Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
For the out-of-band Slashdot experience (mostly headlines), follow us on Twitter, or Facebook. ×

Comment: Serialized Part depends on the weapon. (Score 2) 391 391

by Libertarian_Geek (#49834697) Attached to: Making an AR-15 In the <em>Wired</em> San Francisco Office
For some rifles, such as the AR-15, the serialized part is the lower receiver.
For other rifles, such as the SCAR 16 and SCAR17S, the serialized part is the upper receiver.
On a Ruger Mark series pistol, the barrel is the serialized part.

I don't think the author realized that this depends on the weapon.

Comment: Re:Fabricating an assualt rifle in California... (Score 5, Informative) 391 391

by Libertarian_Geek (#49834633) Attached to: Making an AR-15 In the <em>Wired</em> San Francisco Office
Actually:
"Assault Weapon" is the term made-up by gun-control spin doctors.
"Assault Rifle" is a US military term for a fighting rifle in intermediate caliber (not pistol, not long action) capable of full-auto and/or burst fire.

AR-15 is (as you know) not an Assault Rifle.
M4 is an Assault Rifle.
They function differently, but to most folks, they appear exactly the same. This is how gun-control types inject fear, uncertainty and doubt into the debate.

The GCA banned the manufacture of transferable "machine guns" made after May '86.
The GCA, therefore reduces the supply-side of the equation for transferable full-autos. Transferable M-16s cost in excess of $10,000, plus the $200 excise tax to transfer them from one owner to the next.
An individual may legally own a full-auto capable weapon provided that they pass the strict NFA (National Firearms Act) requirements and that the weapon was made before May of '86.

IANAL etc

Comment: Re:Get rid of it (Score 1) 389 389

by Libertarian_Geek (#49784709) Attached to: Obama Asks Congress To Renew 'Patriot Act' Snooping
How do you support your argument that "obama probably had his heart in the right place when he started"?
What information leads you to this conclusion?
It's possible that you feel this way because it gives you an "out" for falling for the facade that Libertarians warned Democrats about prior to electing him.

Comment: Re:Everyone has the files already (Score 1) 312 312

You assume that the answer is more important than the question.
Their end goal is not to produce plastic guns, but to show the futility of restricting guns.
An idea can be both weapon and expression. As a free individual, I have a right to both.

Comment: Re:The Real Question (Score 1) 237 237

Senator Rand Paul, a Republican presidential candidate who has made opposition to overbroad surveillance central to his platform, tweeted: “The phone records of law abiding citizens are none of the NSA’s business! Pleased with the ruling this morning.”

How fast would his attitude towards surveillance change if were elected president?

Are you suggesting that it's best to elect someone who loves overly broad surveillance and despises the 4th amendment?

Comment: Re: Of Course It Is (Score 1) 78 78

by Libertarian_Geek (#49481467) Attached to: GAO Warns FAA of Hacking Threat To Airliners
Are you justifying a bad design (connecting critical flights systems to entertainment systems) by taking the route that a $12 GPS chip and supporting circuitry is too expensive or weighs too much to add a dedicated one to the non-critical systems?

Because every example you just posted could be completed with a 4 ounces and $20 of electronics or less.

Comment: Re:Hillary on e-mail, in 2000 (Score 1) 609 609

by Libertarian_Geek (#49234491) Attached to: Clinton Regrets, But Defends, Use of Family Email Server
Using a private email server for mail doesn't change her status from a government actor to a civilian actor. Her status as a government actor changes the status of her private mail server to a government email account.
If it were otherwise, a government office could rent or borrow property from a private citizen and thereby censor the public's speech on that property.
There is precedent here. Take for example a state office censoring citizens' comments from their Facebook page is unconstitutional censorship. Lawsuits have been won on this doctrine.

Comment: Re:About right (Score 3, Interesting) 246 246

So, armed robbery isn't a violent crime because they were only pretending that they would kill me? I know that the weapon in this case was a BB gun, but someone who uses the threat of violence to get money isn't in the same category as a common thief. If someone pulled a BB gun on me during a robbery, I would attempt to shoot them to save my own life.
1> I have no idea that the BB gun isn't a real gun.
2> Regardless of the criminal's words, I have no knowledge of their real intentions or capabilities beyond what they present to me.
3> I can't take their word that they only want my money, since they've already shown (by threatening my life) that they value life below property.

Comment: Re:Origin of *Species* (Score 1) 249 249

by Libertarian_Geek (#49075915) Attached to: Game Theory Calls Cooperation Into Question

except it's the selfish assholes who equip themselves to guard what they have against anybody else getting it. The selfish assholes survive because they have the keys to the grain silo, everybody else (read: who hasn't got a copy of the key) can go die in a field. Selfish asshole (=selfish gene) survives, the meek inherit the Earth. From six feet beneath it.

Help me understand why it's selfish to protect your stuff but it's compassionate to give away someone else's.

Loan-department manager: "There isn't any fine print. At these interest rates, we don't need it."

Working...