They are in California, who knows what lengths the gun hate goes to there.

As a Californian: not enough.

Yes, because disarming law-abiding citizens is a well known and effective tactic to prevent street gangs and Mexican drug cartels who transport whatever they wish across the border from obtaining, possessing, and using guns against those same law-abiding citizens.

Bravo, Sir!

You have single-handedly solved all gun crime!

You win an internets!

Strat

Hey, at least he didn't bite a Pop-Tart into a rough 'L'-shape that could...with a large amount of make-believe...resemble the shape of a pistol! Oh, the horror! Poor kid's name is now likely a permanent entry on the infamous "No-Fly List".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Strat

Simple. Because those in power want the ability to fine & imprison those who threaten the status quo and/or their power & wealth and their continued acquisition & accumulation of same in some way.

"Did you really think we want those laws observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them to be broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against... We're after power and we mean it... There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted - and you create a nation of law-breakers - and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Reardon, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with." - Atlas Shrugged

Strat

Neither is a person who places a firearm in a gun rest and fires it with a string on the trigger for testing purposes.

Arrest warrants all around for the cast and crew of MythBusters, then?

Strat

Sell food and alcohol and are de facto bars/restaurants/nightclubs, for one set of examples, many of which operate at hours when a normal bar is forbidden to operate. Because they are private clubs, not public businesses.

The only real difference is in whose ox is being gored. In this case with Uber/Lyft it is the incestuous relationship between the taxi service industry and the government.

Politicians get quite testy when someone gets between them and their graft & corruption. Despite all the hand-wringing and fake concern they espouse, that is the core of the issue.

Strat

Unless, as is common with automotive electronics, the circuit board containing the transceiver(s) is potted in epoxy and nearly impossible to physically access in such a way as to successfully perform these modifications without destroying it.

When US car makers think about their car's electronic security, their focus is on preventing the owners from being able to repair or alter it themselves.

Strat

What, then, are the prerequisites for being a private club, if filling out an application and paying a membership fee are insufficient? That's pretty much all it takes to join private clubs such as the Elks Lodge and similar clubs who operate private bars. Do they no longer qualify, and has anybody informed them of the change in their status?

Strat

Yeah, I hope that those breaches lit a fire under some people's asses. I was hit by both of them, and more (like 3 or 4) in the span of a year or less.

Cool, thanks for this FAQ too!

Yet, you provide no links to citations.

Auto-correct sucks sometimes. Sorry I did not catch it. Auto-correct insists it's Wiemar. It's not Americans in particular. Thanks for the sweeping generalization, though. Very Progressive of you.

There are more than one group who call themselves Progressives. Why do Europeans fail to realize that their political and ideological groupings and distinctions are not the only ones that exist? It's the same sort of difference that Europeans are so quick to point out between US and European understanding of Left and Right when they claim that Leftists in the US are far to the right of Europeans on the Right.

Here you attempt to define Socialism as those who want to change things "for the better". Better for those in power, perhaps. Better for the common citizen? Hardly. History shows us that socialism assures equal misery for all by setting the "equality" at the lowest common denominator. Socialism and communism have resulted in the largest mass atrocities and acts of genocide the modern world has ever known, far outdoing the Nazis.

The US Progressive movement has no relation to the dictionary definition of progress/progressive that you trotted out.

Here we can mostly agree, although US Progressives themselves scream bloody murder if anyone actually calls them socialists/communists or socialist/communist-like.

*I* am childish and attempt to treat others as inferiors!?!? May I remind you who started the personal attack?

I was not the one who reached for an ad hominem attack in my initial reply and came across as a pseudo-intellectual gasbag with delusions of superiority as you did.

I am done with you, as it's apparent your ego and Euro-superiority complex does not allow you to participate in an honest adult discussion.

Good day, Sir!

Strat

I am a US citizen.

I do not allow nationalistic pride to blind me to reality. The US is well on the way to being a full-blown authoritarian fascist oligarchy.

I am aware. It's no surprise that entrenched interests try to protect their government-enforced monopoly and that the government works to protect it's partners in cronyism. That's pretty much what is happening here in the US regarding Uber/Lyft, nor will it be a surprise when other businesses who depend on government to protect their markets and business models from innovation and competition from newcomers use their partners in government to destroy those who threaten their incestuous relationship.

Strat

It probably won't work, I agree. I was not aware that operating under the existing laws governing private clubs was a "trick". I guess operating within long-established laws is considered a "trick" when it thwarts the Progressive government political agenda. The US government routinely ignores the Rule of Law and does whatever it damned well pleases regardless of laws or the US Constitution that contradict it's position.

The US has for all intents & purposes become the world's largest "banana republic" where the law is whatever those in power say it is on any particular day which suits their current agenda. I guess that's fine if you like living in a banana republic. I do not.

Strat

No, history clearly shows it was the Progressives and their fellow-travelers in the US.

IBM did business with Germany along with others, but "funded Hitler" as in supplying him with large amounts of cash donations as you imply? Fantasy.

The SPD and KPD were socialist and communist political parties respectively, from the former Wiemar Republic.

In the Weimar Republic the left consisted of the Communists (KPD) and the Social Democrats (SPD). The Center consisted of the Democratic party (DDP), the Catholic Center Party (Z) and the Peopleâ(TM)s Party (DVP). The right consisted of the German Nationalist Party (DNVP) and the National Socialist Party (NSDAP-Nazi). Unlike American political parties, German political parties had narrower bases of support generally based on class, occupation and religion. They were therefore less inclined to compromise and more inclined to have programs based on clear sets of ideas (ideologies).

https://www.facinghistory.org/...

They had nothing to do with the US Progressive movement. Unless you're saying US Progressives are actually socialists and communists, which does have more than a grain of truth to it.

That *I* have no idea of!? You spout other people's history-rewriting talking points without any citations and without thinking for yourself.

Go away with your juvenile insults. Adults are talking here.

Strat

You misspelled "Progressives".

It matters not whether there's an (R) or (D) by their name. Progressives believe there is no area of the private sector that could not use more government involvement and control.

Progressives are the reason the US is in the sorry state it is and why individual liberty and private property rights are going the way of the Dodo bird in "the land of the free, home of the brave".

Here's the darling of the Progressive movement, George Bernard Shaw. What he espouses in this video is one of the core beliefs of their ideology. They will deny it as it shows them for who they really are, but this way of thinking is one of the principles at the heart of Progressivism. Progressives cheered for the Nazis and the Italian fascists.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Strat

That's the entire point. It would cease to be a company and become a private club.

Again, you would have to redefine words and terms to get around existing laws in order to attack UberClub/LyftClub.

Which you seem to be OK with.

At least, until it affects something negatively that you specifically care about.

Strat