Sure you can, people do it every day, the law requiring serial numbers on guns was the Gun Control Act of 1968, the reason for the serial number requirement was one of many parts of the act designed to increase the cost of making a gun to remove cheap (and cheaply built) guns from the market so certain recently politically empowered minorities could not afford to own a gun. The major gun makers approved of this since almost all of them had been stamping serial numbers for decades on all but their cheapest models for warranty reasons, etc and they did not like the cheap mostly foreign competition.
I was with you righ up until reasonable regulation, that is the problem regulation is not reasonable, as anyone you should try to regulate disregard the law.
Enjoy a new movie, what is this the 20th century?
Another problem here is that the "working poor" as you refer to them don't tend to buy new cars, and I can tell you from recent personal experience that there is a distinct price premium on higher quality older fuel efficient cars. Last week my son decided it was time to upgrade from his first car, a 17 year old Toyota Camry to a 5 year old Nissan, the Nissan was bought from a private party who is moving out of the country, so the Camry is up for sale on the private market now. In helping him out doing price comparisons, etc. I have spotted a distinct trend where fuel economy seems to be greatly effecting the real world asking / selling prices of older "cheap" cars. With 15+ year old Camry's and similar going for well over "book" value, and similar vintage SUV's etc. going well under, at least in the local market. To put some real numbers on this, a late 90's Camry that gets around 28-29 mpg in good condition is selling in the $2,500 - $3,000 ballpark, where a similar vintage gas guzzler (Ford Crown Vic, Explorer, etc.) is typically a sub $1,500 car even if in great shape. Even pick up trucks which have traditionally retained value better than cars, don't seem to demand the prices that these more fuel effiecent sedans do. This trend also extends into the prices on more recent models such as the 2008 Nissan my son just purchased, however the numbers there are not as dramatic.
I think what we tend to forget is how much of a chore that travel was to people that were walking or traveling by wagon. My paternal grandmother grew up in a what was one of the last frontier areas in the central part of the United States, in the late 1890's the 50 mile wide strip of land in western Louisiana that was disputed territory with Spain prior to the Texas Independence in the 1830's , and remained virtually uninhabited until timber rush of the 1880's. The nearest city of any size was the river / ocean port city of Lake Charles 50 miles away by road or 75 miles indirectly by rail 10 miles away (post 1905). During this time the town she lived in was a booming timber mill town with a couple of thousand people, her father owned one of the two general stores in the town, and would travel to Lake Charles once every 4-6 weeks for supplies., this was usually done by wagon, taking 2 or 3 wagons which his children would help drive. This was a 2 day trip, the first day was spent traveling with the empty wagons to a point where there was a ferry that crossed into Lake Charles on the west bank of the Calcasieu river near the present day town of Moss Bluff, where they would camp out over night in the wagons. Early the following morning her father would take the wagons into to Lake Charles (which had a population of 7,000- 12,000 people at this time) to buy goods, leaving the kids at camp to fix food for the day's travel, and prepare the wagons., they would then set off traveling home with their loaded wagons by mid morning, arriving back home late in the evening. Needless to say such long distance travels were not common for many of the children of the community, and likely few of the adults as well, and this was around the turn of the 20's century, well into the age of steam engines, and around the birth of the automobile..
It is not just willingness to through money at the problem, but to cut through the red tape. At one point in the Manhattan project they needed the use of a large amount of silver (6,000 tons) to build the magnets for one of the Uranium processing plants at Oak Ridge TN (There was a war time shortage of Copper) So they "borrowed it from the U.S. Treasury, a mid level procurement officer went to Washington with a a letter saying a AAA priority war project needed it,...
Wow Slashdot posted an announcement about an upcoming event BEFORE it happened, this has to be a first
The problem is only a tiny fraction of the population understands the issue, and as long as we use terms like metadata and billing records they will not understand. When we talk about this we need to make it clear we are talking about the records that include who, when, and where EVERYONE is when they make or receive a phone call, and WHO they are talking too. As well as the implication for this in a connected society, such as in effect giving the government HISTORICAL tracking of your location any time your carrying a cell phone,
The is pre-Vietnam thinking, what can a bunch of farmers with hundred year old flint locks do againt a modern military...
Also when it comes to those big guns the army has far fewer of them many people think, in the case of the M1 Abrams tank, about 9,000 have been built over the last 33 years, not all of those are in the U.S. or even still in service. Compare this to the number of current NRA members and you are talking hundreds to one, add to it all the NRA converts would have if hostility breaks out and as Stalin said quantity has a quality all its own.
You answer your own question, in countries where it is illegal to have a gun anywhere in public you get an equal concentration of people that are unarmed everywhere. In the U.S. when you have gun free ZONES that makes everyone in them unarmed easy victims for criminals. Take it from the violent criminals point of view, you intend armed robbery against someone and accept that you may have to hurt or kill them to reach your goal. Would you rather pick a place where your victim may be armed or where you know they willl not be. And where the only armed people are uniformed law enforcement that can be easily spotted at a great distance.
So far this thread seems to be about debating the merits of prison rape jokes, and the topic of transgender rights, etc. in general. One thing I do not see, is any discussion about the timing, could this be a legal strategy to avoid military prison, etc.?
Your facts are a bit skewwed, I am not sure about your country, but in the US the standard for a criminal conviction is proof beyond a reasonable doubt that someone commited the crime, and the standard of self defense is if a reaonable person might have felt their life was in danger in a similar circumstance, there is no actual need for their life to be in danger.
The facts shown at trial to the jury are of course not all the facts that we the public know, as things were ruled by the judge as not admissible on both sides, on one side the prosectuion could not tell the jury Zimmerman once had a restraining order sworn against him by an ex girlfriend (he swore one against her too), and on the other the defense could not bring up Martin's history of interest in street fights, general conduct as a teenager, etc.
The highlights of my understanding are:
The events took place on a dark and rainny night in a gated community, Martin was an overnight guest in the community (which some claim make him a resident), there was a history of break ins, mostly being commited by young black men in the area (claims on this vary a little), Zimmerman was part of an anti crime neighbood watch, and was legally carrying a concealed firearm (easy to obtain permit required in Florida), Martin appears to have been out to a nearby store buying candy, and was talking on his phone to a female friend through the first part of the encounter, Zimmerman was on the phone with 911 after observing Martin walking in a way he considered suspisious (this is where the racial profiling allegations come from), possibly looking in windows, walking behind houses, etc, Zimmerman choose to get out of his vehicle and follow Martin while the 911 operator stated that police had been notified, and they "did not need him to follow (martin)", some people want this to read a police officer ordered him not to follow, Martin's phone call with friend ended shortly before the scuffle, friend on phone did not come off as credible witness on the stand, spoke poor english, and her statements changed multiple times when it came to the words Martin used, was VERY confrontational with the lawyers, etc. There was some type of scuffle, there were no eye witnesses at the moment shots were fired, or when the scuffle started, but most witnesses identified Martin as being on top, which agrees with the balistic evidence from the gun shot, Zimmerman claims to have lost track of Martin while following him, then was heading back to his vehicle when Martin ambushed him, there was a fight, Zimmerman was hit in the face at least once, likely multiple times, and had a possible broken nose (no xrays were taken to confirm this), while Martin was on top Zimmermans head was likely beaten into the sidewalk / ground, number of times unknown. Zimmerman fired his gun, killing Martin
On a personal note there were a lot of red herrings in this case, like the lack of DNA on the gun that you mention, In his statement to Police Zimmerman said he fellt Martin reaching down his side toward the gun, no statement of touching the gun was made to the police. Reportedly Zimmerman told a friend Martin grabbed the gun, this may have been embelishment on the part of Zimmerman, but it was not a statement made to police. Also their was question brought up at trail about how the gun was swabbed for DNA. The extent of the injurries in the case were another big red herring, as the legal standard is that person can claim self defense if a reasonable person might feel their life is in danger in similar circumstances. It does not matter the extent of the injuries, just that a reasonable person might think their life is in danger while sustaining them.
Because involuntary manslaughter charges would not have appeased the groups calling for charges to be filed. They would have caused the protests to increase instead
Ok lets get this straight, he never ignored the advice of police, at most he ignored what could reasonably be called an ambiguous statement by a 911 operator. "We don't need you to follow him"
Some people want 911 operator = police, and therefore have the legal weight of a police order, and the words:
"We don't need you to follow him" to read "DO NOT FOLLOW HIM" neither of which are true.