Followed by a permanent appearance of Michael Crichton on Faux news lying about how this is just like Andromeda Strain or some other hack novel he put together
Then he himself would be causing greater headlines than aliens, seeing as how he died about 4.5 years ago.
If your impression is based on just what you can see driving by at 50 mph on Scott Boulevard (or on Roswell Road, in the case of Sandy Springs) then you don't know WTF you're talking about.
My grandmother lived in Sandy Springs off Johnson's Ferry near Roswell Road my whole life, and I grew up of Roswell Rd near the 120 loop. I know exactly what I'm talking about. Like I said, in Sandy Springs you have older, nicer homes surrounded by horrible run down apartment complexes. Head towards perimeter and Buckhead and yeah, you have mansions. People live in places like Woodstock precisely because they can afford $.5 million homes but want something bigger than a ranch or bungalow. Why pay half a million dollars for an 1800 sq foot 30 year old house when you can buy a brand new 3500sq ft house for the same price? You wold fit in real good with one of my sister's friends who is spending $1400 a month for an 800 sq ft apartment in Brookhaven (just so she can say she lives in Brookhaven) while I pay $1300 a month to rent a 1700 sq ft house out in Woodstock.
Now, I know Google is doing it on a neighborhood basis, so I doubt that most places in these cities won't get it as there are probably not enough people that can afford the $300 up front investment to make a whole neighborhood viable, so it will still be only the rich ones that get this. It just seems to me that picking areas where the income distribution isn't so large would open them up to more customers. Plus it would be much easier to add in fiber to new neighborhoods under construction than existing, older locations; they should have just partnered up with builders and promoted Google fiber already installed in the neighborhood and probably added $5k easy to the house prices.
Congratulations to all the upper-class and upper-middle-class neighborhoods in Atlanta,
College park is a shithole. Most of Decatur and Smyrna isn't much better. Sandy Springs has some nice areas but has really bad ones too. As a 28-year metro Atlanta resident, I am really wondering what Google was going for with this selection, as they could have done much better. Peachtree City, Woodstock, Roswell, places like that with 300k+ houses extremely common makes sense; not areas with horrible infrastructure and full of run down apartment complexes and old (not "nice" old either) houses.
Wouldn't that cut into sports team funding?
Does Johns Hopkins have a sports team? I don't know.
I was being recruited for Hopkins' football team, which was Division III. They are actually well known for their lacrosse team, which is Division I and is one of the top collegiate lacrosse teams in the country.
It doesn't say what new powers he wants.
All of them
Hell, I have a concealed carry permit and I don't even carry my little 7-shot
.22, much less my 15-round 9mm or my AR-15.
I find myself curious about the relationship between your concealed carry permit and your AR-15. Is there any way to actually carry an AR15 "concealed" that fits the definitions in applicable law?
That's the point I was making in that post: there is really no reason for me to carry around my AR-15 in public, and I don't. The only time I'm moving it in public is to go to the range, and I keep it in a case
I really wish people would say "right to marriage".
I'm straight. I'm white. I'm male. I do not have the right to get married. Seriously, I challenge you to find any legal literature anywhere stating I have the right to get married. It doesn't exist. I wish people would quit with the "right to same sex marriage", as that would give unequal rights. You can run with "legalize same sex marriage" all day, and that's fine. Screaming for equal treatment in all aspects of the law is fine as well.
Exaggeration pisses people off and turns them away from your cause when they would otherwise support it. Yes, it sounds better to say "right to marry", but it's a fallacy at all levels, since nobody has the right to marry in the US any more than they have the right to get a driving license.
Marriage comes with it tax breaks, the ability to transfer retirement or pensions to a spouse upon death, and other tangible benefits. The argument is that these benefits are being improperly denied to a subset of the population solely based upon the person they choose to marry. Should marriage only be limited to people of the same race? How about height, or weight, or hair color? No? Because that is discriminatory, arbitrary, and ridiculous. It's not so much a "right to marry" as it is simply a "right" to have access to the same benefits as anyone else to programs and benefits offered by the government.
would someone please post the 2nd amendment, in its entirety, or at least the first part about a State run and organized militia. oh yeah, I forgot, the Constitution and the Bible are only suggestions, not for literal translation.
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
State in the true sense of the word- meaning a nation, not the popular US use, a slightly autonomous defined district whose laws are superceeded by those of a national body. Militia are groups of civilians, armed with their own weapons, who in a time of crisis fight alongside the standing army in the defense of their homes and their communities. Therefore it is intended that civilians should keep weapons so that they can be called up in times of national defense. At most the 2nd Amendment calls for training for gun owners, maybe require them once a month to attend a class (provided free by the government) where they shoot a few rounds to demonstrate basic proficiency in their firearm and review gun safety (exemptions from classes possibly for antique firearms/collectors, or those who would be unable to be called up in a militia by age or physical disability). There you have it: with this proposition every point in the 2nd Amendment is upheld, without any additional limitations than we have already.
You are making the assumption that no one openly carrying can be a threat.
No I'm not. I'm stating the fact that anyone open carrying is someone you know for a fact is armed. I am then arguing that the perosn you know for a fact is armed is less of a potential threat than someone who MIGHT be armed. The greatest threat is always the threat you can't identify.
I don't want to see all the long gun carrying peacocks strutting and getting in my face to remind me of my rights that I don't care about. I don't want to own a gun, but I don't want to stop other people from owning them if they want one and can own it responsibly.
As a gun owner, to me the "long gun carrying peacocks" as you put it are not responsibly owning their firearms. There is no need in society for someone to be walking around with an assault rifle. The first priority in gun ownership and gun safety is responsibility. That means storing them appropriately, always treating them as if they are loaded, don't point them at anything you don't want to shoot, and most importantly, don't treat them as a toy or "accessory". Carrying a firearm in public is supposed to be about personal safety, and unless the local Chipotle or Starbucks have turned as dangerous as Kabul or Mosul, there is no need to be carrying around a long gun in public. Hell, I have a concealed carry permit and I don't even carry my little 7-shot
Because someone *isn't* going to corneal their weapon....
Most gun owners are lawful gun owners. If the law requires open carry, then those carrying openly are probably not a threat to you. Anyone still carrying concealed more likely is. It's like making schools and other places gun free zones: if a person is already planning to commit an illegal act (robbery, murder, etc) then tacking on one more illegal act isn't a big deterrent. The only ones affected by the law are those that actually follow it.
Because a right not exercised is a right lost
Then buy a gun at a local gun store (supporting small local business, yay America!), or if you really feel ambitious, get a CNC machine and 80% milled receiver blank. 3D printing a crappy gun out of cheap plastic that is more likely to hurt the shooter than any target out in public is a publicity stunt that is more likely to increase regulation of home manufactured firearms and 3D printing in general than anything else. This is akin to those idiots who felt the need to walk around with AR-15s and AK-47s slung over their shoulders and go into restaurants and other public places. Rights should be exercised, yes. But the 2nd Amendment is different as it is the only one that should be exercised responsibly, since it is the only one that can actually kill or injure.
It seems to me that there has been a lot of media and public backlash against open carry. I'm not personally affected by open carry at the moment, but I'd be hesitant to visit any state where open carry becomes too prolific. My opinion is simply that when everyone open carries, I will have a harder time discerning who is a threat and who isn't.
You do realize what OPEN carry means, right? It generally means on the hip, outside the clothes, ie. in plain view. As in, you know EXACTLY who is carrying and who isn't. Now, CONCEALED carry is where the firearm is tucked away in a pocket, or a shoulder holster under a jacket, or inside the waistband. Concealed carry is when you don't know who is armed and who isn't. For gun control advocates open carry should be preferable to concealed carry, because you can at least tell who is armed and who isn't.