Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Watch the total absence (Score 1) 1109

I understand what you're saying. My issue is that you're presenting that profiling Muslims as potential terrorists is racist. Calling someone "brown-skinned" or "cracker" is racist. Treating a Muslim (which are clearly differentiated by their choice of clothing) differently at a checkpoint versus others isn't racist. It's discriminatory to their religion, sure, but not racist.

Comment Re:We need gas control! (Score 1) 1591

Especially when the "peaceful" police force in most American cities are now SWAT-capable, thanks to the funding secured when passing the Patriot Act and creation of Department of Homeland Security. If the peace force can access military-grade, I should be able to also. I face the same dangers they do, and the difference is, they have no duty to protect me.

And if violent crime rates have been declining for 25 years, regardless of gun bans or not, why does my local police need SWAT and automatic rifles?

Comment Re:Don't make him angry. (Score 1) 1591

The 2nd Amendment makes no mention of "hunting" with regards to bearing arms.

And apparently you missed the recent story about the home invasion, where the victim (a woman that never fired the firearm in question) shot the invader 6 times and he still managed to get out of the house and drive away. Maybe if she had 7 he wouldn't have?

Comment Re:New York...Check. (Score 1) 1591

Way to let emotion ruin a rational argument. You do realize that the 2nd Amendment was established by men who knew that a government, unchecked, would naturally turn into tyranny by those intoxicated with power. They set up checks and balances in all of the branches of government like a big rock-paper-scissors game. Think of the 2nd as the fail-safe switch to the checks and balances.

Comment Re:Clearly, this will fix the problem. (Score 1) 1591

A healthy distrust of the government is good for liberty. That doesn't mean one has to hate the gov't or actively try to subvert them - but once you let the government handle your responsibilities for you, it becomes impossible to get it back and very easy for the gov't to abuse the powers given. I'm concerned not just for what this law means, or the intentions behind it, but what it means 15 or 50 years from now. It's a slow erosion of all of our rights.

I don't hate people for not liking guns or not owning them - they're free to not take advantage of their rights (at their own peril) - but I have those rights too, and the ability/means to take advantage of them - and I understand what the 2nd meant regardless of the tripe passed around. Go ahead and give away your rights, but you can give away mine over my dead body.

Comment Re:Why can't we have rational gun control? (Score 1) 1862

The "gun control" lobby's goal is to remove all guns from society - a noble one, and one that I would support if it wasn't a utopic vision of how it could be. In the real world, some people are psychotic and are able to access guns - and most of the time, it's in a way that's already illegal. The CT shooting, for example, the perp stole the firearms and killed the owner with them before going on a spree.

I take a different tact - tinfoil hat on - the 2nd is about keeping the government in check. We are slowly having our rights eroded by more legislation and a more powerful government. Citizens are surveilled without warrant, jailed without charge, property seized without cause - all in the guise of "anti-terrorism". Local police forces all have SWAT teams (comprised mainly of the same "peace" officers) with automatic weapons. The National Guard is deployed in warzones to supplement the volunteer military. I've seen the argument of "what good is your gun against all that" - and that's the point.

I believe, whether or not it's the goal, that all this can be used to subdue the general populace and enslave them. And that's what the 2nd is supposed to fight against. According to many polls, apparently I'm not in the majority (but that's sketchy to believe based on the blatant control of the media machine) - but I believe as a lawful citizen of a sane state of mind I should be able to access the same weaponry as my peace police force. I face the same dangers they do, after all, and the Supreme Court upheld that the police have no duty to protect. Try suing them for a crime committed against you next time it happens, if you don't believe me.

It doesn't mean we should give automatic weapons to citizens either - we could go the other way and remove the ability of law enforcement to have automatic weapons.

Comment Re:I don't understand the "high cap" magazine ban (Score 1) 1862

Not sure where you got the average of 9200 - but the interesting word there is "handgun" - which are not covered under the assault weapon ban.

Only back to 2005, but "other firearms" homicides in the latest year available was 2868, which assumingly includes rifles and long arms. High-capacity magazines will include handguns, but there is no data to back-up having 10 rounds in a handgun is any better than having more than 10.

In fact, the overall homicide rate has been falling over the past 25 years (which includes times with and without the AWB) - and that's why many in Congress agreed that the previous ban had no effect.

Comment Re:Please... (Score 1) 1388

Because when I'm at the range I don't like reloading my magazine every 10 seconds. Because my personal carry firearm was designed to hold more than that. Because I may need more than 3 bullets.

Why do you think having less bullets in a magazine will stop violence? I ask you nicely. Please reply.

FYI - 3 10-round magazines weighs approx. the same as one 30-round magazine when loaded. The only difference is magazine-change time - which is about 5 seconds or less for anyone who has done so more than once.

Slashdot Top Deals

Many people write memos to tell you they have nothing to say.