This article vs. the recent one about a Republican doing something bad, and his party is right there early in the summary.

http://yro.slashdot.org/story/...

Then why don't I get into the gunrunning business? Don't arrest me officer, they were going to get their hands on the weapons some other way anyway.

When Tesla examined the car, they found the fire had not touched the battery, the charging system, or the electrical connectors. In other words, all of the parts of a Tesla that could cause a fire weren't involved in the fire.

Something is fishy about the owner's claim of the fire starting spontaneously in the car.

Most states have enforced seatbelt rules, called, and run campaigns like "Click it or Ticket".

Of course this idiotic violation of the concepts of personal responsibility and liberty was sold to us as "Don't worry, it'll never be a primary offense" as in if you're pulled over for some other reason you may also get a ticket for it. Now it's a primary offense, a reason to pull you over. Just another example of the oppressive nanny-state slippery slope.

FTR, I always wear a seatbelt, as will anybody in my car with me. I oppose this on the grounds of personal liberty, not so I can drive without a seatbelt, which I consider pretty stupid.

Mayors Against Illegal Guns, and most anti-gun groups, want the no-fly list to be a basis for denying gun purchases. They see this as a big loophole, calling it the "Terror Gap."

http://www.mayorsagainstillega...

So flying isn't the only thing that this no-fly list can potentially cause trouble with if its use expands. Next thing you know, being on the list will give free reign for searches without a warrant.

I noticed in the article,

That would seem like a step in the right direction (though I am personally not opposed to the government knowing who is purchasing guns in bulk),

There we go again, the common theme. We fight for your rights, we fight for your privacy, we fight the tiniest encroachment that could potentially dissuade you from exercising a right, or even make it inconvenient to exercise a right! Unless the subject is guns, then fuck your rights.

Make it sound good to the people.

Forget that we are reducing transparency, not enhancing.

It's not a Faraday cage, but lightning does use the skin effect for most of its charge, and thus goes over the surface of the car. However, this doesn't work so well with the huge number of cars on the road with a non-metal skin.

You are usually okay if your car's skin is metal, you don't happen to be touching anything in the interior at the time, and if nothing in the car catches fire due to the strike.

Our subject here is safety, so the better question is "Relative to car miles driven [to account for more gas powered cars], how many people have been injured or killed by gasoline car fires caused by hitting road debris." The answer for Tesla is zero.

Also remember that fire due to road debris is not the only kind of injury. People are actually hurt directly by the debris. That is common for cars, and that trailer hitch the Tesla hit would have ended up in the passenger compartment of a regular car. The answer for Tesla is still zero.

Everything is risk mitigation. Tesla could try to mitigate the risk of Zeus throwing a thunderbolt from the heavens at a Model S, but the risk is so low, and nobody cares about it, so they're not doing it.

As we have seen, there is far less fire risk in a Tesla than in all gasoline-powered cars on the road, so mitigation of that risk shouldn't be a priority either. However, the media has played up the "Electric cars catch fire, duh!" meme so much that this is basically a forced PR move.

just silencing comments that make your faith look bad. demonstrate where your faith made itself look bad.

If they were trying to repeal the 2nd amendment entirely, then yes I would support them

Many in their group are, and they likely are too, but they aren't honest enough to admit it like Congressman Ellison.

If they were trying to take 2nd amendment rights away from a specific class of people (other than the mentally ill and ex-cons), then yes I would support them (the employees).

They are. The class is all law-abiding gun owners. They haven't done much that would affect criminals and the mentally ill.

If they were just supporting background checks and/or banning ridiculous weapons and cartridges, then no.

You mean completely ineffective background checks on person-to-person transfers that will be ignored by criminals, and the most common varminting and target shooting rifles in the most common calibers, then yes.

So basically what we've established is that you are not a proponent of constitutional rights. Just the rights that you like. This is exactly what Eich does.

But would you have supported them in their call, as the OP does the Mozilla employees in theirs?

So when Michael Bloomberg was CEO of Bloomberg LP, or Steve Case head of AOL, they should have been forced to step down because they "actively and publicly contributed to and campaigned for" taking away gun rights from the people. Right?

That would be nice, but I'd be more interested in the prosecutor going after these people with criminal charges under the CFAA.