5 ms·

See also, the famous "Acknowledgements" section in the scsh manual: http://scsh.net/docu/html/man.html http://scsh.net/docu/html/man.html (Also by Olin Shivers)

by Crito 12y ago

LyndsySimon 12y ago
Holy crap. If someone wrote that today, I have no doubt they'd be facing criminal charges. It's dated 10 days before the Assault Weapons Ban went into effect, so it's not like it was before political correctness hit the scene. Gun control was the topic for the left at that moment in history. Now I have to go figure out what happened to this guy.
- maxerickson 12y ago
  I assume this is him: http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/shivers/ http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/shivers/ (Notice that is just the parent folder to the HN link. I don't point it out to be snarky, it's just a pretty strong association...)
  - LyndsySimon 12y ago
    Yeah, I quickly figured out where he is and what's he's doing today - but with no public presence apparent on any of the major sites, I'm going to assume that he's just a private person and doesn't want me snooping around. At least I know he's not rotting under a jail somewhere :)
- vezzy-fnord 12y ago
  Not sure if the firearm he mentioned qualifies under the restrictions of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban. In any event, you are severely underestimating the federal government's general tolerance for "obscenity" and speech that is potentially objectionable. Honestly, if John Waters can get by fine, so can this. Loved the jab at the left, as well. Such a descriptive term.
  - LyndsySimon 12y ago
    > Not sure if the firearm he mentioned qualifies under the restrictions of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban. No, pistols were generally unaffected, with the exception of the 10-round magazine limit. Sigs are generally double-stack pistols, so ten days after that was published he'd have only been able to buy used magazines. > In any event, you are severely underestimating the federal government's general tolerance for "obscenity" and speech that is potentially objectionable. Honestly, if John Waters can get by fine, so can this. It seems to depends on the particular speech and the administration in office at the time, no? I'm quite aware of the theoretical and practical protections offered by the First Amendment, but publishing an implied, detailed threat toward a small group of people you work with today is unwise to say the least. > Loved the jab at the left, as well. Such a descriptive term. I actually meant no offense by it. In 1994, gun control was a core issue for the Democratic Party. It seems readily apparent that "the left" and "the Democratic Party" are nearly synonymous when speaking about elections at the national level.
  - bmelton 12y ago
    > In any event, you are severely underestimating the federal government's general tolerance for "obscenity" and speech that is potentially objectionable. Given that California passed a law allowing for confiscation of firearms as a result of anonymous tips in response to a diatribe not too dissimilar from the one posted, I'd say that's debatable. That said, I agree that Lyndsy overstated the case that the person would _surely_ be in jail, but it isn't terribly implausible either, depending on the locality.

See also, the famous "Acknowledgements" section in the scsh manual: http://scsh.net/docu/html/man.html http://scsh.net/docu/html/man.html (Also by Olin Shivers)

by Crito 12y ago

See also, the famous "Acknowledgements" section in the scsh manual: http://scsh.net/docu/html/man.html http://scsh.net/docu/html/man.html (Also by Olin Shivers)

LyndsySimon 12y ago

Holy crap. If someone wrote that today, I have no doubt they'd be facing criminal charges. It's dated 10 days before the Assault Weapons Ban went into effect, so it's not like it was before political correctness hit the scene. Gun control was the topic for the left at that moment in history. Now I have to go figure out what happened to this guy.

maxerickson 12y ago
I assume this is him: http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/shivers/ http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/shivers/ (Notice that is just the parent folder to the HN link. I don't point it out to be snarky, it's just a pretty strong association...)
- LyndsySimon 12y ago
  Yeah, I quickly figured out where he is and what's he's doing today - but with no public presence apparent on any of the major sites, I'm going to assume that he's just a private person and doesn't want me snooping around. At least I know he's not rotting under a jail somewhere :)
vezzy-fnord 12y ago
Not sure if the firearm he mentioned qualifies under the restrictions of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban. In any event, you are severely underestimating the federal government's general tolerance for "obscenity" and speech that is potentially objectionable. Honestly, if John Waters can get by fine, so can this. Loved the jab at the left, as well. Such a descriptive term.
- LyndsySimon 12y ago
  > Not sure if the firearm he mentioned qualifies under the restrictions of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban. No, pistols were generally unaffected, with the exception of the 10-round magazine limit. Sigs are generally double-stack pistols, so ten days after that was published he'd have only been able to buy used magazines. > In any event, you are severely underestimating the federal government's general tolerance for "obscenity" and speech that is potentially objectionable. Honestly, if John Waters can get by fine, so can this. It seems to depends on the particular speech and the administration in office at the time, no? I'm quite aware of the theoretical and practical protections offered by the First Amendment, but publishing an implied, detailed threat toward a small group of people you work with today is unwise to say the least. > Loved the jab at the left, as well. Such a descriptive term. I actually meant no offense by it. In 1994, gun control was a core issue for the Democratic Party. It seems readily apparent that "the left" and "the Democratic Party" are nearly synonymous when speaking about elections at the national level.
- bmelton 12y ago
  > In any event, you are severely underestimating the federal government's general tolerance for "obscenity" and speech that is potentially objectionable. Given that California passed a law allowing for confiscation of firearms as a result of anonymous tips in response to a diatribe not too dissimilar from the one posted, I'd say that's debatable. That said, I agree that Lyndsy overstated the case that the person would _surely_ be in jail, but it isn't terribly implausible either, depending on the locality.