Guard Dog

Thanks, I just looked that up. I'm thinking of something different.

Now that takes me WAY back.Honestly, I'd rather see them make their own IP. I absolutely loved PoE.

From my viewpoint over here in merry olde England, it isn't so much about "yes, your gun didn't kill anyone", it's that it seems to damned easy for any idiot to get hold of them over there. I can point to many friends around the world and say "Yes, they are competent, intelligent people who can be responsible with a car, with a gun, what have you." But I can also point to a whole bunch more of people who are just idiots I wouldn't trust with a stapler, let alone some form of automatic weaponry. But if they are in the good ol US of A... That is the problem right there. So how do you protect the responsible people from the irresponsible people without violating civil rights? If the freedom of the individual is the paramount concern then I really don't see how we can. And if it isn't a concern, well there is always repression, confiscations, concentration camps, forced hospitalization and just making people disappear. The difference between here and most other countries is the guns are already here. Millions of them. Billions perhaps. Making them suddenly illegal changes nothing. It was illegal for that bastard to bring a gun on school campus yesterday. It was illegal for him to even BE on that campus. It was illegal to use a smoke bomb, pull the fire alarm, and certainly to shoot people. None of those broken laws stopped him. So for gun control to work the government has to go and confiscate them. How do you think that will go? Your previous post aside, that's a completely valid point about responsible people vs the irresponsible people. You say that regulating who can have what guns (outside of the really heavy weapon stuff only the military can use) will just lead to a slippery slope, then what are your ideas for solutions? It seems like the exact same ideological impasse between the two of us (though at least we can agree to disagree without going all knives at each others throats) is part of the problem in that neither side has solutions the other likes, though it often seems like one side often does not want solutions at all. I've heard about regulating guns the same way we regulate cars might be a solution, though I'm not sure how that would work exactly since the function of a gun and a car are completely different. Honestly I don't know. Raising the age of full legal majority nationwide to 21 makes sense to me. It could have prevented the shooter from buying his weapon legally. However much of a hindrance that is. Force hospitalization of people deemed mentally ill sounds very Nazi-like to me. Now people are having their freedom taken over a subjective standard that is way too likely to be abused. Infringing on individual rights is not the way to go either. Increasing the availability of mental health can't hurt but in they end the best system can only help the willing. Turning schools into armed camps does not strike me as the best way to go, although one armed teacher could have stopped this yesterday. Maybe plain clothes security, like Air Marshals for each campus. But even then they can't be everywhere at once.

If the weapon's made after 1986, no ? If you owned them BEFORE the date that law took effect they were grandfathered in. Was it the 80's? I seem to remember it being the '60's. But after that no matter how old the weapon you still have to go through a pretty intensive and expensive process to buy an automatic weapon.

@smjames. The second amendment has two clauses: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, this is called a prefatory clause. They are used four other times in the Constitution. The purpose it to explain what follows the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall no be infringed. That is the operative clause The Constitution uses the words The People a number of times. In the first amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. The 4th Amendment: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. 9th amendment: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. In no other case is the use of the words The People presumed to mean anything other than an individual right. Yet somehow they tell us in the 2nd Amendment it does not. It is completely clear, the right to keep and bear arms IS and individual right. Now... what KIND of arms is up to debate.

From my viewpoint over here in merry olde England, it isn't so much about "yes, your gun didn't kill anyone", it's that it seems to damned easy for any idiot to get hold of them over there. I can point to many friends around the world and say "Yes, they are competent, intelligent people who can be responsible with a car, with a gun, what have you." But I can also point to a whole bunch more of people who are just idiots I wouldn't trust with a stapler, let alone some form of automatic weaponry. But if they are in the good ol US of A... That is the problem right there. So how do you protect the responsible people from the irresponsible people without violating civil rights? If the freedom of the individual is the paramount concern then I really don't see how we can. And if it isn't a concern, well there is always repression, confiscations, concentration camps, forced hospitalization and just making people disappear. The difference between here and most other countries is the guns are already here. Millions of them. Billions perhaps. Making them suddenly illegal changes nothing. It was illegal for that bastard to bring a gun on school campus yesterday. It was illegal for him to even BE on that campus. It was illegal to use a smoke bomb, pull the fire alarm, and certainly to shoot people. None of those broken laws stopped him. So for gun control to work the government has to go and confiscate them. How do you think that will go?

I really have no problem with the government telling SNAP recipients what they can and cannot buy. When you are living off the benefit of other peoples hard work you should be giving up a little autonomy on how you are spending their money. Personally I'd rather see the entire food stamp thing go away in favor of a "meals on wheels" type program where meal kits are sent to recipients. Such a system would be a greater benefit to senior and the disabled and people in rural areas where grocery stores are father away. It would cost less and be less open to abuse.

In what way is the second amendment unclear?

Gun control is all about, and only about seizing the private property of people who have done no wrong, committed no crime. And there is no such thing as "limited" restrictions.Each restriction is a segue into another, and another, and another. And the people who advocate most strongly for it don't have to worry about being the victim of a crime. Or the forbearance of wildlife. And they don't lose a moment of sleep over the deaths of children that are not theirs except in how they can be exploited. It's not about saving lives, it's about controlling the livestock. And they will never have complete control over an armed population. My firearms killed no one yesterday. And absent some attack on y home or person never, ever will. no one has any standing to demand I give them up. Or any other thing I own. Not my home, my dog, my computer, book, none of it. The rights of the citizen are no subordinate to the will of the state. They day they are we no longer live in a free country. If they want them, they will have to come and take them.

Specific threats yes/ "I'm going to kill you Malcador". That will get you arrested. Generalized threats "I'm going to kill someone" not so much. It will get them looking at you, but until you actually DO something what can they do?

A lot of people are down on the FBI & local police because they were aware of threats this guy had made. But what could they do? You can't arrest someone BEFORE they commit a crime. It would make a decent sci-fi story if they could. One other thought. In most states the minimum age to buy a pistol is 21 but 18 for rifles. Perhaps that should change. Perhaps 21 should be the age of full legal majority for everything. It would not ave stopped everything because weapons can be had by other than legal means. But he did buy his weapon legally so it's worth considering.

As concerned as I am at the heavy handed treatment, they fired 12 shots at a man sized target and only cut paper 3 times. And only one of those was in the x-ring. That's nine rounds flying past him at 1100 fps hitting God knows what or who behind him. That is atrocious marksmanship. In fact it sounds more like panic fire. Which would be even worse. It's no secret I have very little respect for police. It is a profession that seems to attract a disproportionate number of bullies, cowards, and people of low character. Those kind of people relish having authority over their fellow citizens. The kind their flaws prevent them from earning any other way. Someone who wants power over the other humans is usually the last person you want to have it.

LOL, remember a few years back the US government mistook Fallout 3 art concepts as Al Qaeda plans? Edit: Correction, it wasn't the government is was a contractor that worked for the CIA. Still funny though. https://kotaku.com/5011913/intelligence-group-mistakes-fallout-3-screens-for-terrorist-propaganda

Vermont police shoot and kill a man pointing a gun at his own head: http://www.thestate.com/news/nation-world/national/article199680904.html Wow, it's a good thing those "heroes" were on hand. That poor bastard might have shot himself. Can't have that. The State Trooper, one Christopher Brown, can cut a new notch on his pistol grip. This is the third man he's killed in the last six months. Oh, and by the way, the "heroes" fired 12 shots and hit the man three times. Only one of those three was a fatal hit. Good thing no one else was nearby. They might have been "served and protected" by one of those stray shots.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/feb/12/malaysian-newspaper-sinar-harian-publishes-how-to-spot-a-gay-lgbt-checklist Newspaper in Malaysia publishes a checklist on how to spot a gay person. We probably should not make light of this because there is an ugly sentiment behind it. But mocking news stories is how we deal with crap so here we go: the most foolproof method IMO is to proposition someone of the same sex. If they say yes, you spotted one! Of course if they say yes and you were not serious they are going to be disappointed.

Did anyone else see Chloe Kim last night? That was amazing. And she's only 17. Shes got at least two more Olympics ahead of her.

It's been going on the whole time. Mixed doubles is over I think.

Holy crap I can't believe it was Katie Couric who uttered that gem. https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/winter-olympics-2018/2018/02/12/winter-olympics-dutch-mock-katie-couric-comments-speedskating-netherlands/328425002/ Granted I don't hold her in particularly high regard, but this was exceptionally stupid. It seems like ever two years we get to say "NBC screwed up the Olympics again"

That is so annoying! Another thing that annoys me is cutting away to something else just because the US athlete's are done. If I've been watching the whole competition let me see how it ends. The Biathlon didn't end when Lowell Bailey was no longer in contention. Cutting away was cheap.

You don't?

I was watching the luge before work this morning. I used to think they were just passengers at the mercy of Sir Isaac Newton. But there really is a lot of technique to that sport. A good time depends so much on tiny details.

Shame they didn't list the full bibliography. They did on the other site I saw that article. None of it was post-WW2

@Sharpie: In terms of "measuring" intelligence as a science yes, factually discredited. Taken in context of the work however, it comes from the Eugenics era when people believed you could selectively breed a "superior human". The truth is, you can. Anyone who doubts that take a good look at your dog and realize where their ancestors came from. However the notion is (and definitely should be) out of favor because it has been used by some pretty evil folks to justify genocide. Even that aside selective breeding is dangerous in other ways because subtle genetic abnormalities that are insignificant in a diverse gene pool because much more problematic when the pool gets shallower. No matter how clear the water is. But that is a different discussion. Acquired knowledge stems largely on the opportunity to acquire it. And the drive to take advantage of that opportunity when they do have it. A highly intelligent student that has not received a quality education will fail a test on acquired knowledge. It does not mean he's less intelligent. I will bet there are many intelligent people in the world who can neither read nor write because they were never taught. There is the problem when it comes to "measuring" something that can't be measured. My education was in Electronics Engineering. If you and I each took a test on radio wave propagation there is a very good chance I will do better than you. That does not make me smarter than you. That is the exact assumption IQ tests are making. If someone is truly eager to learn they should be able to learn. If they can't then the fault is mostly on them I think. They need to identify WHY they are failing and correct it. Failure to learn something usually stems from 2 thing in my experience; Insufficient drive or a lack of underlying knowledge. If you want to learn Calculus but you never learned Algebra you will fail. The key to everything is foundation. So if you WANT to learn Calculus you need to buy an Algebra book and read it first. That is on the individual. In terms of employment however some employers ARE willing to take that leap of faith. My own career is an example. The job I have now uses almost none of my education and previous experience. It took me almost a year of intense study to get up to speed. But it was important and I was willing to do that. As to your last point, no argument here.

I disagree Gfted. I've taken a personal interest in self-education of late (autodidaction). In my reading what truly separates high performers from low performers is not comprehension but motivation. 99 times out of 100 if a student studies, they pass. Understanding comes from study. There is not doubt that some folks are smarter than others. But what's missing in that is the way to quantify it. And it's over valued at any rate. In grade school I realized early on I could succeed without really trying. I could get a C or B just listening in class. If I applied myself just a little I could get A's. Being the lazy SOB I was back then I learned to be content with mediocrity and get Cs & Bs. Had I not joined the Marine Corps I probably would have slouched through college and life much the same way. Getting by doing the minimum. In the Corps I learned being average is not something to aspire to, I saw guys who barely passed high school master advanced math and physics in training to go on and excel in very demanding and technical jobs. So I did the same and it completely changed the course of my life. Granted no one motivates like the military. They will put 10 students in a class for a field with only 8 billets. The top 8 pass and the last two go to something else (likely infantry). If you fail a test you get 1 retest. You fail that: infantry. If you don't want to go to infantry or field sanitation or wherever, you pass. THAT is motivation. Granted all this is anecdotal. My experience not evidence. But it's taught me with the exception of 5% on the margins one person is much the same as another when it comes to ability to learn. All that stops them is motivation.

He's quoting sources that are over 120 years old and largely discredited. The whole notion of IQ is way outdated IMO. Intelligence is impossible to quantify. Especially by administering tests that rely largely on acquired knowledge rather than the ability to acquire knowledge. In my opinion only what matters in not intelligence but drive. The desire to learn is what we should be looking at. Not antiquated notions on measuring ability. To say nothing of the fact that a project like this is waving a red flag at an angry bull. I'm not saying it's not OK to do that but you better be right when you do.