It’s small because it is in language for everyone to understand
and not filled with unneeded verbiage.
Sally is more than a little careless with her rifle.
Barrel first and finger over the trigger.
She had both fingers out and she laid them on both Capt Mike’s
arms, not smart but it’s better than the guy that took a nap
using his shotgun as a arm prop! Very gross video…
Look up “The Darwin Awards” on YouTube.
I can’t read it either, but I get the gist of it.
So, which would have a better chance of preventing these
shootings:
1) More laws.
2) Better education to include teaching of personal responsibility?
It is already illegal to leave a firearm where a person under 18 or
21 can reach it, more laws won’t help. Better education would, such
as replacing that class on pronouns with a class on safety in general,
including firearms safety.
The firearm owners will certainly be punished, but the children will
still be dead. Wouldn’t it have been better to educate all involved
in at least an effort to prevent this from occurring in the first
place? The NRA has an excellent firearms safety course for children
that it offers for free to any school, but meets a lot of resistance
because it’s the “evil NRA”.
It’s better to prevent harm than it is to wait and react to it. The
greatest improvements in the human condition have come about as a
result of individuals acting to improve their own condition, and not
by government programs and laws. We already have so many laws on the
books that a commonly accepted estimate is that the average person
commits three felonies a day.
The more freedom you have, the more responsibility you have and the
more risks you take. Wouldn’t it be better to teach our youth to be
responsible rather than wait for them to act irresponsibly, then
punish them?
In the Wolf Empire, there are few laws on the books because of an
excellent, solidly grounded education and draconian punishments for
those who willfully harm another. People don’t need laws when they
understand the duty and responsibility that accompanies freedom.
Yes, the innocent will always be harmed by the irresponsible, but
the answer is not to limit the freedoms of the responsible.
prime example, when i was in school, and had gun safety.
(we also had a gun range in the middle school). we had no
shootings.. BUT then they removed gun safety, half way
through the year had a shooting (in the parking lot)!
and not school related,. three kids (12 year old’s.)
shot each other. while playing cops and robbers with
loaded .38’s.. no one died..
It surprises me they had a gun range at your school Rob, but
it’s something I’ve been wanting for a long time. Mine only had
archery and dropped that in my sophomore year. I still say the
best way to stop school shootings is to educate, not remove
hand guns.
Use ballistic jell dummies, with bones and blood packs, let kids
see what shooting someone looks like in detail. Also put an end
to school bulling, most school shootings are caused by students
are victims, I’ve noticed every time that’s been asked the question
was avoided. Oh, and stop the media circus that happens, it gives
the ones that want to “go out with a bang” way too attention if
they try it.
We had a gun range in my high school. It was part of the ROTC
building and its primary purpose was to train possible future
Army officers in marksmanship. I live in Texas so of course
we had a gun range on campus. Actually several schools here in
San Antonio had ranges and somehow we never had a problem with
school shootings. Go figure.
Indiana had some stupid crazy gun laws simply because the
murder/shootings were so bad in Gary, when I was a teen it
hit the #1 murder capital of the world. And of course certain
people only looked at the death count not the means. Stabbings
were the cause not shootings. Which was dumb, a box cutter
can cause a bleed-out if used right. It’s like when they band
knives with blades longer than 4″, it’s still a killing weapon.
American Dad hit the nail on the head during an episode, his
daughter got on the anti-gun kick and tried to convince him
that guns were bad and the cause of it all. So he took out his
gun, laid it down and ordered it to kill her, several times until
she blurted out “You have to pick it up!” He said exactly and
put it back and walked away.
it is NOT the ‘laws’.!! it’s the ENFORCEMENT.! it makes no
difference adding new laws,.
IF you Can’t enforce em.
you have to many “Timmy rules.” (“my little timmy would not
do that.”) the career criminal with a mile long wrap sheet,.
but walks every time cuz the lawyer makes him out as a saint.!
or “you are picking on my timmy cuz he is black.” no,, he is
here because he shot a teller in the face,
while robbing the place…
Oh I agree with that, lawyers have too strong a grip on
the legal system. Facts and evidence should determine
the judgment, not the verbal tongue twists they make in
the court room. Lawyers and insurance companies have
way too much power I believe.
Sorry ’bout the paywall. I should never pick the first link …
Personally I think the cases where three year olds should
their parents (or even siblings) are worse.
I can’t imagine having to live with that. Having to grow up
like that.
About the teaching: nice idea. Might work for kids of a certain
age.
Will not work for infants, nor for three or five year olds.
With teenagers it’s problematic, too. (Almost) everyone at one
phase of puberty reaches a point where ANYthing some grown-up
tries to tell you is wrong by default. They’re all just overbearing sissy
who don’t know the first thing about what’s really going on, who won’t
let you do anything, especially won’t let you try anything fun or – what
they call – “dangerous”.
I think that’s just they way things are, and how they should be. At one
point kids have to move on from their parents, and parents will – or at
least should – always try to protect their kids.
for me it was 6.. i was playing with my uncles service revolver..
my mom found me, and taught me gun safety,. (and she shot my
favorite toy to bits.!) my sperm donor was anti-gun..
and at mom’s house, when little brother was 3 an walking,
we taught basic gun safety, “IF you Ever see a gun laying about
GET MOM!!” it worked..
When my wife’s youngest brother was staying with us, he had a classic .45 1911
and I had asked him to not leave it out where my kids could get at it. But he was
16 and like all teens, he didn’t listen. My youngest, who was 5 at the time, grabbed
his gun from the end table where he left it and hid under his bed to play with it.
Thankfully my wife’s elder brother was over visiting and was able to flip over the
bed and grab the gun before something terrible happened. Needless to say I
told the first brother he was out of my house after that.
If he couldn’t follow simple safe storage and use, then no.
He bought it off the same brother that saved my son but
he didn’t explain the safety rules to him, and when I did he
ignored me. Since his ignorance endangered my home and
family I told him to leave. He did apologize years later, but it
was a sore point for us. I own 2 handguns myself, I check the
camber every time I pick one up, and own a hard holster I
keep the ruger in when I go out in the pastures. I keep both
in a locked case in my bedroom and there are no small children
I live with so there’s a huge difference between foolishness
and myself.
About additional laws not making a difference: over here if you have
a gun permit and own a gun you have to keep the thing lock up at all
times and keep the ammunition locked away, too – in a different place
from the guns.
Failing to do so will result in loosing your permit (if it’s found out).
Since people usually don’t apply for a permit if they don’t need it – in fact
you have to name a reason why you’d NEED to have a gun when applying,
most people I know who have guns are pretty to-the-letter about this.
How often has criminalizing an activity improved public safety?
Responsible people were not a problem to begin with.
The irresponsible, or disaffected, will always be a problem.
In my day guns were rare and costly, most street punks carried
baseball bats, knives, taped up auto timing chains etc…
They are so focused on gun and have forgotten that anything sharp
or heavy can kill just as easily, a knife, a piece of pipe, 3 inches of
water, hell, I had one fool try to mug me with a 6 in pipe nipple taped
to a wood block and a rock on a rubber band! Didn’t work of course,
thing blew up in his hand and I laughed while walking away.
just saying,, guns are still costly! over 90% used in crime , are stolen.
go look at the statistics,. number one killer is drugs.. for quite a few years..
but if we ignore that (like everyone else). it’s a toss up of “blunt weapons”
or “stabby weapons”, from year to year…
hammers an kitchen knives,, who knew…
Do the current gun laws in the US insure domestic tranquility?
Yes? No problem.
No? Then all these laws must be changed until they do.
So says the US Constitution. To be more exact the Preamble to the
US Constitution. Considering the Preamble is a statement, one that
everyone has to make to be a citizen of the USA (it can be read
that way), it is clear that this must be done.
But what do I know? I’m not living in the US,
so these words are just ink on a paper for me.
The problem is that no law can “ensure domestic tranquility”. In point of fact the states
and municipalities with the strictest gun laws are the places with the highest murder rates
in the country. Check the stats on shooting deaths in Chicago on a typical weekend. And
yet Illinois and Chicago have some of the toughest gun laws around. It is already illegal
for a person under 18 to purchase a gun but somehow that does not stop minors from
acquiring and carrying firearms – and BRAGGING ABOUT IT on twitter! More laws
would solve nothing. Oh, and misapplying the words of the Preamble to the Constitution
doesn’t make you sound smart. The Preamble was a statement of why the constitution
was enacted. And, in point of fact, as compared to the Articles of Confederation the
Constitution did everything the framers set out to do.
And yet the murder rate in New York City was always way worse than in London. Also, if you
subtract a few major cities – all controlled by one party and all with very strict gun control –
then our murder rate is very similar to Europe’s. Mexico has some of the most dangerous
cities on the planet DESPITE having gun laws Gavin Newsome can only dream about.
Disarming law abiding Americans will do nothing for “domestic tranquility”.
No, you just made it really clear (to me, at least) that you believe that disarming law abiding
Americans would solve our crime problem – i.e. “ensure domestic tranquility”. The U.S. is
much more culturally and ethnically diverse than pretty much any European nation. I suspect
that is, in large part, responsible for our crime rate. In any case disarming Americans would
be impossible. All you would accomplish would be to reduce the number of lawfully kept
firearms and create a new class of felons. It would not affect the illegal gun trade in the slightest.
My initial post was about gun safety in terms of avoiding
accidents.
A few posts down the line I dared to imply, maybe, just maybe
it might not be a bad idea to take guns away from those who
can’t be bothered to handle them safely.
I even related it to similar rules for car licenses (which exists
at least over here): if your behavior shows that you’re not able
to drive responsibly, you eventually forfeit the right to drive.
Like getting caught doing 100mph in a dwelling area, do really
think somebody like that should be allowed to keep their license,
just because they haven’t killed anybody – yet?
And no. That example is extreme, but is not at all unrealistic we
do have cases like those like once every other year.
To be fair: they’re casually standing there, chatting
while they know that some foreigners will be throwing
a big scary bomb at a target close by.
So, maybe gun-safety shouldn’t be their most pressing
concern, but rather how much they could trust those
guys, their calculations and their aiming skills.
Yeah. It’s probably very exiting to have somebody you don’t
really know drop a big “Boom” somewhere near you while
telling you that you’re at a safe distance,
probably.
Just kiddin’, but seriously: they’re either way too chill about
the whole thing, very very trusting – or extremely brave.
They got a count-down from the ones dropping it/them.
I’m guessing they figure they have time. I can’t wait to
see if it’s a god-rod or a series of kinetic missiles.
Yeah. But place your self in their shoes for a moment.
Some guys who invaded your country, who you know for
about all of five minutes, some of whom you never met in
person, tell you they’re only after your not-so-beloved leader,
and that the safe range of their strike should be like 500m.
Would you really take their word for it?
Or would – after you cleared out the area – just keep running for
a bit more. Or maybe – quite a bit more? Just in case?
Just how good really is their intel?
Just how much overkill are they applying?
Sure, they said they’d TRY to minimize civilian casualties – but
where’s the sweet spot between “darn the fucker surived” and
“oops. Sorry, hope you didn’t need that five blocks over there”?
Do you trust them to get it just right?
Do you trust them to score a perfect hit on the first try?
If someone told me “half a km should be fine” – I’m pretty
sure I’d move away way, way past that.
I agree, whether it’s a “god-rod” or a bunker-buster, I’d want at least a half
a mile (1 km apx) away just to be safe. The blast zone from a strong enough hit
to penetrate that much shielding would throw debris very far up and away.
from personal experience.. todays “smart” bunker buster
don’t cause a lot of outside damage.. example: sniper on
9th floor of 12 story building, smart missile got him, but
did not damage floors 8 or 10.. 9 was still livable.. enemy
‘C&C’ was in a museum, next room was a national treasure,
buster leveled the C&C, treasure was not harmed…
I’m glad to see Sally’s excited, I just hope she does it in a respectful
manner, otherwise she may find out that Firecat has a hot temper
I had a hunch Taritha was going to share a copy, you never know they
might like the short laws and the freedom it gives, I just hope they
understand the responsibility too. It would be one hell of a kick in the
junk if the Hammerheads decide to join the Empire…
One can hope…
I was thinking the same thing. If I knew they were coming and knew
what they wanted and intended to use, the skull would be outside with
a big red or white banner over it, in hopes they would go away, or more
likely down in the bunker next to me so they couldn’t kill me from a
distance without destroying it.
“I think he’s a Cat person”? Considering I can tell if a human voice is male or female
without thinking about it unless they have practiced disguising that factor, and that
there have to be more tonal differences between a Human’s pharynx and mouth and
those of a Cat than between human genders in general, and that Cats have been
seen and heard on Imperial TV for years now, I’d think she’d KNOW.
Went shopping, heard a deep-voiced woman arguing
with her child without paying too much attention to
them (only noticed the kid because he was close to
me while the parent was around the corner).
Ran into them again at the counter. Same voice, same
kid. The “woman” actually was a man, beard and all,
even told the kid something about “you mother wouldn’t
like if we bought [whateversweets]” or something like
it
And here’s me, who always thought he’d could tell the
difference.
It can be hard sometimes, when I was young men wore their
hair long and women wore theirs short. I have no room to
talk, at 18 mine was past my shoulders! LOL
I wore a helmet mainly to keep it from slapping me in the eyes.
have you NOT seen the SNL skit of “Pat”.?
and how many times have actors changed
their voices.. the movie “Hook” Glenn Close
was a lost ‘boy’ deck hand…
Granted the book of Imperial constitution and law will be short
and sweet, but, damn, put it on paper large enough and print it
in a typeface that doesn’t require a magnifying glass to read it.
Maybe they put into that tiny a book, just to make a point.
On that note: by the size of it, it’s not really smaller than
the copy of the German constitution we got at school
(which in fact contained two different sets of constitutional
rights, because Bavaria is proud to be different and thus has
to have her own constitution, of course)
So I guess the thing probably is like two pages of actual
legalese and another 200 pages of thoughts and comments
and that guide she mentioned.
just a reminder ,, (short an sweet.)
there is no legalese, it was written in plain english.
it basically says.. (i’m guessing here.)
1) harm none.
2) do unto others, as they would to you.
3) IF you think it is illegal. “IT IS.”
4) when in doubt. ask
Legalese – the formal and technical language of legal
documents that is often hard to understand.
“the typed pages were full of confusing legalese”
thats the Wiki definition.
it is intentionally made to hard, so you have to have
a “lawyer” to understand it.!
Legalese is hard to understand for laymen like us,
but that’s a side effect rather than the intend.
It has to be dated, because normally legal systems
take some time to grow. Thus, in a real world system,
many of the concepts, ideas and even laws are often
centuries old.
It uses strange words, because those have been well
defined meanings.
Non professional, stupid example:
An accused is someone who stands trial because they’re
accused of some crime.
If you called I’m “bad guy” or “crook” – maybe even switching
between these terms, you lose precision.
A bad guy is just somebody who has done something bad or
maybe a bad attitude towards life or maybe just talks in a
way you don’t like.
The defending lawyer could be a “bad guy” or the DA or, heck,
even the judge.
—–
The Empire starts with a clean slate, so maybe they can
get away with a simplified language. But even that will
get near incomprehensible over the next 3-4 hundred years.
And even they would better provide some definitions and
context for the terms they use in their laws.
That’s another reason for writing down the thoughts of the
founders, by the way – or for having interpretative texts IRL,
to give context, to elaborate on the ideas behind the rules.
“That’s another reason for writing down the thoughts of the founders”
That’s all well and good if you subscribe to the (apparently quaint and hopelessly naive) notion
that the founders’ intentions and the meanings of words at the time they were written actually
counts for anything. Lots of highly placed folks today consider the U.S. Constitution to be a
“living document” subject to being interpreted afresh every generation according to whatever
intellectual/ideological fads are popular at the time. There’s a word for interpreting the past
through the lens of current ideology. It’s called “presentism”. In present day U.S. it results in
vilifying the great people of the past and in toppling of many monuments to people once
considered heroes. It also results in abominations such as ” The 1619 Project”.
any document .. is subject to ” interpretation “.!
IE: i have 7 different King James Version Bibles..
4 by the same publisher..
and all of them say different things on certain
passages.. example, how did Able die.. 1 says
beat to death, 4 say a rock, 1 says jaw bone of
an ass, an the last just says Cain slew Able..
SO,, i can’t believe the “One True Bible.”
Just another part of the “Lawyers’ Full Employment” (justice) system. I cannot say anything about
Europe but there is ample evidence that current U.S. laws are written so as to be purposely vague/ambiguous
to allow for selective enforcement by (usually progressive) prosecutors. I have read that most people in the
U.S. (entirely unknowingly/unintentionally) commit at least one felony per day. Robocop would need a full
time T1 connection to a supercomputer to even begin to enforce every applicable law in every situation. It’s
for sure no human could do so! There’s a YouTube channel titled “Audit The Audit” which illustrates just how
woefully ignorant street cops are regarding the laws in their jurisdiction.
Viewed from my side of the pond one possible problem
with your justice system is that many private run prisons
create “a market” for putting people into jail.
A problem with the justice system over here is, that it’s
pretty hard to put somebody into jail, because there’s
tons of mitigating circumstances in favor of the suspect
on top of the extremely high burden of proof on the
prosecution.
On the other hand it’s near impossible to get an in-just
ruling overturned for whatever reason.
Another problem I see with both systems is that your
often better of guilty and acknowledging it than innocent
and thinking “I will receive justice one day, I have to stay
strong!”
If you confessed and showed remorse you will get bnouses
for being such a nice little prisoner.
If you still claim to be innocent after ten years of jail you
will be considered irredeemable.
From the hints PC has given, I figure the constitution would fit
on 2 sheets of legal sized paper, the founders notes maybe
3-4 times that if not more.
Yes I know, I was using a standard size paper to make a point,
it’s easy to figure that one sheet of legal would be 4 pages
(give or take) in that book, which means it would only take
8 – 10 pages (and a few more for revisions) while the rest is
the Founders notes.
TO any/all of the above, they’re all good, they’re all interchangeable, and they all mean the same,
“your ASS is in the danger zone, so get the f**k outta there NOW!”
Different services (Army, Navy, etc), different times, different branches (signal, infantry, etc)
But we’re all brothers from different mothers, we DO understand each other in spite of it all.
I’ve spoken to many vets over the years and for the
most part, the jargon was the same. It’s time not
the service that’s made changes I’m not privy to.
Excluding SF or spec-ops, that was a whole new ball
of wax, I knew better than ask.
It’s small because it is in language for everyone to understand
and not filled with unneeded verbiage.
Sally is more than a little careless with her rifle.
Barrel first and finger over the trigger.
She had both fingers out and she laid them on both Capt Mike’s
arms, not smart but it’s better than the guy that took a nap
using his shotgun as a arm prop! Very gross video…
Look up “The Darwin Awards” on YouTube.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/09/29/american-toddlers-are-still-shooting-people-on-a-weekly-basis-this-year/
Would have liked to have read the piece but it had a paywall and WaPo apparently
doesn’t believe in freebees.
I can’t read it either, but I get the gist of it.
So, which would have a better chance of preventing these
shootings:
1) More laws.
2) Better education to include teaching of personal responsibility?
It is already illegal to leave a firearm where a person under 18 or
21 can reach it, more laws won’t help. Better education would, such
as replacing that class on pronouns with a class on safety in general,
including firearms safety.
The firearm owners will certainly be punished, but the children will
still be dead. Wouldn’t it have been better to educate all involved
in at least an effort to prevent this from occurring in the first
place? The NRA has an excellent firearms safety course for children
that it offers for free to any school, but meets a lot of resistance
because it’s the “evil NRA”.
It’s better to prevent harm than it is to wait and react to it. The
greatest improvements in the human condition have come about as a
result of individuals acting to improve their own condition, and not
by government programs and laws. We already have so many laws on the
books that a commonly accepted estimate is that the average person
commits three felonies a day.
The more freedom you have, the more responsibility you have and the
more risks you take. Wouldn’t it be better to teach our youth to be
responsible rather than wait for them to act irresponsibly, then
punish them?
In the Wolf Empire, there are few laws on the books because of an
excellent, solidly grounded education and draconian punishments for
those who willfully harm another. People don’t need laws when they
understand the duty and responsibility that accompanies freedom.
Yes, the innocent will always be harmed by the irresponsible, but
the answer is not to limit the freedoms of the responsible.
prime example, when i was in school, and had gun safety.
(we also had a gun range in the middle school). we had no
shootings.. BUT then they removed gun safety, half way
through the year had a shooting (in the parking lot)!
and not school related,. three kids (12 year old’s.)
shot each other. while playing cops and robbers with
loaded .38’s.. no one died..
It surprises me they had a gun range at your school Rob, but
it’s something I’ve been wanting for a long time. Mine only had
archery and dropped that in my sophomore year. I still say the
best way to stop school shootings is to educate, not remove
hand guns.
Use ballistic jell dummies, with bones and blood packs, let kids
see what shooting someone looks like in detail. Also put an end
to school bulling, most school shootings are caused by students
are victims, I’ve noticed every time that’s been asked the question
was avoided. Oh, and stop the media circus that happens, it gives
the ones that want to “go out with a bang” way too attention if
they try it.
We had a gun range in my high school. It was part of the ROTC
building and its primary purpose was to train possible future
Army officers in marksmanship. I live in Texas so of course
we had a gun range on campus. Actually several schools here in
San Antonio had ranges and somehow we never had a problem with
school shootings. Go figure.
Indiana had some stupid crazy gun laws simply because the
murder/shootings were so bad in Gary, when I was a teen it
hit the #1 murder capital of the world. And of course certain
people only looked at the death count not the means. Stabbings
were the cause not shootings. Which was dumb, a box cutter
can cause a bleed-out if used right. It’s like when they band
knives with blades longer than 4″, it’s still a killing weapon.
American Dad hit the nail on the head during an episode, his
daughter got on the anti-gun kick and tried to convince him
that guns were bad and the cause of it all. So he took out his
gun, laid it down and ordered it to kill her, several times until
she blurted out “You have to pick it up!” He said exactly and
put it back and walked away.
it is NOT the ‘laws’.!! it’s the ENFORCEMENT.! it makes no
difference adding new laws,.
IF you Can’t enforce em.
you have to many “Timmy rules.” (“my little timmy would not
do that.”) the career criminal with a mile long wrap sheet,.
but walks every time cuz the lawyer makes him out as a saint.!
or “you are picking on my timmy cuz he is black.” no,, he is
here because he shot a teller in the face,
while robbing the place…
Oh I agree with that, lawyers have too strong a grip on
the legal system. Facts and evidence should determine
the judgment, not the verbal tongue twists they make in
the court room. Lawyers and insurance companies have
way too much power I believe.
it was also for JROTC, it was in Nebraska.
and, never had a problem, till After ,, a
Anti- filled in both stair wells with concrete
Sorry ’bout the paywall. I should never pick the first link …
Personally I think the cases where three year olds should
their parents (or even siblings) are worse.
I can’t imagine having to live with that. Having to grow up
like that.
About the teaching: nice idea. Might work for kids of a certain
age.
Will not work for infants, nor for three or five year olds.
With teenagers it’s problematic, too. (Almost) everyone at one
phase of puberty reaches a point where ANYthing some grown-up
tries to tell you is wrong by default. They’re all just overbearing sissy
who don’t know the first thing about what’s really going on, who won’t
let you do anything, especially won’t let you try anything fun or – what
they call – “dangerous”.
I think that’s just they way things are, and how they should be. At one
point kids have to move on from their parents, and parents will – or at
least should – always try to protect their kids.
for me it was 6.. i was playing with my uncles service revolver..
my mom found me, and taught me gun safety,. (and she shot my
favorite toy to bits.!) my sperm donor was anti-gun..
and at mom’s house, when little brother was 3 an walking,
we taught basic gun safety, “IF you Ever see a gun laying about
GET MOM!!” it worked..
When my wife’s youngest brother was staying with us, he had a classic .45 1911
and I had asked him to not leave it out where my kids could get at it. But he was
16 and like all teens, he didn’t listen. My youngest, who was 5 at the time, grabbed
his gun from the end table where he left it and hid under his bed to play with it.
Thankfully my wife’s elder brother was over visiting and was able to flip over the
bed and grab the gun before something terrible happened. Needless to say I
told the first brother he was out of my house after that.
Do YOU think he should’ve been allowed to carry a gun?
Do you think, he was mature enough for this responsibility?
Who decides?
I’d say that’s what rules and laws for. to
define what’s responsible and what’s not.
Of course everybody’s allowed to see this
differently.
If he couldn’t follow simple safe storage and use, then no.
He bought it off the same brother that saved my son but
he didn’t explain the safety rules to him, and when I did he
ignored me. Since his ignorance endangered my home and
family I told him to leave. He did apologize years later, but it
was a sore point for us. I own 2 handguns myself, I check the
camber every time I pick one up, and own a hard holster I
keep the ruger in when I go out in the pastures. I keep both
in a locked case in my bedroom and there are no small children
I live with so there’s a huge difference between foolishness
and myself.
About additional laws not making a difference: over here if you have
a gun permit and own a gun you have to keep the thing lock up at all
times and keep the ammunition locked away, too – in a different place
from the guns.
Failing to do so will result in loosing your permit (if it’s found out).
Since people usually don’t apply for a permit if they don’t need it – in fact
you have to name a reason why you’d NEED to have a gun when applying,
most people I know who have guns are pretty to-the-letter about this.
How often has criminalizing an activity improved public safety?
Responsible people were not a problem to begin with.
The irresponsible, or disaffected, will always be a problem.
We could continue this dance for a while, but it would
not get us anywhere new or interesting.
One clarification tho:
I did NOT “criminalize” anything.
You can’t deal with them responsibly, you lose your
right do own them.
We have similar rules about driver licenses, by the way.
In my day guns were rare and costly, most street punks carried
baseball bats, knives, taped up auto timing chains etc…
They are so focused on gun and have forgotten that anything sharp
or heavy can kill just as easily, a knife, a piece of pipe, 3 inches of
water, hell, I had one fool try to mug me with a 6 in pipe nipple taped
to a wood block and a rock on a rubber band! Didn’t work of course,
thing blew up in his hand and I laughed while walking away.
just saying,, guns are still costly! over 90% used in crime , are stolen.
go look at the statistics,. number one killer is drugs.. for quite a few years..
but if we ignore that (like everyone else). it’s a toss up of “blunt weapons”
or “stabby weapons”, from year to year…
hammers an kitchen knives,, who knew…
Do the current gun laws in the US insure domestic tranquility?
Yes? No problem.
No? Then all these laws must be changed until they do.
So says the US Constitution. To be more exact the Preamble to the
US Constitution. Considering the Preamble is a statement, one that
everyone has to make to be a citizen of the USA (it can be read
that way), it is clear that this must be done.
But what do I know? I’m not living in the US,
so these words are just ink on a paper for me.
The problem is that no law can “ensure domestic tranquility”. In point of fact the states
and municipalities with the strictest gun laws are the places with the highest murder rates
in the country. Check the stats on shooting deaths in Chicago on a typical weekend. And
yet Illinois and Chicago have some of the toughest gun laws around. It is already illegal
for a person under 18 to purchase a gun but somehow that does not stop minors from
acquiring and carrying firearms – and BRAGGING ABOUT IT on twitter! More laws
would solve nothing. Oh, and misapplying the words of the Preamble to the Constitution
doesn’t make you sound smart. The Preamble was a statement of why the constitution
was enacted. And, in point of fact, as compared to the Articles of Confederation the
Constitution did everything the framers set out to do.
Look outside the US, too, please.
I can’t believe that Americans are inherently more violent
then citizens of other nations.
And yet the murder rate in New York City was always way worse than in London. Also, if you
subtract a few major cities – all controlled by one party and all with very strict gun control –
then our murder rate is very similar to Europe’s. Mexico has some of the most dangerous
cities on the planet DESPITE having gun laws Gavin Newsome can only dream about.
Disarming law abiding Americans will do nothing for “domestic tranquility”.
https://what-if.xkcd.com/imgs/a/98/squirrel_2.png
Sorry. Not getting your message there. I’m just a stupid, ornery old American. You’re gonna have to spell it out.
“The topic is getting unpleasant, here have a squirrel”
For reference: this is the context of the above linked image:
https://what-if.xkcd.com/98/
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/murder-rate-by-country
and,, if you discount 3 cities, the US drops almost to the end…
Where’s the numbers without the three cities – an which are they?
Me too stupid to find id in thit dada.
Also: what happens if you remove the “crimiest” cities from other countries, too?
Anyways. I never claimed the USA were especially murderous, did I?
In fact I said almost the exact opposite.
No, you just made it really clear (to me, at least) that you believe that disarming law abiding
Americans would solve our crime problem – i.e. “ensure domestic tranquility”. The U.S. is
much more culturally and ethnically diverse than pretty much any European nation. I suspect
that is, in large part, responsible for our crime rate. In any case disarming Americans would
be impossible. All you would accomplish would be to reduce the number of lawfully kept
firearms and create a new class of felons. It would not affect the illegal gun trade in the slightest.
That’s not what I said either.
My initial post was about gun safety in terms of avoiding
accidents.
A few posts down the line I dared to imply, maybe, just maybe
it might not be a bad idea to take guns away from those who
can’t be bothered to handle them safely.
I even related it to similar rules for car licenses (which exists
at least over here): if your behavior shows that you’re not able
to drive responsibly, you eventually forfeit the right to drive.
Like getting caught doing 100mph in a dwelling area, do really
think somebody like that should be allowed to keep their license,
just because they haven’t killed anybody – yet?
And no. That example is extreme, but is not at all unrealistic we
do have cases like those like once every other year.
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AliensSpeakingEnglish
To be fair: they’re casually standing there, chatting
while they know that some foreigners will be throwing
a big scary bomb at a target close by.
So, maybe gun-safety shouldn’t be their most pressing
concern, but rather how much they could trust those
guys, their calculations and their aiming skills.
To be fair, she IS a little excited.
Yeah. It’s probably very exiting to have somebody you don’t
really know drop a big “Boom” somewhere near you while
telling you that you’re at a safe distance,
probably.
Just kiddin’, but seriously: they’re either way too chill about
the whole thing, very very trusting – or extremely brave.
They got a count-down from the ones dropping it/them.
I’m guessing they figure they have time. I can’t wait to
see if it’s a god-rod or a series of kinetic missiles.
Yeah. But place your self in their shoes for a moment.
Some guys who invaded your country, who you know for
about all of five minutes, some of whom you never met in
person, tell you they’re only after your not-so-beloved leader,
and that the safe range of their strike should be like 500m.
Would you really take their word for it?
Or would – after you cleared out the area – just keep running for
a bit more. Or maybe – quite a bit more? Just in case?
Just how good really is their intel?
Just how much overkill are they applying?
Sure, they said they’d TRY to minimize civilian casualties – but
where’s the sweet spot between “darn the fucker surived” and
“oops. Sorry, hope you didn’t need that five blocks over there”?
Do you trust them to get it just right?
Do you trust them to score a perfect hit on the first try?
If someone told me “half a km should be fine” – I’m pretty
sure I’d move away way, way past that.
I agree, whether it’s a “god-rod” or a bunker-buster, I’d want at least a half
a mile (1 km apx) away just to be safe. The blast zone from a strong enough hit
to penetrate that much shielding would throw debris very far up and away.
from personal experience.. todays “smart” bunker buster
don’t cause a lot of outside damage.. example: sniper on
9th floor of 12 story building, smart missile got him, but
did not damage floors 8 or 10.. 9 was still livable.. enemy
‘C&C’ was in a museum, next room was a national treasure,
buster leveled the C&C, treasure was not harmed…
There’s always examples of “how the hell did you manage to hit THAT!”, tho.
If I was on one of these adjacent floors in your example and had had enough
of a warning, I’d g.t.f.o.
And don’t forget they’re trying to “surgically take out” a target that’s below hundreds
of feet of building and dozens of feet of concrete.
If your calculations are only like 10% off, that’s a lot of excessive energy (and momentum)
that has to go somewhere.
I’m glad to see Sally’s excited, I just hope she does it in a respectful
manner, otherwise she may find out that Firecat has a hot temper
I had a hunch Taritha was going to share a copy, you never know they
might like the short laws and the freedom it gives, I just hope they
understand the responsibility too. It would be one hell of a kick in the
junk if the Hammerheads decide to join the Empire…
One can hope…
I’m hoping they got to the pilots head once the building was clear,
going to be hell to dig her out otherwise.
If she’s in the building, I doubt there’d be much
left to dig out.
I was thinking the same thing. If I knew they were coming and knew
what they wanted and intended to use, the skull would be outside with
a big red or white banner over it, in hopes they would go away, or more
likely down in the bunker next to me so they couldn’t kill me from a
distance without destroying it.
“I think he’s a Cat person”? Considering I can tell if a human voice is male or female
without thinking about it unless they have practiced disguising that factor, and that
there have to be more tonal differences between a Human’s pharynx and mouth and
those of a Cat than between human genders in general, and that Cats have been
seen and heard on Imperial TV for years now, I’d think she’d KNOW.
Funny thing happened to me just yesterday.
Went shopping, heard a deep-voiced woman arguing
with her child without paying too much attention to
them (only noticed the kid because he was close to
me while the parent was around the corner).
Ran into them again at the counter. Same voice, same
kid. The “woman” actually was a man, beard and all,
even told the kid something about “you mother wouldn’t
like if we bought [whateversweets]” or something like
it
And here’s me, who always thought he’d could tell the
difference.
It can be hard sometimes, when I was young men wore their
hair long and women wore theirs short. I have no room to
talk, at 18 mine was past my shoulders! LOL
I wore a helmet mainly to keep it from slapping me in the eyes.
have you NOT seen the SNL skit of “Pat”.?
and how many times have actors changed
their voices.. the movie “Hook” Glenn Close
was a lost ‘boy’ deck hand…
Haven’t seen Hook in a while, and back then I only
saw the German translation.
Granted the book of Imperial constitution and law will be short
and sweet, but, damn, put it on paper large enough and print it
in a typeface that doesn’t require a magnifying glass to read it.
Maybe they put into that tiny a book, just to make a point.
On that note: by the size of it, it’s not really smaller than
the copy of the German constitution we got at school
(which in fact contained two different sets of constitutional
rights, because Bavaria is proud to be different and thus has
to have her own constitution, of course)
So I guess the thing probably is like two pages of actual
legalese and another 200 pages of thoughts and comments
and that guide she mentioned.
Remember, the Federalist Papers are much longer than the Constitution.
just a reminder ,, (short an sweet.)
there is no legalese, it was written in plain english.
it basically says.. (i’m guessing here.)
1) harm none.
2) do unto others, as they would to you.
3) IF you think it is illegal. “IT IS.”
4) when in doubt. ask
Don’t forget cannibalism and rape can mean the death penalty.
More so for child molestation and murder.
“Legalese” actually is, in a way, “plainer” then
basic language.
Natural languages are full of hard to understand
things, stuff that changed meaning centuries ago
and double meanings.
For example, “silly” used to mean “happy” a few
centuries back.
Legalese – the formal and technical language of legal
documents that is often hard to understand.
“the typed pages were full of confusing legalese”
thats the Wiki definition.
it is intentionally made to hard, so you have to have
a “lawyer” to understand it.!
Never attribute to malice ….
Legalese is hard to understand for laymen like us,
but that’s a side effect rather than the intend.
It has to be dated, because normally legal systems
take some time to grow. Thus, in a real world system,
many of the concepts, ideas and even laws are often
centuries old.
It uses strange words, because those have been well
defined meanings.
Non professional, stupid example:
An accused is someone who stands trial because they’re
accused of some crime.
If you called I’m “bad guy” or “crook” – maybe even switching
between these terms, you lose precision.
A bad guy is just somebody who has done something bad or
maybe a bad attitude towards life or maybe just talks in a
way you don’t like.
The defending lawyer could be a “bad guy” or the DA or, heck,
even the judge.
—–
The Empire starts with a clean slate, so maybe they can
get away with a simplified language. But even that will
get near incomprehensible over the next 3-4 hundred years.
And even they would better provide some definitions and
context for the terms they use in their laws.
That’s another reason for writing down the thoughts of the
founders, by the way – or for having interpretative texts IRL,
to give context, to elaborate on the ideas behind the rules.
agree to disagree..
Plus 1!
“That’s another reason for writing down the thoughts of the founders”
That’s all well and good if you subscribe to the (apparently quaint and hopelessly naive) notion
that the founders’ intentions and the meanings of words at the time they were written actually
counts for anything. Lots of highly placed folks today consider the U.S. Constitution to be a
“living document” subject to being interpreted afresh every generation according to whatever
intellectual/ideological fads are popular at the time. There’s a word for interpreting the past
through the lens of current ideology. It’s called “presentism”. In present day U.S. it results in
vilifying the great people of the past and in toppling of many monuments to people once
considered heroes. It also results in abominations such as ” The 1619 Project”.
any document .. is subject to ” interpretation “.!
IE: i have 7 different King James Version Bibles..
4 by the same publisher..
and all of them say different things on certain
passages.. example, how did Able die.. 1 says
beat to death, 4 say a rock, 1 says jaw bone of
an ass, an the last just says Cain slew Able..
SO,, i can’t believe the “One True Bible.”
How many commandments are there, by the way?
Just another part of the “Lawyers’ Full Employment” (justice) system. I cannot say anything about
Europe but there is ample evidence that current U.S. laws are written so as to be purposely vague/ambiguous
to allow for selective enforcement by (usually progressive) prosecutors. I have read that most people in the
U.S. (entirely unknowingly/unintentionally) commit at least one felony per day. Robocop would need a full
time T1 connection to a supercomputer to even begin to enforce every applicable law in every situation. It’s
for sure no human could do so! There’s a YouTube channel titled “Audit The Audit” which illustrates just how
woefully ignorant street cops are regarding the laws in their jurisdiction.
Viewed from my side of the pond one possible problem
with your justice system is that many private run prisons
create “a market” for putting people into jail.
A problem with the justice system over here is, that it’s
pretty hard to put somebody into jail, because there’s
tons of mitigating circumstances in favor of the suspect
on top of the extremely high burden of proof on the
prosecution.
On the other hand it’s near impossible to get an in-just
ruling overturned for whatever reason.
Another problem I see with both systems is that your
often better of guilty and acknowledging it than innocent
and thinking “I will receive justice one day, I have to stay
strong!”
If you confessed and showed remorse you will get bnouses
for being such a nice little prisoner.
If you still claim to be innocent after ten years of jail you
will be considered irredeemable.
From the hints PC has given, I figure the constitution would fit
on 2 sheets of legal sized paper, the founders notes maybe
3-4 times that if not more.
by the way: the pages of that book look way smaller than
the paper format “legal”, more like small paperback novel
size.
Yes I know, I was using a standard size paper to make a point,
it’s easy to figure that one sheet of legal would be 4 pages
(give or take) in that book, which means it would only take
8 – 10 pages (and a few more for revisions) while the rest is
the Founders notes.
Think we’re on the same page here
“Unass the area” should be “unass the a o” (area of operations)
Just when I think I heard all the jargon from my father,
one of you guys give me new stuff heh…
and i knew it as A.O.E.
Area Of Engagement
And too me AE/AOE means spells that do “splash damage” in a MMORPG.
That one I knew, AOE that is, not the unass but it makes sense.
Screams “YOUR ASS IS ON THE LINE SO MOVE IT!”. HEH…
But to be honest, I thought AOE meant “area of effect”, like a shot
gun spread.
TO any/all of the above, they’re all good, they’re all interchangeable, and they all mean the same,
“your ASS is in the danger zone, so get the f**k outta there NOW!”
Different services (Army, Navy, etc), different times, different branches (signal, infantry, etc)
But we’re all brothers from different mothers, we DO understand each other in spite of it all.
I’ve spoken to many vets over the years and for the
most part, the jargon was the same. It’s time not
the service that’s made changes I’m not privy to.
Excluding SF or spec-ops, that was a whole new ball
of wax, I knew better than ask.