F-16s in the air to knock the living fuck out of their fuel depots, thus limiting their advance. After that the B-2s take over and we ascertain whether we go with dial-a-yield B61s to eliminate the arty wholesale. Make no mistake: part of their initial ordinance mix will be chemical in nature. We only have one leg of the NBC triad left with which to respond, and Saddam wasn't even stupid enough to test us on that.
The short term solution was to reboot the system at regular intervals.
As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality. -- Albert Einstein
