Probably the best explanation of why guns are an important part of America

[charles052]

Actually... I am on a similar view to this as I am to guns, I am really looking forward to the day when computers are controlling or at least helping to control cars as there are far to many idiots on the road... A better mass transit system would be even better. I do have a higher tolerance for cars as their primary purpose is not to cause harm like it is for guns but I still don't like so many people driving them. But that is really another debate

Sounds like a nightmare to me. My GPS has tried to take me through New York City from Carlisle, PA to Massachusetts. I took I-84 instead and probably saved hours fighting traffic. Computers don't have common sense like people.

But that's another debate.

[james147]

Sounds like a nightmare to me. My GPS has tried to take me through New York City from Carlisle, PA to Massachusetts. I took I-84 instead and probably saved hours fighting traffic. Computers don't have common sense like people.

But that's another debate.

If all cars where automated then a system could be designed so there was no traffic, or at least it would have minimal to no effect. (Think all cars in a queue starting to move at the same time, at the same rate rather then the first car starting then ever second the car behind it starting. And being able to know where the queues are so they can be avoided).

And GPS deceives are only as good as their manufacturers make them, obviously automated cars would be much better programmed.

FYI automated cars do exist (Google has been developing them for years) and are now legal to drive (erm, not drive? be driven?.. em.. drive them selves with out a driver...) in some states (Tip, their number plates are red). To date I do not think any of them have been in a collision that did not involve the unmanned car being stopped (ie someone crashing into it).

[bsniadajewski]

@HE & tek_heretik

ROFLMFAO!

[tek_heretik]

@claydough...if I didn't know any better, I would say you are making fun of my sig, lol

"MY SYSTEM:
Type: Yes, I can do about 20 wpm
Ram: No, I prefer an F150
Screen: I don't pick up if I don't know you
CPU: middling, it crunches the bits
Hard Drive: No, it's floppy. I am lazy.
GPU: makes stuff show on my screen
Case: laptop, silly. Does have a sticker or 2
Fan: Well, I like it
Dock: Hickory Dickory (mouse, get it?)"

Edit: I like the bit crunching part, that's funny.

[charles052]

If all cars where automated then a system could be designed so there was no traffic, or at least it would have minimal to no effect. (Think all cars in a queue starting to move at the same time, at the same rate rather then the first car starting then ever second the car behind it starting. And being able to know where the queues are so they can be avoided).

And GPS deceives are only as good as their manufacturers make them, obviously automated cars would be much better programmed.

FYI automated cars do exist (Google has been developing them for years) and are now legal to drive (erm, not drive? be driven?.. em.. drive them selves with out a driver...) in some states (Tip, their number plates are red). To date I do not think any of them have been in a collision that did not involve the unmanned car being stopped (ie someone crashing into it).

If you say so. I cannot imagine such a system that couldn't be tampered with.

[jpenguin]

[tek_heretik]

@jpenguin, that pretty much sums it up.

[GreyGeek]

If all cars where automated then a system could be designed so there was no traffic, ....

I agree. I wasn't jesting when I mentioned automobiles. All the nations of the world are striving to reach the standard of living in the 1st world countries, which means that a lot of people would want to own personal cars. That would put a huge strain on the worlds resources, even if we used plastic to make the cars and printed them on printers, and woud require that we recycled CO2 from the air using Solar collectors for energy.

Have you ever sat at a stop light as the 10th or 12 car in line, and noticed that the lead car usually waits 2 or 3 seconds after the light turns to be sure no one on the red is trying to run the light, then the 2nd car waits a couple seconds for the 1st car, etc., for 15 cars. The 15th car could be waiting 45 seconds or longer before they are able to move, and another 5 or more seconds before they enter and pass through the intersection. IF cars in the que were synced with computers and GPS they all could begin moving at the same time, triggered by the light itself, without any waiting. Cars stopped at the red couldn't run the light because the people on board aren't controlling the car. All they did was enter their destination and swipe their debit card.

But, if a dozen or more cars are moving in co-ordination that's a dozen or more engines pulling a lot of unnecessary metal and stuff. One engine pulling a bus that can hold 50 people would be more economical, especially if it is burning recycled CO2 or Hydrogen.

I was born in 1941. When I was about 6 I often ran down to Broadway and Cornell to wait for the Electric streetcar that ran the route from the heart of Englewood to the hear to Denver, so that I could walk back home with my dad. Those streetcars ran every 30 minutes and were so regular you could almost use them to set your watch. Seeing the trolleyman taking a wooden pole and resetting a pickup-up, hearing the snap of electricity and smelling the Ozone from the brushes on the electric motors -- all fond memories of my childhood. This is what the trolley I rode looked like. It was yellow.

In 1950 diesel buses replaced the electric trolleys. They smoked badly and were noisy. The ride wasn't as smooth, and as more people bought cars the time between buses stretched from 30, to 45 then 1 hour. And, instead of starting their runs at 4AM and stopping at 11PM they started at 6AM and stopped at 8PM. I found out in 2009, when going through memorabilia from my 50 year Sr class reunion, that a Denver councilman who owned several GM automobile franchises was bribed by GM to vote to replace the trolleys with buses. GM was also doing the same thing on both coasts and in Congress.

Although the trolley service ended in 1950, it took till 1971 for the final pieces of the "Denver Tramway Company" to be sold to the city of Denver, and another 3 years for the "Regional Transportation District" to be created, and another 20 years for the first "Light rail service (subways mostly) to get into service.

With the current economic troubles I doubt that rails in any form will be able to return to service in any significant numbers. We may even be going back to bicycles and horses.

[james147]

I agree. I wasn't jesting when I mentioned automobiles. All the nations of the world are striving to reach the standard of living in the 1st world countries, which means that a lot of people would want to own personal cars. That would put a huge strain on the worlds resources, even if we used plastic to make the cars and printed them on printers, and woud require that we recycled CO2 from the air using Solar collectors for energy.

Solar collectors are very inefficient at the moment, great as a supplicant energy supply but wont be able to replace other sources for a very long time if ever.

Did you know that you can now grow CO2 neutral patrol? Scientists have found a way to grow bacteria that takes in nutrients and CO2 from the air and produce petrol, so any CO2 that is emitted by burning the fuel is just going back where it came from making it a completely CO2 neutral fuel. Another great thing is they are just bacteria, so you can grow as much as you need.

This is better then other bio fuels as you don't need large areas and allot of time to grow a crop, harvest it and refine it into fuel... you just collect the fuel the bacteria produce.

Have you ever sat at a stop light as the 10th or 12 car in line, and noticed that the lead car usually waits 2 or 3 seconds after the light turns to be sure no one on the red is trying to run the light, then the 2nd car waits a couple seconds for the 1st car, etc., for 15 cars. The 15th car could be waiting 45 seconds or longer before they are able to move, and another 5 or more seconds before they enter and pass through the intersection. IF cars in the que were synced with computers and GPS they all could begin moving at the same time, triggered by the light itself, without any waiting. Cars stopped at the red couldn't run the light because the people on board aren't controlling the car. All they did was enter their destination and swipe their debit card.

If cars where all automated they would not be a big need for tragic lights. Saw a simulation once of a load of cars crossing a crossroad without the need to stop or slow down as they where able calculate where each car was going to be and avoid them.... but this is decades off even being a viable solution and first we would need all cars to be completely automated which is also many decades away.

But, if a dozen or more cars are moving in co-ordination that's a dozen or more engines pulling a lot of unnecessary metal and stuff. One engine pulling a bus that can hold 50 people would be more economical, especially if it is burning recycled CO2 or Hydrogen.

The one problem with busses is they are much less convenient what would be cool would be modular cars that can each drive them selves, but can join together to help pull each other and split up when needed.

With the current economic troubles I doubt that rails in any form will be able to return to service in any significant numbers. We may even be going back to bicycles and horses.

I am seeing allot more people on bikes then I use to. Seems to be very common nowadays.

[GreyGeek]

Solar collectors are very inefficient at the moment, great as a supplicant energy supply but wont be able to replace other sources for a very long time if ever.

Multi-specteral photovoltaics are approaching theoretical maximum inefficiencies, i.e., roughly 41%. Now, they have to learn how to make them cheaply. I suspect that they will within a few years. There is even versions that can be economically painted onto large surfaces, but the painted version is only 8-10% efficient. However, because the paint is so cheap and can be painted onto large areas it may prove even better.

Did you know that you can now grow CO2 neutral patrol? Scientists have found a way to grow bacteria that takes in nutrients and CO2 from the air and produce petrol, so any CO2 that is emitted by burning the fuel is just going back where it came from making it a completely CO2 neutral fuel. Another great thing is they are just bacteria, so you can grow as much as you need.

This is better then other bio fuels as you don't need large areas and allot of time to grow a crop, harvest it and refine it into fuel... you just collect the fuel the bacteria produce.

Ya, I've read that. They are also doing that with a particular, genetically modified algae as well, but it is still a form of solar energy and no more energy can be harvested than that which falls on the algae.

If cars where all automated they would not be a big need for tragic lights. Saw a simulation once of a load of cars crossing a crossroad without the need to stop or slow down as they where able calculate where each car was going to be and avoid them.... but this is decades off even being a viable solution and first we would need all cars to be completely automated which is also many decades away.

I saw that video as well. It was what I had in mind when I wrote what I did.

I am seeing allot more people on bikes then I use to. Seems to be very common nowadays.

Here as well. I used to ride a bike to work, which was 3.5 miles away. Because I could take bike paths and short cuts I could ride my bike home as fast as I could drive my car home. With my car I had to go the long way. I stopped riding the bike when I got hit by a pickup truck and my foot was injured.

[ferri]

Think of this as a view of a typical male from Central Europe.

I do not want to offend anyone, but people in the U.S. should be aware that the right to carry arms is leftover from past centuries.
Wild West period ended long ago.
I'm no pacifist. I myself ten years ago ended compulsory military service, and I know how to use and I can fairly well shoot several types of small arms (revolvers, pistols, submachine gun, light machine gun, sniper rifle). I was no expert, just a operation of military infantry shooting (sticking targets, cutting the grass etc.).
But youth ended and I would not have thought to have a weapon at home. No, I do not need to prove in this way, as I am a big guy.

[GreyGeek]

No offense taken, ferri, but you should remember that America spent treasure and blood returning Europe to freedom in TWO world wars because they could not defend themselves sufficiently, despite their feelings of manhood. Snowhog's poster of those despots who loved gun control illustrates that he who owns the guns makes the rules. Also, our own "Declaration of Independence" states succinctly why a free people will also be an armed people.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

When your government becomes destructive to your "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" then you have a right to change it. But, given that your government has already become destructive then how do you propose to change it without the use of arms? Does China, Russia, Iran, Syria, or several other despotic government that used to boast about freedom give you any concern that the same thing could happen in your country?

Look what is happening in the "land of the free and the home of the brave" ...
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/0...-Other-Cities#
which also happened a couple years ago:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/0...-Other-Cities#
and that one included about 100 tanks and Bradley fighting vehicles.
In the last half-dozen years or so there have been several "training exercises" in which US Army troops "patrolled" various towns around the country. This is in direct violation of the Posse Comitatus Act, which prevents the use of Federal military forces to enforce the laws of the land. Our government gives themselves an excuse to do so by claiming:
http://www.justice.gov/opa/documents...us10232001.pdf

You have asked for our Office's views on the authority for the use of military force to prevent or deter terrorist activity inside the United States. Specifically, you have asked whether the Posse Comitatus Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1385 (1994), limits the ability of the President to engage the military domestically, and what constitutional standards apply to its use. We conclude that the President has ample constitutional and statutory authority to deploy the military against
international or foreign terrorists operating within the United States. We further believe that the use of such military force generally is consistent with constitutional standards, and that it need not follow the exact procedures that govern law enforcement operations.

Reading further you'll find the claim that

Third, we examine the Posse Comitatus Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1385, and show that it only applies to the domestic use of the Armed Forces for law enforcement purposes, rather than for the performance of military functions.

There's a hole you can drive a herd of elephants through.

...
our view is that the Fourth Amendment would not apply in these circumstances. Thus, for example, we do not think that a military commander
carrying out a raid on a terrorist cell would be required to demonstrate probable cause or to obtain a warrant.

So, there you have just a part of it. Add to that the National Defense Act (NDA) letters, the "Constitution Free Zone" which puts 2/3rds of ALL Americans outside their full Constitutional rights, the use of drones in our skies, plans to put facial recognition cameras at every social event, add microphones to video cameras on buses so that conversations can be eaves dropped on, the RICCO and PATRIOT Acts... etc. The last two alone have shredded most of our Constitution. We are on the verge of "1984", a police state.

Our military isn't going to "enforce the law", they are only going to do "military functions" against "terrorist cells", and they won't need warrants. Just who says the people they are attacking are "terrorists"? The President, by Executive Order. Bush introduced these abominations, but shortly after he was elected Pres. Obama, in direct contradiction to his own campaign promises, extended all of Bush's attacks on the Constitution. Pres. Obama went a step farther. Rather than use the Military he proposed a "citizens national security force" (sound like the Red Guards?)

We already have a "civilian national security force", it's called the National Guard. In addition to that are state and local police. Just what would a "civilian national security force" do? What laws would they enforce that the other police agencies aren't already enforcing? Why would they be armed and the same people who want that "army" are doing their best to destroy the 2nd Amendment, which allows every citizen to be armed? I think a clue is in the DHS document released on January 7, 2009, shortly after Pres. Obama's election. It states:

(U//LES) The DHS/Office of Intelligence and Analysis (I&A) has no specific information that domestic rightwing* terrorists are currently planning acts of violence,...

but then it identifies as potential "rightwing terrorists" people who have a conservative religious faith, those who oppose abortion, vets returning from active military duty because they "posses combat skills and experience", "hate groups", essentially defining "hate" as disagreeing with the political Left, those who "oppose imposition of firearms restrictions and weapons bans" (apparently the reason doesn't matter), those who opposed illegal immigrants, etc, etc, etc...

Basically it is a 10 page document which asserts that essentially anyone who disagrees with Left wing views and opinions are, by definition, Right wing terrorists. It gives as evidence for its views the 1995 bombing in Oklahoma city.

There was a HUGE outcry against the bias in that document, so the DHS issued another a few days later, Jan 26, 2009, which outlines possible "Left wing" terrorists. Their only example: "ELF" folks who set fire to auto dealerships and research facilities around the country. The DHA document describes them as

— (U//FOUO) Their no-harm doctrine includes claiming to ensure the safety of humans, animals, and the environment even as they attack businesses and associated operations.

Not surprising, given the tone of the document, they didn't seem to think that military vets returning from active duty represented a viable source for Left wing activists, nor were religious folks, etc. Only "animal rights groups" and "Anarchists". They failed to mention that the Left could draw from Pro Abortion groups, Gay Rights groups, anti-gun groups, pro-UN groups, the Black Panthers, the Pink Panthers, the CPA of America, the labor unions, teacher unions, most of which co-ordinate with international Socialist groups already.

I found it very curious and interesting that the DHS report on Left wing terrorists didn't include the most famous of all, the Weathermen underground bomber, Bill Ayers, a friend and mentor of Pres. Obama.

By making these statements I run the risk of being classified as a "right wing extremist" and may put my app for ccw at risk.

[GreyGeek]

P.S. - I tried to upload the DHS report on right wing extremists but at 1.95MB it was too big to be accepted by the forum software.

[tek_heretik]

Think of this as a view of a typical male from Central Europe.

I do not want to offend anyone, but people in the U.S. should be aware that the right to carry arms is leftover from past centuries.
Wild West period ended long ago.
I'm no pacifist. I myself ten years ago ended compulsory military service, and I know how to use and I can fairly well shoot several types of small arms (revolvers, pistols, submachine gun, light machine gun, sniper rifle). I was no expert, just a operation of military infantry shooting (sticking targets, cutting the grass etc.).
But youth ended and I would not have thought to have a weapon at home. No, I do not need to prove in this way, as I am a big guy.

It's the criminals and psychos that need to be disarmed.

[Snowhog]

It's the criminals and psychos that need to be disarmed.

True, but die-hard liberals would never put up with having them disarmed, even though amputations would solve the problem. Without arms, they can't possibly use guns.