Most of the left-leaning people I know are not anti-gun per se, they just don't want loonies and criminals to have them.
That doesn't seem to describe anyone proposing gun control legislation currently.
However, even MENTION the possibility of a discussion WRT enacting reasonable legislation in that general direction and on go the tinfoil hats and out flows the froth.
Much the same as people become outraged when you try to have a discussion about legislation to limit free speech, and for the same reason: a knowledge of the history of all such laws and how they are always applied.
Seriously, that's the (circular) discussion. The point of having laws is to hold people to account when they are broken, and to impose penalties for breaking them.
Maybe then we should try actually enforcing the existing laws instead of proposing new ones that don't actually solve any problems.
You can't resolve your social problems by shooting them, you'll have to learn to get along with each other, including that little git over there with the wonky eye who has been looking at you in a funny way. Why is that too much to ask?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Response to: Matt Bennett on Jan 20th, 2016 @ 2:27pm
Actually, I think it's pretty clear you're the one with a screw loose.
I have forfeited my rights as a citizen? Really now? By saying every adult not currently serving in the active military is a member of the militia, and that the second amendment guarantees the individual right to bear arms? Do I offend The Party by not invoking the proper prayers and supplications, Comrade?
To be honest, I started wondering if your response article was satire, considering how you gave him pretty much every choice quote he was looking for from a 'media' personality vis a vis constitutional protections.
If I was Mike Pitts, I'd print your article out and post it on the outside of my office door. Right under a giant Troll Face picture.
Re: Re: Re: Response to: Matt Bennett on Jan 20th, 2016 @ 2:27pm
We don't even have to invoke pseudo-deity figures. The definition of the militia is a matter of federal law. The meaning of the second amendment is a matter of supreme court opinion. Both are exactly the opposite of what the AC I was replying to said.
Anywho, as a recent New Jersey escapee, I feel compelled to point out the Garden State Parkway and the New Jersey Turnpike are actually completely separate entities. To be clear, the Atlantic City Expressway is managed by a third public/private entity, SJTA, and should also not be confused with either of them.
Just giving you a heads up before one of said organizations files suit against you for associating them with the other...
Military drones of the kind that carry weapons are operated under the same rule set as other military aircraft or guided missiles.
No they don't. If they did, there might be less of a problem getting rules adopted. The DoD expressly doesn't want them treated like manned aircraft. In particular, they don't want their "operators" to be required to meet the instrument rating qualifications everyone else has to for flying in controlled airspace. They don't want their guys considered pilots (probably because they'd have to pay them way more).
Having spent several years in labs working on this problem, in my experience the DoD angle is the big reason the FAA is dragging its feet on this. They are really chomping at the bit to fill the sky with military UASes, and there's just honestly no safe way to do it.
I can't believe anyone actually involved in Aviation would ever think AirPooler had a snow flurry's chance in hell of working out. The restrictions on getting compensation for flying people/cargo without a commercial license are very well known and vigorously enforced.
Heck, even the appearance of commercial use is forbidden--see a pilot colleague I knew who rented a car and drove from Boston to Atlantic City International Airport to work on some software (at the airport!), because his company could reimburse him for the car rental but not for a plane rental.
Go listen to the Triangulation interview of Lavar that Leo Laporte did. He detailed (as much as he legally could) the ridiculous lengths he went to try and secure council. He DID immediately hire a lawyer, but then he was summoned to court in DC where that lawyer could not represent him. He was then trapped in a position where he couldn't even discuss the details of his case with potential attorneys and had practically no time to find an alternative.
They stacked the deck against him from the beginning to prevent any chance of getting competent representation.
The Federal Circuit's worship of procedure, and its allowing of flagrantly unconstitutional things to happen because the defense attorney didn't recite the proper magic spell at the appropriate time, is shameful.
No, option B would be bad. If the prosecution has some evidence it used in building its case, it has to give it to the defense. Even though it may not use the evidence at trial, such evidence may have been improperly gathered, meaning anything gathered due to what the prosecution discovered in that initial illegal search is inadmissible.