Ask Berry College(located in Rome, GA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berry_College ) how their college campus ended up when Florida Rock dug a huge hole on campus property. Though the site was out of site to people on campus, one of the lakes on campus(Victory Lake) almost completely dried up(sink hole) and buildings, some very old(Ford Buildings, paid for by Henry Ford and given continued assistance by the Ford Corporation), started having problems from sink holes, the watertable started to be displaced, and it hurt the college far more than the help Berry College got from Florida Rock.

The rock quarry is now a large lake, which is also extremely deep. Would you fall in(which you should survive the fall), and cannot get out, you will drown and never have your body retrieved. Sadly, this place is well known to be an excellent place(one of a few in the area) to dump a body, or other items you do not want found, or ever retrieved by anyone(including the person that dump the body or item). Yes, Martha Berry would be proud.

https://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2011SE/finalprogram/abstract_183994.htm

There are other buildings that have had problems from the bad decision of Berry Colege's administration. These colleges may end up in a similar situation.

Excise tax is only required when one manufactures or imports more than 50 firearms or related, taxable articles in a given year. If one imports or manufactures 51 firearms or applicable articles, then the excise tax is due on 51 such items.

I will agree with the "subjective and changing" determinations that the ATF comes up with. Why is it that a pistol(less then 16 nch barrel, no shoulder stock, no forward grip, etc) can be converted into a rifle(16 inch barrel or greater, shoulder stock, forward grip, etc), but a rifle cannot be, legally, converted into a pistol? Why is a forward grip, similar to a broom handle design, not allowed on a pistol(that makes it an AOW, or "any other weapon", requiring an initial $200 tax, then a $5 transfer tax afterwards), but a Magpul AFG(angled forward grip) is allowed?

That is just the beginning of the ATF's buffoonery. Don't get me started on the GCA(Gun Control Act of 1968) and what the hell "sporting purpose" is, or should be. It seems like the ATF constantly is faultering one what is "sporting" and what allegedly isn't.

Yes, they can. A FFL(federal firearms license) holder, who has paid the SOT(special Occupation Tax), either the 03(dealer) or 02(dealer/manufacturer; can do both), can sell or manufacturer and sell, all Title II, or NFA(National Frearm Act; suppressors/silencers, short-barreled rifles/shotguns, select-fire or full auto(there is a slight difference) firearms, or any other firearms that are not "destructive devices") firearms and parts/accessories. The caveat is that one needs a demonstration letter from a law enforcement agency and/or the military(not from both, just from the government arm that is requesting the demonstration prior to purchase) to purchase a "post-1986"(Firearm Owner's "Protection" Act), or "dealer sample"(select-fire, or full auto firearm). Manufacturers can produce post samples without a letter, but neither of the SOTs can purchase from a third-party without a demonstration letter, unless the ATF allows an exemption(i.e. dealers going out of business and needing to dump samples/stock).

The SOT costs $1,000, per year, and is cut to $500 for those selling under $500,000 of inventory a year. Of course, you have to have a 01(dealer/gunsmith, which costs $200 when first obtaining, for thre years, then $90 for renewal)) FFL to obtain a 03 SOT. A manufacturer of NFA, or Class II firearms must have a 07(firearms manufacturer, which costs $150 per three years, which makes no sense, as you one can deal on a 07 license) and then may obtain either a 02(manufacturing) SOT or a 03(dealing only) SOT, if the manufacturer doesn't wish to manufacturer Class II, or NFA firearms.

Manufacturers also have to register with the US State Department, pay an annual $2,250 ITAR(International Traffic In Arms Regulation; a ripoff) fee, or seek an exemption, if you are not planning to export. The exemption is possible, but not the easiest act to achieve.

By the way, I possess a 07/02 FFL. I run my business from my home, and I mostly deal in arms for law enforcement, or NFA arms for citizens. I do a little manufacturing, but I mostly do pre-purchase alterations. A 01 FFL runs too much of a risk of being accused of being a manufacturer, if me is not aware of the potential pitfalls and the law. In reality, the laws covering what a 01 and a 07 FFL holder can do is ridiculous and should be altered. Thou, that is another discussion, for another time.

Oh, and, most states have not registration. The ATF is specifically not allowed to enact a registry of firearms and owners by legislation, among other controls. Sadly, the ATF has been skirting these restrictions.

Producing a firearm for personal use is not a "grey" matter. Such production is completely legal, and, in certain instances, can be sold, if it adheres to the law. One cannot build firearms, with the intent to sell, without a 07 FFL(or 02, for NFA arms). Quit spreading false information.

Training people to aim for anything other than centermass is blatantly stupid and a sign that the trainer is bad at his or her job. There is too great a risk that aiming for extremities, especially with rifles that shoot rifle-caliber rounds, will penetrate the intended target, and continue down range. Any respectable firearms instructor knows this.

The problem in this instance is that we have a person intent on committing several crimes that used a common tool commit said crimes. Instead of people blaming the criminal, they want to blame the tool. I'm sorry, but the firearm(s) used is(are) no more to blame than the movies and music is to blame.

Bad things happen. Even if all firearms and bad thoughts were banned, we would still have criminal activity to deal with and still experience the death of people that were innocent of any wrong doing. Oh, but, yeah blame the firearms. And terrorist. PEDOPHILES AND DRUGS!!!!!!111111 TERRORIST!!!!!!

I have carried a firearm, everyday, for the past 12 years. There are hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people that are just like me. Guess how many of us have committed crimes against other people while carrying? None. Oh, but let's draw a correlation between the lawfully amongst us that do carry and the criminals that commit atrocities like above.

Had a few people in that crowd been carrying, the criminal piece of shit would have been dead moments after the canister carrying the smoke breached the doorway(situational awareness is a must, both when carrying and when one doesn't carry a firearm).

Funny that you bring up churches that would refuse to officiate a "union" that, in many religious belief systems, is considered to be a sin and an evil side of our nature. It is funny(well, not that funny) because... http://claytonecramer.blogspot.com/2012/06/elaine-photography-punished-for-failure.html Title is "Elaine Photography Punished For Failure To Photograph Same-Sex "Commitment Ceremony".

So, everyone is supposed to just accept the homosexual lifestyle, but forget about some homosexuals accepting that a private company(actually, any private(i.e. non-government entity) entity) has the right to refuse business to anyone they wish. When someone calls homosexuals (or heterosexuals supporting the cause) out on doing things like this, those people tend to get smeared for being "hatemongers", or worse.

Frankly, I don't care what people do in their private lives. That is between them and God. I have no business judging people, or the issue(s). I just refuse to support the issue of "homosexual marriage" due to the fact that (mainly) I refuse to support causes that attempt to beat me over the head and force me to accept the cause.

Of course, I am against government licensing of marriage(and most other things), so there is that.

My girlfriend is on the road to becoming completely deaf and we have a hard time attending movie theaters, due to her not being able to hear most of the audio in movies. Usually, we just sit away from everyone(or do our best to) and I will put my mouth very close to her better ear and relay the important parts she misses. It is difficult, but we would never dream of forcing movie theaters to provided closed captioning on all movies. Of course, there has been a recent change that has made movies more enjoyable for her.

Many of the theaters around us(metro Atlanta Area) have started to show movies with closed captioning. Usually, the more popular movies will have a special running, on certain days, which will run closed captioning. It is a nice feature and I hope to see more showings in the future.

It would be nice to see a technology that uses glasses to display closed captioning to the view, while they are watching the screen, but not force everyone to view the closed captioning. Of course, closed caption doesn't bother me; it has never bothered me. Still, there are a number of people that get irritated at closed captioning, which forces theaters to forgo offering more closed captioning.

Regardless, closed captioning is not expensive. It is actually extremely cheap these days. Perhaps closed captioning was expensive 10 to 20 years ago, but closed captioning is available cheap, and in many cases, free. Perhaps the formating of movies played in theaters would drive up the costs some, but I doubt that the filmmakers couldn't find cheaper solutions to provide closed captioning, if they wish to do so.

Due to my girlfriend's schedule, we miss a lot of the TV shows that we would like to watch(though, there are not many anymore). We do not have a DVR, so I have to download the episodes we want to watch. It was during the first few times that I started downloading TV shows that I found sites that offer free closed captioning.

The closed captioning is usually provided through .srt files, though there are other formats available. There are add-on programs that are required to make the .srt(or other format) files work with Windows Media Player. There is even a media player(http://www.bsplayer.com/) that will automatically download the closed caption from sites like podnapisi(http://www.podnapisi.net/en), subtitleseeker(www.subtitleseeker.com), and others.

There are times that I might have to download a few .srt files to find subtitles that are synchronized with the media playing. Considering that it is free and that there are people doing this for other, without charge, it is well worth the effort. Of course, Hulu offers closed captioning, but we do not have access to proper broadband to afford streaming Hulu.

I could have sworn that Netflix offered closed captioning, at least on some movies/shows. I remember seeing a Netflix app update that stated that closed captioning was now available, but that was 6 months to 1 year ago, at the very least.

It seems that Apple is avoiding the ADA's angst. All of the movies I have purchased from iTunes do not offer closed captioning. I remembering seeing something in an update that stated Apple would start providing closed captioning, but it has not materialized for any of the content I have already purchased. It would be nice to download the content again with closed captioning included.

I do not believe companies should be forced to offer closed captioning, just like I will not be forced to pay for content my girlfriend and I cannot watch. It is ridiculous that movies and TV shows on DVD/Blu-ray provide closed captioning, but the digital copies do not. If one format offers closed captioning, all of the formats should offer it. Regardless, this is not something that should be forced on companies.

Select-fire firearms are not "basically illegal, or illegal in any sense. The FOPA's(Firearm Owners Protection Act, which is anything but) Hughes Amendment barred civilians from owning select-fire firearms that were registered after May 19, 1986. Only military, law enforcement, Title II dealers(I am one) that have a demonstration letter from a law enforcement agency or military, and Title II manufacturers that are not required to have a letter to create select-fire firearms, are allowed to "own"(dealers and manufacturers have to destroy or sell post samples when giving us their licenses) "post samples"(post May 19, 1986 registered samples).

If you can find and afford the relatively small pool of transferable select-fire firearms, then they are legal to own. You just have to pay the $200 NFA tax, and afford the firearm itself. A MAC10, which is capable of full auto fire, is going to run you about $3,500 and up. A M16/M4/AR-15 select-fire lower will run you $16,000 to $20,000, and up.

Of course, the whole "well regulated" portion of the Second Amendment makes the Hughes Amendment unconstitutional, but that is another argument for another topic.

Would you consider the FN FiveseveN(hint: It is a pistol) to be an "assault weapon"(hint: Only select-fire, those that are capable of firing in a full-automatic state, are "assault weapons", of which I own a few.)? Well, the FiveseveN and the P90/PS90 both use the same round, which is the FN 5.7x28mm round. I know, I know, being able to use the term "assault weapon" just puts the right amount of fear into sheepy public that reads the false information spread by the liars and idiots in our various government and media outlets.

By in large, legal firearm owners have a far better record of obeying the law, especially those that pay for the "poll tax", I mean those that possess licenses/permits to carry firearms in public(which are required by many states' obscene laws; there is no required permit to exercise our First Amendment rights, save for public gatherings, which is also obscene).

We(I am a firearm owner and I have a license to carry, which I do everywhere and everyday) license holders/firearm owners are the "redheaded stepchildren" of the general public and politicians. We get our asses beat every fucking day, with people telling us our "irresponsible" we are. I believe it is time for this to stop.

If there are people out there being irresponsible with firearms, then they need to stop and be called out. Leave the rest of us alone. We are not hurting anyone.

As far as a "good weapon to use" to "take out a crowd of unarmed civilians", any firearm will do. Be it a .22LR NAA revolver, to a 9mm Beretta 92FS, to a .40 Caliber Glock 22, to a .45 Caliber ACP HK USP, give me a few reloads(either a speed reloader for revolvers, or just lose ammo, to magazines for the semi-autos) and I will take out far more civilians than someone else could with such a "menacing" rifle.

I would like to add that an illegal arrest is covered under Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242. If two or more officers are involved, a Section 241 could be brought against the officers as well. That will earn the officer(s) quite a few years in a nice US Government establishment.

Take it from someone who has actual experience as a law enforcement officer(me), probable cause must exist to effect a legal arrest. The only side note to that is that "Reasonable, Articulable Suspicion"(RAS, based off of experience and other factors, which one must be able to articulate) must exist to initiate a "Terry Frisk"(Also covered as "Terry Stop"), per Terry v Ohio. In that ruling, there must be RAS that a crime is about to be committed, is being committed, or has just been committed. Even then, an arrest can only be made when probable cause is discovered; RAS only provides an officer the authority to initiate a "detention".

I was trained, as well as thousands of other officers, that illegal arrest(which are those that lack probable cause) can be resisted with any force necessary(i.e. the minimum needed), up to and including deadly force. That means that, if a police officer comes up to me, having committed no crime and no probable cause existing to the contrary, and attempts to place me under arrest(cessation of free movement), I may use force to resist such an arrest. Should the officer give me no other alternative, either by drawing his or her firearm or using an instrument that could cause great bodily harm or death, I have the option of using deadly force(a firearm, a ball bat, my new karate death move, or whatever) to resist the illegal arrest.

A word of caution: You had better know that you are in the right. If you are wrong and there was evidence that provides probable cause for an arrest, you have just committed numerous crimes. That and you will have a large body of law enforcement officers out to "cease your free movement".

My girlfriend is on the verge of having to get two hearing aids. I can tell you that the insurance company she is covered by(she works for AT&T, if that gives you a hint), hearing aids are not covered. She is looking at $1,500 to $6,000, depending on what devices she chooses.

I am not sure what insurance company covers you, but we need access to it. It is ridiculous that hearing aids are not covered by some, possibly most insurance providered. According to the ENT(Ear, Nose, and Throat) specialist and the audiologist we spoke to, none of the insurance providers in Georgia are covering hearing aids.

I cannot understand why hearing aids are not covered; they are not luxury items. My girlfriend is about a step away from being completely deaf, so we do not have another option on the matter. Either we get her hearing aids, or she has to quit her job and driving.

I have a spinal cord stimulator, for partial pain relief. Once the trial and permanent implant procedures were completed, the medical bills rang in at well over $200,000 USD(the permanent implant itself was $117,000 USD). Now, I do not understand why the insurance companies are willing to pay 50 to 70 percent of those charges, but not cover hearing aids.

While I agree with most of what you are saying, I take issue with the quib about firearm owners. As a firearm owner myself, as well as a member of the NRA(though, not for long), Georgia Carry(www.georgiacarry.org), and an active member of Georgia Packing dot Org(www.georgiapacking.org), I can assure you that we firearm owners are well aware of the abuses of government and its agents. Since firearm owners tend to have more problems, per capita, with law enforcement and the various governments in general, we have to stay abreast of what is happening in government.

What is a growing problem is that more and more people do not understand the rights we, as US citizens, have, as well as the rights and protections we have as citizens of the various states. The adage, "A person is smart. People are dumb..."(Thank you Tommy Lee Jones and Men in Black) tends to be too true. I know we would like to say that that could change, but it never will.

Umm, if that 10% is out coming crimes, then I would rather be called a bigot, than turn a blind eye to crime. All in the name of "political correctness", right?

(Posting this here, as parent has disappeared from my view)

That is an outright lie. Unless exigency circumstances exist, entering a house, without a warrant, would be illegal, unless the property owner gives permission to enter. Do not start creating falsehoods about enforcement and the judicial process in the US to try and make the UK not seem so fucked up.

Not only can law enforcement not enter a home, on the condition that "...a policeman says he *thought*(there is no 'think' in the evidentiary process) he smelt cannabis smoke coming from..." a home, but any necessary(the minimum need) force, upto and including deadly force, could be used to stop such an illegal entry from occurring. I wonder how that would play out in the UK?

Aside from a few irritations(TSA is one), the US seems to be ahead of the UK on freedom. "Initing racial hatred"? Suchs tweets are covered by the First Amendment, in the US.

That is a complete lie. The "stand your ground" laws only codify people's right to protect themselves, without having to try and run away first. Courts have already ruled, in the US, that people do not have to try and run away first, if their lives are actually in danger.

Murder is still murder under these laws. Just as self defense is still self defense. We are waiting to see what occurred in the Zimmerman case.