shpxnvz

10 ms·

31.
by shpxnvz 13y ago
It's not as dangerous as people tend to imagine. A bullet will lose sufficient velocity so that it no longer lethal relatively quickly. As an example we can use FBI specs for maximum range of the NATO standard issue M855 cartridge for
32.
by shpxnvz 13y ago
> It's not like a single seat fighter jet where you can ditch the pressurisation gear, you've got to still keep the cargo alive no matter how much noise that they make. Furthermore, my understanding is that modern fighter aircr
33.
by shpxnvz 13y ago
Yes, this is true. It's a violation of federal law to ship to an individual out of state. It is, however, legal to ship to individuals within the state or to FFLs either way. It's very common for firearms purchased over the int
34.
by shpxnvz 13y ago
From the blog post: There are no country restrictions, and only standard restrictions for things like guns, gold, and humans. I'm curious why the restrictions on firearms? The USPS has no restrictions on shipping and insuring firear
35.
by shpxnvz 13y ago
The quote was indeed referring to the government acting as the agent of the majority, if that's the misunderstanding you are referring to. Yes, of course the Constitution is simply a piece of paper. It has no special powers. You can
36.
by shpxnvz 13y ago
> That's certainly not what I understood from the quote. How is the government the majority? In the U.S. the law making branch of the government is comprised of representatives elected by the people. These representatives necessari
37.
by shpxnvz 13y ago
> The only reason you have a constitution is because the "wolves" (the majority) voluntarily and democratically accepts it. No, this is not the case. The power of the majority over the minority is limited by the constitution -
38.
by shpxnvz 13y ago
> Protests serve the same purpose as newspapers, blogs, Facebook pages, Twitter feeds, phone calls, letters, etc: they're for communication. Interesting point. In that respect, isn't the media coverage and outcry on the intern
39.
by shpxnvz 13y ago
> I don't think most Americans would think of the situation in terms of "natural rights." The folks who architected this nation most certainly did, and since they're the ones who devised the sovereignty of the states
40.
by shpxnvz 13y ago
To this American, you are only half right. I fully embrace the same natural rights for all people, regardless of nationality. I think my government is ethically constrained from violating the rights of all individuals, U.S. citizen or not
41.
by shpxnvz 13y ago
I'm curious what purpose you see for protests in a representative democracy? It is not intended that our government make law to suit small groups of very vocal people, but rather that the will of the people be expressed, through equal
42.
by shpxnvz 13y ago
> It seems to entail that somebody who fails their driving exam must still be allowed to drive and that somebody with no training should be able to advertise himself as a surgeon. Yes, it absolutely does. Life as a free person is danger
43.
by shpxnvz 13y ago
Great point and agreed, with one correction. Democracy does not offer any guarantees of freedom, and fortunately we have a constitution which was intended to set limits on encroachment of individual rights. To quote Marvin Simkin, "De
44.
by shpxnvz 13y ago
Ok, thanks. That's good information on the NICS records. It would seem, though, that given the information in the NICS check record and information attainable from a mandatory bound book inspection that the end result would be the per
45.
by shpxnvz 13y ago
> Watching common Americans being abused by their government and corporations for a decade now, with very little that came out of it, except a few protests / shows / petitions - I highly doubt a serious uprising is possible. I
46.
by shpxnvz 13y ago
> You've checked Hughesnet I say this as a former customer... Hughesnet is an absolute joke. Looking past their incompetent installers (who provided me with a major leak in the roof over my kitchen) and their horrible uptime (clou
47.
by shpxnvz 13y ago
Nobody is advocating (and it wasn't the point of my comment) that a situation is setup for that purpose. I think you missed my point. When firemen want to practice they set up a fake fire at a safe location. When paramilitary polic
48.
by shpxnvz 13y ago
In my experience, no, it really does not. Go ahead and try it anyway, though, you may find the process enlightening. There's nothing quite like writing a careful and reasoned argument only to receive an instant canned response that p
49.
by shpxnvz 13y ago
As you mention this is quite common in the U.S. These "high-risk" warrant teams are used all the time for serving narcotics warrants on non-violent offenders. They also commonly get the wrong address or the wrong suspect with tr
50.
by shpxnvz 13y ago
> "such group" needs practice similar to how firemen use controlled fires to practice their skills Firemen don't go around setting people's homes on fire in order to practice putting them out.
51.
by shpxnvz 13y ago
I ask because several FFLs have reported having their local ATF agent bring printouts of their NICS check histories to check against the bound book. If true, clearly someone would have to be holding NICS records and the ATF would have to ha
52.
by shpxnvz 13y ago
As it happens many, if not most, protests are held in locations where carry is heavily restricted if not banned entirely. For example, Washington D.C. effectively has a blanket ban on citizens carrying weapons in public. New York City is
53.
by shpxnvz 13y ago
it's a balance. By preventing people to point guns and make demands (to a certain extent), you (for example) allow for more freedom to walk around at night without a fear of getting mugged. When I say you cannot remove the ability of
54.
by shpxnvz 13y ago
> I can say with certainty that as of 6 years ago, 4473 checks were not retained in any way by the ATF or the federal government. To clarify, are you saying that no government entity retains either the 4473 or the NICS check records, or
55.
by shpxnvz 13y ago
The same goes for illegal extra-judicial killing of citizens... don't think too many figured that it would be resolved by simply publishing a DOJ argument explaining that it's perfectly legal. If any good has come from either of t
56.
by shpxnvz 13y ago
The first part is true; forcible coercion does usurp freedom - and even more so when done by the government. The second part is fallacy; you obviously cannot remove the ability to point a gun (or knife) at someone and make demands, and any
57.
by shpxnvz 13y ago
> I'm still wondering when this idea of defending the people against this type of thing went out the window... The moment it achieved it's intended political goal, I suspect.
58.
by shpxnvz 13y ago
I doubt that the NSA, or the executive branch, or the legislature, will ever be put in a position to have to claim that they've stopped spying. There will be brief outcry, some half-hearted claims by a few in charge that they will look
59.
by shpxnvz 13y ago
He's haggling over your objectively incorrect claim that the police are not knocking down doors without warrants. They clearly are. Whether these cases fits the reasonability test is another matter.
60.
by shpxnvz 13y ago
> Are police knocking down your door without a warrant? If not that's the 4th amendment working as intended. Damn right they are. Exigent circumstances. [1] Police routinely coerce people into consenting to searches during traffic

More ›