Guns are constructive and pro-peace. People who think otherwise may not have the perspective of ever living in fear or under oppression.

Human nature exists; there are people that for, whatever reason, have poor impulse control, no ethics -- whatever. There are humans who are prone to preying on those whom they feel are weaker.

In the past, the law of nature was simple: the stronger prevailed over the weaker. The youth prevailed over the old. The men subjugated the women.

Ruthlessness, strength, youth, aggressiveness... these things decided the outcome of most human interactions, for most of human history.

The gun changed that.

Put a handgun (or preferably, a carbine) into the hands of both of them, and a 90 year old grandmother can now have a meaningful conflict with an 18 year old 300lb musclehead. The conclusion is no longer foregone. And the musclehead knows it.

Arm the common goodfolks in society, and total violence decreases. Data supports this conclusion.

(to say nothing of the _moral_ imperative that honest people not be denied the use of arms)

The bottom line is this: arming good people reduces the aggregate amount of evil in the world. It turns the history of victimization on its head. The number of bad people who are "more effective" at being evil because of _their_ use of firearms doesn't compare to the amount of good that results from arming the good guys and thereby preventing more victimization, both in better outcomes when victimization is attempted, and from "herd immunity" because thugs are less inclined to attack people who will be harder marks.

Finally, the article summary is especially ignorant for implicating that Ghandi wouldn't 3d print guns.

"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest. If we want the Arms Act to be repealed, if we want to learn the use of arms, here is a golden opportunity. If the middle classes render voluntary help to Government in the hour of its trial, distrust will disappear, and the ban on possessing arms will be withdrawn."

Mohandas K. Gandhi, Autobiography: The Story of My Experiments with Truth, Chapter XXVII, Recruiting Campaign, Page 403, Dover paperback edition, 1983. This book was originally published by Public Affairs Press in 1948.

Actually, you are wrong. In theory, you might expect that what you wrote is correct.

In practice, you're wrong :)

Go take some high performance driving courses. Study the material carefully.

The physics of tire adhesion are quite complicated. In the simulation world, there are a variety of models in use, depending on who you are and what you're doing.

Your car actually doesn't do this in a sufficient sense.

When a road surface is rainy or icy, braking and steering response suffer the most. Acceleration is impacted somewhat.

A common scenario here in North Dakota is that you set your cruise control and are moving along. Everything "feels fine". You go to change lanes or hit the brakes and you realize you are on a low-grip surface. If you know how to handle it you can sometimes make it ok. If you don't, you're in the ditch.

Your car can tell if a wheel starts to spin when under acceleration. But acceleration is the least impacted vehicle input in poor road conditions.

Your car can tell if the motion vector exceeds a certain threshhold and isn't lining up with the steering angle sensor (e.g. a slide is happening)

What your car cannot tell you is that the road conditions have degraded to the point that you need to slow down, and to what speed, to have proper turning and braking capability. All your car can do is respond to loss-of-grip situations that have already happened.

When I drive in unknown conditions I will frequently oscillate the steering wheel and feel how much resistance there is. Less resistance suggests less grip. I'll also ease on to the brake pedal to see if I can induce ABS, to help me understand where the braking limit is.

(Remember, this is north dakota, so there's no one else around for me to upset or scare when I do this stuff :))

I run snow tires on all my winter-driven vehicles. I cannot tell you the number of times I've been driving along the interstate, everything has been fine, and I come over a crest, and there are vehicles in the ditch everywhere. I provide test brake/steering inputs and there is _very little_ grip to be had. Anything other than the slightest/slowest input provokes loss-of-grip. And this is on proper snow tires. The people with bald all-seasons are in the ditch for a reason..

A current car simply can't detect that until you're already sliding/skidding/spinning tires. At which point, it may be too late for the car to recover on a low-grip surface.

I would be more inclined to take you seriously if there wasn't so much about violent retribution and thinly veiled threats of peasant uprisings. I'm not inclined to deal in good faith with someone whos words appear to be, "don't upset us too much, or else you won't like what we do to you".

Now then, you may have something interesting to say lurking under the covers. What is it about capitalism that makes it break civilizations? Are you properly attributing whatever you don't like to its true author, or is something else really responsible? And what alternative do you offer?

The statement you responded to -- the conjecture that the majority are perpetual serfs of a landed class -- you assert that this is already the case. Do you think most Americans feel this way? What factors or metrics do you use to come to this conclusion?

Note that I am very fond of making hyperbolic statements myself, but I find they aren't very useful if someone hasn't previously unpacked your particular world view.

So for instance, I think if you looked at periods in history where there truly was serfdom to land owners, and looked at attitudes/outcomes in those societies and compared them to attitudes/outcomes in modern US society, there'd be quite a large delta. So though I am sympathetic towards claims that, in principle, situation A and situation B are identical even if most people wouldn't see it that way, I'd appreciate it if you could show your work a bit more on these claims.

I drive on several privately built and funded roads every year.

I suppose that when you are very wrong, you can make up for it by appearing to be very angry?

Strawman Argument is made of Straw.

It thankfully isn't happening every day yet. It doesn't need to. It only has to happen "a little" before a reasonable person becomes concerned for their safety.

The problem with claiming that you are a nation of laws is that when agents of the government routinely (even if not every day) break the law and suffer no consequences, you begin to feel that sadly, you are in a nation of rulers and subjects, not a nation with laws, rights, and protections...

do you suck at google?

Here's an especially egregious one:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/arizona-swat-team-cleared-marines-killing/story?id=13842029

How about this one: "first person shooter" - here you can see the events transpire through the eyes of the executioners..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cSfOBPlY2n0

Here's a nice one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wb07-EWfGCg

Oh look! These valliant, competent heros _break into the mayors house_ and kill _his_ dog:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w6P2WATPmjU

Is this what the founders had in mind? I don't think so...

Since you're not an American, perhaps you're not up to speed on some of what goes on here.

The military police assassinating people primarily happens via drug raids. Local police forces now have SWAT teams. I live in a small town (100,000 persons), with some trivial amount of violent crime annually (perhaps 5 murders). Yet in my town there is a SWAT team, and they sortie several times per month. It is to break into peoples homes for drug enforcement.

In many towns in the USA, these raids are done as "no knock", that is, the police just break down the door, early in the morning (5am is a typical time). The pets are almost always killed while the terrified children watch. The father is often killed during these operations, since he, like any reasonable person, acts defensive, sometimes with a weapon ,when people break into his home in the middle of the night.

The police who incorrectly perform these raids against innocent people are NEVER reprimanded. The commanders and other people in the chain of information that cause the raids to go against the wrong address are NEVER reprimanded.

Regarding the president assassinating people: Perhaps you need to be an American to understand _principle_. In the US, there is this cherished principle that people who are not actively in the middle of commiting a crimeare to be arrested, to have a trial, to face their accuser, and so on.

Yet the current doctrine is that the president can say that _anyone_, _anywhere_ in the world is a terrorist -- and by his accusation alone, that person can be assassinated. This is de-facto the _same_ as saying that you don't like the kid down the street. Your ignorance on this matter makes me wonder if _YOU_ have ever lived in a police state. Do you think police state dictators actually say things like "I had him killed because his music sucked?" Of course not. People are killed for very good reasons -- like "undermining the will of the people" or "being a grave danger to the security of our homeland" and all kinds of other such bullshit.

The point isn't that I think Obama is killing people he doesn't like. The point is that he now has created (and used!) the power for himself to do so. And this power will be handed on to the next president, and so on. This is a critical inflection point in American history, and we will look back to this era and woefully mourn what we let these assholes get away with.

And no, you are wrong. No judge is required. The president's cabinet give him a list of targets, and he says yes or no to each one. That's what we know about the process.

Regarding the story in Canada: yes, I am referring to the hate speech tribunals. It is encouraging to hear that they are making token gestures to fix them. It is outrageous that they ever existed at all. Canada does not have free speech in any meaningful sense until these circuses are eliminated.

... then put smurf tube _everywhere_. you don't know what wiring you'll actually want where, but putting in the tube now will be a huge help. When I had all the walls in my house open, I made sure to put smurf tube runs, pull boxes, and low-voltage outlet boxes everywhere I thought I could possible want _something_. Years later, I'm still going back and actually running wire through them, on a strictly as-needed basis. It's nice to be able to run a new cat5e run directly from my basement rack to a 2nd floor bedroom in an hour or two, without cutting anything besides the cat5 cable :)

That said, you won't be able to actually do much for 20k.

It's hard to do a kitchen remodel for 20k unless you do gobs of work by yourself. The first one I did was probably 9k, and I did the tearout, the flooring, electrical, sheetrock, cabinet installs, plumbing, etc, all myself. I got the base model cabinetry from home depot.

I also wouldn't go crazy with TVs. I have 2 fixed displays; 1 in a media room where I can chill out and play video games, or where my wife and I occasionally watch something. there's a big projection screen in there. Then there's a smaller flat panel upstairs in a common area that my kids will use to watch curious George, super-why, etc. We don't have any conventional TV service; I wouldn't bother getting one.

We still have POTS, and POTS handsets and wiring in the house (but its star-wired with cat5e, and rnu back to our patch panel, so we can change to ip if we like)

Honestly wouldn't wire for it at this point; if you're both geeks, I'd put an asterisk box in the wiring closet and then use VOIP handsets in the house. We mostly use DECT handsets where like 3-4 wireless handsets go through one wired base.

My wife watches "her" video content on a laptop. Tablets, laptops, etc are much more convenient for media consumption than fixed devices. My wife watches lots of junk tv via streaming services, while sitting in the bath tub. A tv in our bedroom would be of little use, but might contribute to bad habits...

One thing you might want to do is building a wiring closet and server closet. Make your end-user devices as quiet/fanless/small as possible.

Another thing that will be relevant in a house of your size is having at least one computer or device setup with a "guest "account in a common/public area of the house. Make sure it has access to a good black and white printer. Invariably, your guests will need to login, print their boarding passes, etc, before you kick them out after a few days :)

Well, recent events have demonstrated that the difference still exists in frequency, but the practices of reviled police states have now become acceptable practice in western democracy, which means the difference no longer exists in principle.

In the USA, the president can ask for anyone to be assassinated, and he will get this wish. There is no oversight on this process, and the legal doctrine which creates this power out of thin air is sealed from public review.

Also, in the USA, paramilitary police can now break down the door to your home, assassinate everyone inside, later admit they had the wrong house, and not face any repercussions whatsoever.

In the USA, children are being encouraged to report suspicious activities of their parents to government school employees. Ex-military and persons who profess an interest in the founding legal documents of the country are officially to be considered possible terrorists.

In Canada, if you profess a religious opinion in public which someone finds upsetting, you are hauled into a secret court.

So yeah. The US and Canada haven't quite caught up with former USSR, but we're working hard to get there.

So are you claiming that the accounts are fabricated? Or that someone carefully re-enacted certain of the predictions? Or some mix of the two?

You should read up on some of the prophecies Jesus is claimed to have fulfilled. Some of them involve the year and location of his birth (and indirectly, the length of his life), for instance. Obviously he didn't plan the circumstances of his birth himself (unless he's omnipotent in nature), so if you think he was a real person being talked about by essentially credible accounts, then his parents were in on the scheme also (at minimum). That seems unlikely.

If you do even a rudimentary search on "which prophecies did jesus fulfill" I think it'd be pretty difficult to intentionally fulfill all of them. The list of conspirators would be pretty long.

So in my mind, you would need to go back to assuming that the bible is largely fabricated post-facto.

Sadly, you missed my point. I'm not arguing that democracy results in truth.

First off, the early Christians were a persecuted minority. They did not "go along" with the majority, many of them were jailed or put to death because of their stubborn convictions.

Contrastingly, nobody _at all_ actually thinks FSM is a real entity. Nobody had died on behalf of their convictions that FSM is real.

I did not state that some people beleiving a thing is sufficient for its truth. However, I do imply a different question: is _anybody_ beleiving a thing _necessary_ for its truth? [a tangent we don't need to consider here]

If 100% of the people, upon considering the question of the existance of FSM, including the person who conjectured the existance of FSM -- if 100% of the populace concludes that FSM isn't real --- we don't strictly know if FSM is real or not.

However, irrespective of the truthful or delusional aspects of both entities -- FSM and the Christian God -- one of them has convinced precisely zero followers and the other has convinced billions.

Truthful or delusional, billions of people find the story of the Christian God compelling and true; nobody finds the FSM compelling or true.

They are clearly not comparable propositions.

People who use the same line of reasoning to reject God that they use to reject FSM are engaging in the ultimate strawman argument.

I'd like you to go back to my original 3 buckets in my original mail. Do you think that taxonomy is sufficient, or are there other possibilities I should include?

While it is technically true that there is as much acceptable-to-atheists "proof" of FSM's existance as there is of God's existance, there is one key difference.

Christ claimed, in all seriousness, to be the Son of God. And there are many eye witness accounts of him doing things that other people could not do. Most notably, there are multiple eye-witness acounts of him walking around and talking to people a few days _after he was murdererd_. Some of these accounts come from people who had much to lose from sounding like crazy people and nothing to gain from sharing their testimony.

Many people who were "taken in" by the claims of Christ and became his followers suffered tremendously.

What was the incentive for them to perpetuate a falsehood?

When reading the Bible and considering its truth claims, in my estimation, you must come away with one of these three broad conclusions:

1) the Bible is sufficiently fabricated to mean that most depictions of events are untrustworthy. Little in the book is relevant, from a truth perspective

2) Christ existed, and some of the depictions about what he did were accurate, but he was a magician and a tremendously good one, and was willing to commit his own life and the life of his friends to keeping his magician status secret.

3) Christ was actually exactly who he said he was: The Son of God. People begrudgingly beleive him because, despite mathematically improbable odds, he fulfilled the labyritnth of prophecies that greatly predate him, he performed many earthly miracles over the span of a few short years, and because he ultimately appeared physically to many people after he was publicly executed.

Forget for a moment whatever objections you have regarding the veracity of the claims about the claims. My point is that FSM has no such claims at all.

FSM may very well exist, but he/she/it/them/us hasn't convinced (fooled?) a bunch of people that he/she/it/them/us does.

Yes.

Everything entirely voluntary.

Anything non-voluntary is coercion. Coercion is always immoral.

In fact, democracy is always socialist, since both are the supression of the individual at the whim of some larger group.

The very idea of "majority rules" is socialist.

The US was notably _not_ a democracy. It is interesting that certain of our politicians have claimed otherwise at every possible opportunity.

What is their motive for this obfuscation?