Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 Internet speed test! ×

Comment Regardless of your party (Score 1) 309

To the Democrats: While you were enthralled in supporting deprivation of the 2nd amendment without due process they removed the 4th amendment without due process.

At the end of the day, you won't even have harsh language with which to regain your liberty. You won't even have a whispered critique of disapproval.

To the Republicans: When the total gun ban comes, the bill you just supported will be used against you. They will have all of the data needed to know what you have and which friends are "evil gun owners".

Comment Re:Likely misdemeanor mishandling of classified in (Score 2) 434

Anything she gets will likely be harsher than Karl Rove managed to get for outing Valerie Plame.

All of this has been done before. Complete BS if she gets harsher treatment than the previous administration. I agree that we need to clamp down on the problem, but some retro activity would be nice as well.

User 1 makes a statement that points out an injustice committed by a candidate of Political Party "A".
User 2 jumps in to claim that Political Party "B" had a worse injustice.

This situation plays out the same in comment threads across the internet. Switch the roles either way you want. A or B = Democrat, the other = Republican.
User 2 attempts to marginalize the injustice by claiming that party A did the same thing and received equal or less punishment than what is being suggested this time.

But who wins once the injustice supported by User 1 is carefully stuffed away in the margin? The same pattern will likely be made by User 1 when the roles are reversed. As this pattern continues, the punishment for injustice committed against citizens will only ever be reduced per situation. At best it will be matched.

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

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

"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.


Comment Re:The Real Question (Score 1) 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?

Slashdot Top Deals

The decision doesn't have to be logical; it was unanimous.