Lawrence Wilkerson's dismissive comments about self defense are very disrespectful to people who have had to resort to self defense. He wouldn't say things like that had he been unfortunate enough to have had such a personal experience. (As one parent of a Fla victim said - his child would have given anything for a firearm at the time of the event.)

Re. 2nd amendment, yes, it's not for pure self defense. The reasoning is provided within the text. The government is denied legal powers over gun ownership ('shall not be infringed') in order to preserve the ability of the people to form a civilian paramilitary intended to face [presumably invading] foreign militaries in combat ('militia').

It's important to remember that the U.S. is a republic - so the citizens are literally the state (not in abstract, but actually so). As such, there is very little distinction between self defense and state defense - given that self and state are one.

Personally, I believe any preventative law is a moral non-starter. Conceptually they rely on doling out punishment via rights-denial to all people, because some subset might do harm. Punishment should be reserved for those that trespass on others - violating their domain (body/posessions/etc). Punishment should not be preemptive, simply to satiate the fears/imaginations of persons not affected by those punished. Simply, there should be no laws against private activities among consenting individuals. Folks don't have to like what other folks do, and they don't have to be liked either. It's enough to just leave one another alone in peace.

Re. Fla, the guilty party is dead. People should not abuse government to commit 3rd party trespass onto innocent disliked demographics (gun owners) just to lash out. Going after groups of people out of fear or dislike is unjustified.







---------------------------------------------------




As an aside, the focus on "assault rifles" makes gun control advocates appear not sincere, and rather knee-jerk/emotional. Practically all gun killings utilize pistols.

There are only around 400 or so total rifle deaths per year (for all kinds of rifles combined) - which is almost as many as the people who die each year by falling out of bed (ever considered a bed to be deadly? With 300 million people, even low likelihood events must still happen reasonably often. It's important to keep in mind the likelihood, and not simply the totals.).

Around 10'000 people die each day out of all causes. Realistically, rifles of all sorts, especially assault rifles, are not consequential enough to merit special attention - given the vast ocean of far more deadly things to worry about.

If they were calling for a ban+confiscation of all pistols, with a search of every home and facility in the U.S., then I'd consider the advocates to be at least making sense regarding the objective of reducing gun related death.

Also, since sidearms have less utility in a military application, a pistol ban is less anti-2nd-amendment than an assault rifle ban.







As a technical point, ar15s are not actually assault rifles - they just look like one (m4/m16).
Assault rifles are named after the German Sturm Gewehr (storm rifle). It's a rifle that splits the difference between a sub-machinegun (automatic+pistol ammo) and a battle rifle (uses normal rifle/hunting ammo).

- SMG is easy to control in automatic, but has limited damage. (historical example : ppsh-41)

- Battle rifles do lots of damage, but are hard to control (lots of recoil, using full power hunting ammo). (historical example : AVT-40)

- An 'assault rifle' uses something called an 'intermediate cartridge'. It's a shrunken down, weaker version of hunting ammo. A non-high-power rifle round, that keeps recoil in check when shooting automatic. It's stronger than a pistol, but weaker than a normal rifle. But that weakness makes it controllable in automatic fire. (historical example : StG-44)

- The ar15 has no automatic fire. This defeats the purpose of using weak ammo (automatic controlability). So in effect, it's just a weak normal rifle. (The M4/M16 have automatic, so they can make use of the weak ammo to manage recoil - and they happen to look the same).

Practically speaking, a semi-auto hunting rifle is more lethal. A Remington 7400 with box mag is a world deadlier than an ar15. An M1A looks like a hunting rifle, and is likewise deadlier than an ar15. Neither are viewed as evil or dangerous.

You can also get hunting rifles that shoot intermediate cartridges (eg. Ruger Mini14). The lethality is identical to an ar15, but because it doesn't look black and scary, no one complains.

In practice, what makes the ar15 scary is its appearance. The pistol grip, the adjustable stock, the muzzle device, the black color, all are visual identifiers, and those visuals have become politically more important than what it actually does.

You can see the lack of firearms awareness in the proposed laws - proposed bans focus on those visual features. No pistol grips, no adjustable stocks, etc. Basically a listing of ancillary features that evoke scary appearance, and nothing to do with the core capabilities of a firearm.

What has made the ar15 the most popular rifle in the country, is that it has very good ergonomics, and is very friendly to new shooters. The low recoil doesn't scare new shooters away, and the great customizability makes it like a gun version of a tuner-car.

I think its massive success, popularity, and widespread adoption, have made it the most likely candidate to be used in a shooting. It's cursed to be on-hand whenever events like Fla happen.

-scheherazade

Technically, the constitution allows the "United States" to own land. It does not name the government as an owner.

The government of the United States is not the United States. Being a republic, the United States is its citizens.

The government is a manager/caretaker of state's (people's) property, not an owner of property in and of itself.

Technically, the government doesn't even have any authority of its own. It's strictly a body that executes the state's (people's) will, and it does so by the state's (people's) authority - not its own authority (hence the Democracy part). (Officially, the government does nothing of its own accord - hence why in court it's 'the state vs whoever', not 'the government vs whoever').

So, technically, there is no 'government property' - there is only state (people's) property.

Actually, the reason that 'eminent domain' is 'eminent' (i.e. obvious - aka 'obvious domain') - is because the land has always belonged to the state - because the state is the only authority. You never actually own your personal land, you're simply entitled to be the sole occupant. You can buy/sell that right, but the land always has, does, and always will, belong to the state. So under eminent domain, the land is not actually taken from you, because it never belonged to you, hence why the state's domain is eminent (obvious).

In any case, land has this weirdness to it, where all land is state land, and everyone is the state, and no land is private, and all that ever happens is people are bestowed an authority to exclusively manage/reside on a given plot that they never really own. In any case, that authority ends up being functionally equivalent to actual ownership. The phrase 'if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck' comes to mind, because when you have a body of case law that treats property as if private property actually exists, then in a sense, it does exist for all practical purposes - so there is a disconnect between the practical nature of 'land ownership' and the official/ideological nature of 'the state (the people) having authority over all at all times'.

Also, this is why you can't have an allodial land title in the U.S.. So long as it's still U.S. land, it can never truly be privately owned. It's simply incompatible.

Interestingly, way back when before the U.S. was founded, private ownership of land was associated with monarchy - where some royal(s) individual(ly) literally owned the country. The path of events that eroded royal authority and empowered lower levels of society, was the same path that eroded [true] private land ownership, because it introduced the concept of inherent ownership/rights of some other groups (e.g. the people).

-scheherazade

*backup=[...snipped...]

1) Depends
2) WHY?!?
3) Dunno. It shrinks as girls age, possible it helps keep germs etc out before, you know, anything else might need to go there.
4) The same way as women prolly. Winky Face. I'd wager men have probably _seen_ about as much, or possibly more, hymen (Hang on, plural of hymen? Hymens?) than women given-
a) I don't imagine it's actually that easy for women to see their own hymen - feel free to correct me on this ladies.
b) Gynecology, as indeed almost all of the medical specialist areas, has been the domain of men until recently.

Oh, and I did google it and I don't regret it because of this entry on the wikipedia page:
"In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, medical researchers used the presence of the hymen, or lack thereof, as founding evidence of physical diseases such as "womb-fury", i.e. (female) hysteria. If not cured, womb-fury would, according to these early doctors, result in death."

One wonders what treatment they might have prescribed for WOOOMB-FURY!!!!

given the era, most of his movies are now in the public domain :
https://archive.org/details/movies?and[]=buster%20keaton

Whether you want to or not, I am master of this domain and immune to your impotent attempts to hinder my greatness.

Mess with the best, die like the rest.

*ban


Root Domain Power
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFUaxWXl0zM

I hate it when this happens:

"Please enable Javascript to play this video properly. If you're using NoScript, please whitelist these domains: vid.me, viddme.blob.core.windows.net, d3d22t4ev2lc8b.cloudfront.net, and d1kjvq24a07es4.cloudfront.net

If you're viewing this inside an app with Javascript disabled, follow this link to watch the video: https://vid.me/WaJr"

Oh, I let that domain expire a long time ago. It's dead.

My friend actually filed a patent for this exact system back in 2004, right down to the OLED visors: http://goo.gl/LfDDos

However, the cost of retaining a lawyer and the patent office's recurring fees and drawn out review process bled him dry. Just as he was getting close to finally registering it he fell on hard times and had to put the process on hold. As a result, his patent went into the public domain after 18 months. He was heartbroken and still is, especially now that this video is being shared everywhere.

As much as I love this idea and want to see it become a reality, I can't help but feel like this company got at least some of the details they needed from my friend's patent. It pisses me off that our copyright system screws over small inventors and gives those with plenty of money a free pool of research and hard work.

*return -- had to do some mussing with this to remove the embed code which was triggering a phishing error in Chrome (due to the mindcrap.com domain of the embed).

So, basically, she's not actually talking about how video games need to be more feminist oriented, but rather is more ranting about a website / domain called "Feminist Frequency" that is effectively a group of the college grade "MEN ARE EVIL PIGS" feminists, but hey grew up playing video games.

Actually not a bad read, although it drags in a few places.

*backup=[...snipped...]

https://popcorntime.io/ is live and well and better interface than netflix.

I maintain that piracy is a service problem. Too many licensing and UI issues keep people from going legal. Movies should have an expiration of 15 years after which they should just go into public domain online - would solve a lot of problems, and still give movie companies 90 % of the money they get now without all the extra work.

Believe it or not, we are somehow able to have 100% confidence that there is no malicious content in our own JS code written for us by us, used on our own website, hosted on our own server, and linked via our own domain.

Go figure!