Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:Stuck signal sets (Score 1) 161 161

First of all, we dont believe that you actually stopped at a red light.

What would be the best way to prove that I do stop?

Secondly, do what motorcyclists do and hit the pedestrian cross button.

Please see my reply to zugmeister. Do I need to paste a Google Maps URL showing the problem?

Comment Re:What's the deal? (Score 1) 453 453

You certainly implied it when you claimed it was based on fear. When, really, you know it is no such thing but is about privacy. However, yes - you should bow out now. It will make you feel as if you have some sort of mythical upper-hand and will boost your poor self-esteem and that, really, is important for some folks. I wish you luck.

Comment Re:Obvious deflection. (Score 1) 224 224

You are mentally ill (or were drunk). No. No modern military teaches you to hate the enemy. That would be stupid because the soldiers will realize that the enemy is just like them, just as smart as them, and is fighting for the exact same reason you are. Hating them will cause you to underestimate your enemy. If anything, you want to respect them for so very many reasons including how they will treat you should you become a captive.

No, I am going to stick with you are an idiot actually. It makes more sense, logically.

If you have no direct experience with something then, perhaps, you should avoid attempting to make factual statements about it. What you think, what you feel you know, has absolutely nothing to do with reality. Lesson: Do not be dumb.

Comment Re:Nope... (Score 0) 453 453

True. I am not all that large nor all that small. I dare say I am about average for my height and build, a little heavier than some. I suppose you have no real point and just wanted to discuss our physiques? We can have this discussion if you want but, really, I do not see how it is relevant.

Comment Re:What's the deal? (Score 1) 453 453

Fear vs. privacy... Can't be anything else...

No, some of us not afraid, we're just ornery. I realize you think you have a right to use my property and I will happily cede that right to you but for one thing... You must ask permission. I have acres and acres of land - all open to the public with custom printed signs that encourage folks to make use of it (and to call). However, this chunk is mine. I will still let you use it but you must ask. There is not one legitimate reason for a RC toy to be hovering and returning to film me on my property. I will shoot it and take it to court. I will win and you know it. I *can* afford it. I will set precedent if need be.

Hell, earlier tonight I posted directions to a landmark from my house, follow it in reverse - look for the signs and find the longest driveway on the left, lots of vehicles with a blue BMW sitting outside most of the time - and you are able to come test this theory out if you want. It may take some tries because, honestly, I am far more likely to not even notice it but - on the off chance that I do AND I am able to retrieve a firearm in time, I am going to shoot it. Obviously we can not set this up as a test case. It would be implied permission. So do not tell me if you decide to do this. I'd love to take this to trial. (Actually I'd just pay the fine. You know I am not going to get in any real trouble for it, right? It is not as if I live in the middle of a town.)

Comment Re:Impossible with #6 or lesser shotgun shot (Score 1) 453 453

It was a Remington in your last comment. Nobody would cheat on their Mossberg 500 with *any* Remington. Unless you have one choked and the other is your defense weapon. Given that they are in a safe... They are probably not for defense.

However, I still want to know (they said the same thing in the last thread) who are these people hunting with? If you shoot me and it does not hurt me then, no! I am not going to be okay with that. I may fire back and that is going to escalate quickly.

KGIII (Stupid post limit.)

Comment Re:Another kook (Score 1) 453 453

Using the 2nd Amendment, as written, I think we could make that argument logically. Obviously it is not logical to allow it BUT if we use the 2nd, as written and intended, we could actually argue that. Mind you that this has nothing to do with how it is interpreted and I am not, by any means, suggesting we use SAMs (or any weapon of mass destruction) but, in order to defend ourselves from invaders or from a tyranny we should be allowed to arm ourselves with weapons that are capable of doing so. So, yeah, we could actually get a good legal team on it but it is not going anywhere - ever - as no sane judges would even accept the case as it fails at face value. Well, someone would hear it but it would likely be in Texas and not actually make it past a circuit judge. The supremes would just refuse to hear it no matter how good the argument is. Quite frankly, this is one of the rare cases where I agree that we probably should err on the side of caution as opposed to the spirit of the law or the letter of the law.

Comment Re:Really? (Score 1) 453 453

I agree entirely. I can make that shot easily. I have a slight advantage over most. "First and foremost a Rifleman."

Again, I would make this shot. It would not be gleeful, and I would likely buy the person a new drone (perhaps a nicer one) once the legal dust settled. However, I have no problems facing the courts and think it should be decided. I would take that responsibility in a heartbeat. Incarceration is not an option, really. We all know that. Not for the drone shooting at least - not in this type of situation - and certainly not where I live. Now, he was in a residential section where discharging a firearm is usually illegal. He should face a trial by his peers for such (or a bench trial if he wishes). I do *not* live in a residential area and regularly fire as many rounds as I damned well please.

More realistically? I probably would not even notice the drone. :-/

KGIII (Stupid post count limit... So, AC it is.)

"Mach was the greatest intellectual fraud in the last ten years." "What about X?" "I said `intellectual'." ;login, 9/1990

Working...