http://www.cad-comic.com/cad/20111128

It's actually kind of astonishing that I know what this is about. There 
have been no end of CAD strips that make no sense to me at all. I only 
comprehend this one due to the freakishly unlikely coincidence that a) I 
happen to have played this game, and b) my mother is physiologically 
incapable of ever turning the TV off, whether she's in the building or 
not...

Post a reply to this message

On 11/28/2011 04:15 AM, Invisible wrote:
> http://www.cad-comic.com/cad/20111128
>
> It's actually kind of astonishing that I know what this is about. There
> have been no end of CAD strips that make no sense to me at all. I only
> comprehend this one due to the freakishly unlikely coincidence that a) I
> happen to have played this game, and b) my mother is physiologically
> incapable of ever turning the TV off, whether she's in the building or
> not...

LOL ... even I recognize the assassin (only because my son has been 
playing that game) ... like that hook he uses to scale buildings ;-)

Post a reply to this message

Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> http://www.cad-comic.com/cad/20111128

  I know the game but I don't understand the joke.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 11/28/2011 08:01 AM, Warp wrote:
> Invisible<voi### [at] devnull>  wrote:
>> http://www.cad-comic.com/cad/20111128
>
>    I know the game but I don't understand the joke.
>
+ all the pepper-spray controversy going on in the states police ala 
occupy, and some woman nailed a couple of people in a queue at some 
unnamed box box store (kings X)

Post a reply to this message

On 11/28/2011 08:07 AM, Jim Holsenback wrote:
> On 11/28/2011 08:01 AM, Warp wrote:
>> Invisible<voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>>> http://www.cad-comic.com/cad/20111128
>>
>> I know the game but I don't understand the joke.
>>
> + all the pepper-spray controversy going on in the states police ala
> occupy, and some woman nailed a couple of people in a queue at some
> unnamed box box store (kings X)
LOL .. big box that is

Post a reply to this message

On 28/11/2011 01:01 PM, Warp wrote:
> Invisible<voi### [at] devnull>  wrote:
>> http://www.cad-comic.com/cad/20111128
>
>    I know the game but I don't understand the joke.

I'm presuming it's a reference to the news story about the women who 
used pepper spray to get people out of the way so she could be first in 
the line on Black Friday.

(I presume it goes without saying that to most people, using such 
extreme violence in order to get a piffling 10% discount on a mere 
computer game seems utterly insane to me...)

Post a reply to this message

Le 2011-11-28 08:01, Warp a écrit :
> Invisible<voi### [at] devnull>  wrote:
>> http://www.cad-comic.com/cad/20111128
>
>    I know the game but I don't understand the joke.
>

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6AdDLhPwpp4

Kinda ties neatly into the earlier thread about police abuse in the US.

-- 
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/*    flabreque    */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/*        @        */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/*   gmail.com     */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }

Post a reply to this message

Francois Labreque <fla### [at] videotronca> wrote:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6AdDLhPwpp4

> Kinda ties neatly into the earlier thread about police abuse in the US.

  I find it curious that many human rights movements and other such people
consider things like pepper spray and tasers to be a form of torture that
can cause physical damage (eg. pepper spray can cause damage to the eyes
and mucous membranes) and even death (there are several cases of people
dying when tased), which goes blatantly against all international human
rights agreements, yet they are commonly used by the police all over the
world with impunity.

  I have to agree: Why is it not ok to torture a prisoner with physical
or even just mental pain, but it's completely ok to physically torture
protesters who are not a danger to anybody?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 11/28/2011 5:35, Warp wrote:
> ok to physically torture
> protesters who are not a danger to anybody?

Well, it's *supposed* to be in preference to something even more violent. If 
someone is attacking you, do you club them in the face, shoot them, or spray 
pepper spray on them?

The whole reason it's controversial is exactly because it's happening to 
people who aren't being violent.

Google "uc davis pepper spray" for all the news and videos and such.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   People tell me I am the counter-example.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> On 11/28/2011 5:35, Warp wrote:
> > ok to physically torture
> > protesters who are not a danger to anybody?

> Well, it's *supposed* to be in preference to something even more violent. If 
> someone is attacking you, do you club them in the face, shoot them, or spray 
> pepper spray on them?

  Sometimes violence is an unfortunate necessity even in an ideal world
(ie. one where the authorities and the police force are completely exemplar;
and there actually are many countries where that's close to reality) in
order to stop violent criminals or other people who are clearly an imminent
danger to others and will not stand down on their own.

  Because of this, as you say, non-lethal means to do this have been
developed in cases where the perpetrator is unarmed and killing him would
be way out of proportion, while still keeping the police officers themselves
as safe as possible. Pepper spray and tasers are two such inventions.

  The problem is that in some countries the police has got completely
derailed with this. They have misunderstood "non-lethal" to mean the same
thing as "safe to use". For example in Britain it was at some point even
customary for the police to tase first, ask questions later (literally;
I'm not kidding.) AFAIK after enough people *died* because of this, some
of them completely innocent of any crime, the rules were changed.

  Same with pepper spray. There are some countries (most prominently the US)
where it's used as some kind of standard way of controlling people, no
matter how peaceful they might be. This completely ignores the fact that
pepper spray can actually cause damage, permanent damage in extreme cases
(I think one of the most extreme cases is losing eyesight because the
pepper spray damages the eyes too much).

  And of course there's the point of view that using such methods on people
who are not acting dangerously can certainly be seen as a form of torture,
which is against the most basic international human rights agreements.
Even if those people were technically speaking breaking the law, and even
if they outright refuse to stop, torturing them is still completely
unacceptable.

  I have never heard or read any such misconduct from the part of the
Finnish police. There might have been some cases, but I have so far never
heard of them (which I assume means that even if there have been cases of
police brutality, they are pretty rare here).

  In fact, I have seen some youtube videos from Finland, filmed by some
bystander using a cellphone camera, where the police arrests someone who
is acting violent, and in most cases they seem to be almost ridiculously
careful, and resort to extreme means only as a last resort. I don't remember
ever seeing them using tasers, much less drawing their pistols, against an
unarmed person.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Google "uc davis pepper spray" for all the news and videos and such.

  Btw, it's interesting that the "occupy" protests have had a perhaps
unpredicted side-effect. The protests might have little to no actual
effect on the main thing being protested (ie. the almost criminal
behavior of big "make money with money" type of corporations, and the
ridiculously capitalistic policies of the government), but as a
side-effect they have brought to light another problem in the US government
which urgently needs correctly: Namely, the policies of the law enforcement.

  In the current high-bandwidth internet era the police cannot stop videos
from being spread all over the world in a matter of seconds, which helps
exposing their dubious practices of outright police brutality.

  Personally, I don't really understand why the US police force is doing
this. They don't have to. They could stand by the protesters and simply
keep the peace. If some politicians order them to remove the protesters
by force, they could simply refuse. They could just uphold and protect
people's first amendment rights. It's not like the politicians would fire
the entire police force.

  Perhaps it *is* true that the average american police officer is drunk
with power, aggravated by peer pressure. Perhaps it *is* true that many
police officers are former school bullies who simply found a legal way of
legally continuing their bullying as adults.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Le 2011-11-28 08:17, Invisible a écrit :
> On 28/11/2011 01:01 PM, Warp wrote:
>> Invisible<voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>>> http://www.cad-comic.com/cad/20111128
>>
>> I know the game but I don't understand the joke.
>
> I'm presuming it's a reference to the news story about the women who
> used pepper spray to get people out of the way so she could be first in
> the line on Black Friday.

Nope. University of California, Davis incident.  Look at Ezio's posture 
and compare it to that of the cop in question.

http://www.alan.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/uc-davis-pepperspray-300x213.jpg

-- 
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/*    flabreque    */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/*        @        */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/*   gmail.com     */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }

Post a reply to this message

On 11/28/2011 9:49, Warp wrote:
>    Personally, I don't really understand why the US police force is doing
> this. They don't have to.

I'm guessing it's a general disdain for the protesters.

I'm also thinking this is *much* more common since our high-up politicians 
started blatently ignoring the laws more and more. When the President says 
"Hey, torture is legal, because you can't touch me", then the cops tend to 
do the same thing. And then the shoppers see nothing wrong with it.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   People tell me I am the counter-example.

Post a reply to this message

On 11/28/2011 5:35 PM, Darren New wrote:
> On 11/28/2011 9:49, Warp wrote:
>> Personally, I don't really understand why the US police force is doing
>> this. They don't have to.
>
> I'm guessing it's a general disdain for the protesters.
>
> I'm also thinking this is *much* more common since our high-up
> politicians started blatently ignoring the laws more and more. When the
> President says "Hey, torture is legal, because you can't touch me", then
> the cops tend to do the same thing. And then the shoppers see nothing
> wrong with it.
>
Its also a mix of paramilitarization, and the hiring of ex-military, or 
others, to "teach them tactics". And, of course, its a side effect of 
how you can't let any random idiot buy AK-47s, then expect that the cops 
can still do their jobs, with hand guns, and tactics designed to handle 
people with beer bottles. But, don't you dare suggest that its too easy 
to buy assault weapons!!

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> On 11/28/2011 9:49, Warp wrote:
> >    Personally, I don't really understand why the US police force is doing
> > this. They don't have to.

> I'm guessing it's a general disdain for the protesters.

> I'm also thinking this is *much* more common since our high-up politicians 
> started blatently ignoring the laws more and more. When the President says 
> "Hey, torture is legal, because you can't touch me", then the cops tend to 
> do the same thing. And then the shoppers see nothing wrong with it.

  I think your president should make a public statement strongly condemning
police brutality and expressing it clearly like "police brutality must stop
now", and that investigations on the incidents will be performed. I think
he would win quite some supporters for the next election like that.

  OTOH, I understand that Obama is not very known for standing firmly and
strongly behind his principles, and instead trying to make compromises and
try to make everybody happy, making him seem so weak, which is why he has
lost so much citizen support.

  I think trying to appease the two parties in the senate with compromises
is foolish. It's not the senate who elects the president. It's the people.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 11/28/2011 19:44, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> you can't let any random idiot buy AK-47s,
> assault weapons!!

AK-47's aren't assault rifles. And there's no definition of "assault weapon" 
except "looks scary."

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   People tell me I am the counter-example.

Post a reply to this message

On 29/11/2011 04:04 PM, Darren New wrote:
> On 11/28/2011 19:44, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> you can't let any random idiot buy AK-47s,
>> assault weapons!!
>
> AK-47's aren't assault rifles. And there's no definition of "assault
> weapon" except "looks scary."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ak47

"The AK-47 is a selective-fire, gas-operated 7.62×39mm assault rifle[...]"

As you know, Wikipedia is always correct.

Post a reply to this message

On 11/29/2011 7:00, Warp wrote:
>    I think your president should make a public statement strongly condemning
> police brutality

That would be great. But as long as he keeps locking up people without 
accusing them of crimes, supporting torture, etc, it's not going to have 
much affect what he says.

>    OTOH, I understand that Obama is not very known for standing firmly and
> strongly behind his principles, and instead trying to make compromises and
> try to make everybody happy, making him seem so weak, which is why he has
> lost so much citizen support.

Yep. That's a big part of it. Of course, the fact that half of Congress 
feels it's more important to make him look bad than to make the country work 
well is the other part.

>    I think trying to appease the two parties in the senate with compromises
> is foolish. It's not the senate who elects the president. It's the people.

Technically, it's the senate. ;-) However, yes, it's the people who vote 
that elect both president and congress. The problem is that the president, 
supposedly, can only do what congress says to do, more or less. The 
president can't pass laws, can't fund spending, can't change taxes, etc. 
(Again, all in theory, because if the president doesn't obey the congress 
there isn't a whole lot they can do in any sort of short time-frame. It's 
not like you can arrest the president for torturing someone. And apparently 
you can't even arrest someone who isn't president for torturing someone.)

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   People tell me I am the counter-example.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> On 11/29/2011 7:00, Warp wrote:
> >    I think your president should make a public statement strongly condemning
> > police brutality

> That would be great. But as long as he keeps locking up people without 
> accusing them of crimes, supporting torture, etc, it's not going to have 
> much affect what he says.

  I thought it was Bush who was doing that. Is Obama continuing the
tradition, then?

> The problem is that the president, 
> supposedly, can only do what congress says to do, more or less. The 
> president can't pass laws, can't fund spending, can't change taxes, etc. 

  I don't really understand how presidency works in the US, as it seems
that he has a lot of power to influence the politics of the country. If
the president wants to, for example, reform healthcare, he has a lot of
power to at the very least put it in motion. I don't really know how it
works there.

  Here the president has very little political power. (I think in the past
the president had a lot more power, but it has been reduced significantly
in the last couple of decades or so.) The president is more or less the
representative of the country in international contexts. (Technically
speaking the president is also the commander-in-chief of the military
forces, but in peacetime that has little significance, AFAIK.) Sure, the
president could address the parliament and make suggestions, but I don't
remember any significant laws or projects being put into motion in this
way (although I'm certain that at least some such things have happened.)

  I think legally speaking the president has significant power over the
parliament (such as being able to order the holding of premature
parliamentary election), but I don't know if any such powers have been
used in the last 20 years or so.

  One interesting aspect of the presidency in Finland is that the president
must, by custom (although probably not by law), renounce any party
affiliation, so that he or she may be seen as neutral in regard to party
politics.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 11/29/2011 8:07, Invisible wrote:
> "The AK-47 is a selective-fire, gas-operated 7.62×39mm assault rif
le[...]"

OK. Then people aren't carrying them around as a matter of course. Machin
e 
guns are indeed highly regulated here.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   People tell me I am the counter-example.

Post a reply to this message

On 11/29/2011 8:49, Warp wrote:
>    I thought it was Bush who was doing that. Is Obama continuing the
> tradition, then?

Sadly so.

>    I don't really understand how presidency works in the US, as it seems
> that he has a lot of power to influence the politics of the country. If
> the president wants to, for example, reform healthcare, he has a lot of
> power to at the very least put it in motion. I don't really know how it
> works there.

Originally, the president was basically head of the Executive branch. We 
have congress (which passes laws), the executive branch (which executes 
them), and the judicial branch (which deals with courts and the legality of 
laws).

Basically, congress makes laws, the executive branch enforces laws (a la 
police) and ensures they get enforced (a la appointing people to the various 
government branches like the FCC and the EPA and such), and the courts do 
their court thing (including deciding when lower-priority laws are preempted 
by higher-priority laws).

The president gets his power from (A) the ability to talk to congress and 
make suggestions and such, (B) the ability to control how laws get enforced 
(emphasizing or deemphasizing, for example), and (C) the fact that when he 
breaks the law, it's virtually impossible to actually get rid of him, even 
more so now than historically.

> The president is more or less the
> representative of the country in international contexts. (Technically
> speaking the president is also the commander-in-chief of the military
> forces, but in peacetime that has little significance, AFAIK.)

That was how it originally started out, with a handful of notable presidents 
(Lincoln during the civil war, the president whose name I forget (Wilson?) 
who took the US off the gold standard and started the federal reserve banks, 
etc).

>    One interesting aspect of the presidency in Finland is that the president
> must, by custom (although probably not by law), renounce any party
> affiliation, so that he or she may be seen as neutral in regard to party
> politics.

That would be nice.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   People tell me I am the counter-example.

Post a reply to this message

On 11/29/2011 9:08, Darren New wrote:
> On 11/29/2011 8:07, Invisible wrote:
>> "The AK-47 is a selective-fire, gas-operated 7.62×39mm assault ri
fle[...]"
>
> OK. Then people aren't carrying them around as a matter of course. Mach
ine
> guns are indeed highly regulated here.

Or rather, the versions they're carrying around aren't the AK-47s describ
ed 
in that article.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   People tell me I am the counter-example.

Post a reply to this message

On 29/11/2011 5:08 PM, Darren New wrote:
> Machine guns are indeed highly regulated here.

That sentence speaks volumes. ;-)

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> the fact that when he 
> breaks the law, it's virtually impossible to actually get rid of him, even 
> more so now than historically.

  I thought article 2, section 4 of your constitution exists for that exact
purpose?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 11/29/2011 10:48 AM, Stephen wrote:
> On 29/11/2011 5:08 PM, Darren New wrote:
>> Machine guns are indeed highly regulated here.
>
> That sentence speaks volumes. ;-)
>
No, the fact that it can't be "auto", but can be "semi-auto", and thus 
fire only 1/4 as many rounds in the same time, or something, is what 
speaks volumes. The presumption is always that a) bad guys are never 
going to find ways around it, b) they will never get their hands on 
bigger clips, and c) 10 dead people isn't as bad as 30, or something... 
In any case, the biggest bloody problems is that **time and time again** 
its been shown that someone can walk into a private auction, or a gun 
show, and *despite* regulations, pick up stuff, right there, when they 
have a record of already using them to shoot people. Why? Because 
special interest groups have "successfully" lobbied against blanket 
requirements, that would deny someone the right to go to one of these 
things, and walk out *with it*, having not gone through any of the 
paperwork, checks, etc., that they would at a gun shop.

Highly regulated doesn't mean shit, if the regulations are not in force, 
in some/all cases. They mean nothing, if there is a way to circumvent 
them, which, short of remaking the gun so it can't even be modded back 
into something more dangerous, isn't going to happen. Since such weapons 
are a) supposed to be destroyed, b) not supposed to be available to the 
public in the first place, and c) not "special made" in a civilian form, 
uh... maybe there is also some sort of problem with the very fact that 
people somehow end up with them *at all* in the first place?

Gun laws in the US are a damn mess, with so many loopholes that it is 
absurd. And, most of those exist because a privileged few care more 
about the "inconvenience" that they would suffer, if they worked, than 
the wrong people ending up with them in the first place. Stupidly, its 
often the same morons that want "more" freedom to buy what ever they 
damn please, who want, at the same time, "more, longer, and stricter 
punishments, for first, second, etc. offenders, in nearly all crimes", 
with the seeming exception of circumvention of gun laws. You are more 
likely to see some idiot get 3 years in jail for spitting on the 
sidewalk in the future, than a drug dealer being denied a gun at a gun 
exhibition, due to someone bothering to do an adequate check. They might 
even sell it too them anyway, after they failed the check, then quote 
some "private sale" loophole, or something, to justify it.

Post a reply to this message

On 11/29/2011 8:00 AM, Warp wrote:
> Darren New<dne### [at] sanrrcom>  wrote:
>> On 11/28/2011 9:49, Warp wrote:
>>>     Personally, I don't really understand why the US police force is doing
>>> this. They don't have to.
>
>> I'm guessing it's a general disdain for the protesters.
>
>> I'm also thinking this is *much* more common since our high-up politicians
>> started blatently ignoring the laws more and more. When the President says
>> "Hey, torture is legal, because you can't touch me", then the cops tend to
>> do the same thing. And then the shoppers see nothing wrong with it.
>
>    I think your president should make a public statement strongly condemning
> police brutality and expressing it clearly like "police brutality must stop
> now", and that investigations on the incidents will be performed. I think
> he would win quite some supporters for the next election like that.
>
>    OTOH, I understand that Obama is not very known for standing firmly and
> strongly behind his principles, and instead trying to make compromises and
> try to make everybody happy, making him seem so weak, which is why he has
> lost so much citizen support.
>
Having recently played Arkham Asylum (just need to defeat joker), I had 
this thought on the nature of our current run up to the election:

Reporter: We are here today to talk to the candidates of the Godthem (As 
apposed to Gotham), Republican Comity to the Election of Lunatics about 
there feelings towards Two-Face (Obama), who won the last election. Lets 
start with you Joker.

Joker (McCain): Well now, at first, when I lost to him I thought, ah 
well, the games going to be fun anyway. Only, after a while it became 
obvious things where just not going well. I mean, one day he is plotting 
with me, the next he is telling the guards where I stashed the exploding 
whoopee cushions. Its like he is flipping a coin or something!

Reporter: How about you Harley?

Harlequin (Palin): Is my pudding still unhappy with me? I think he is 
still made at me. I thought he would be happy that I was trying to win 
instead this time, but them I thought maybe that would make him mad too, 
but then I thought, you know, maybe it would be good if I did win...

Reporter: Right, lets get back to you later.

Harley: You Betcha.

Reporter: Mr. E.

Riddler (Herman Cain): That's Mr. Nine. They're nines.

Reporter: What are nines?

Riddler: The things on my suit. I keep telling people 999, but no one 
listens. They are nines.

Reporter: Ok, so.. what is your opinion of Two-Face.

Riddler: I will answer your question if you answer mine, "What takes a 
blue pill when hanging out with you in the morning, has three legs in 
the day, and two legs and a stub at night?"

Reporter: I think that is seriously inappropriate, not to mention 
backwards, its the baby who would have the stub, and the old man that 
needs a blue pill. Lets stay on topic, OK.

Riddler: Backwards, backwards! I am never backwards! I am Mr. Nine. And 
I don't get what you think is so inappropriate about my riddle.

Reporter: Moving on...

--

I haven't decided if Bachman should be a warped Poison Ivy, who hates 
the environment instead, or some twisted version of Catwoman, never mind 
the rest of the insane clown posse. All I do know is, we are all 
wondering why Batman hasn't shown up to put them all back in their cells.

Post a reply to this message

On 30/11/2011 4:12 AM, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> On 11/29/2011 10:48 AM, Stephen wrote:
>> On 29/11/2011 5:08 PM, Darren New wrote:
>>> Machine guns are indeed highly regulated here.
>>
>> That sentence speaks volumes. ;-)
>>
> No, the fact that it can't be "auto", but can be "semi-auto"...

Not much of an improvement as you point out.

>
> Highly regulated doesn't mean shit...

> Gun laws in the US are a damn mess, with so many loopholes...


 From an outsider’s point of view, it is not the law that needs to be 
changed but attitudes. Earlier in the year I was working in Hobbs NM, 
just a few miles from the Texas border. During a meal I did a straw poll 
and only one of our six American colleagues did not own a firearm. Most 
had more than one. The most shocking case was the Training Manager (a 
hog riding, pistol packing mamma). She was five foot two with her hands 
in the air and had an arsenal at home that could supply a small army. I 
was just lost for words.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 11/29/2011 20:12, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> if there is a way to circumvent them,

One of the things to remember during such a rant is that making guns is 
*easy*. People were doing it before they even had any power sources beyond 
human muscles.

If you have $1000 worth of machine tools, you can probably make as many 
machine guns as you like, just like you can make a zip gun for $5 or so.

> Gun laws in the US are a damn mess, with so many loopholes that it is
> absurd.

Except we're not supposed to have such gun laws in the first place, so the 
fact they exist at all is cconsidered a loophole to the other side.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   People tell me I am the counter-example.

Post a reply to this message

On 11/29/2011 9:55, Warp wrote:
> Darren New<dne### [at] sanrrcom>  wrote:
>> the fact that when he
>> breaks the law, it's virtually impossible to actually get rid of him, even
>> more so now than historically.
>
>    I thought article 2, section 4 of your constitution exists for that exact
> purpose?
>

Yes. But it's virtually impossible to enforce such a thing. They've only 
ever impeached I think 3 or 4 presidents (Nixon, Clinton, and maybe 1 or 2 
others way back), and I don't think any have actually been forcably removed 
from office.

The problem is that you have the lawmakers enforcing laws against 
themselves. Not gonna happen, at least in our culture. I'm glad Finland 
isn't as fucked as we are.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   People tell me I am the counter-example.

Post a reply to this message

On 11/30/2011 8:25 PM, Darren New wrote:
> On 11/29/2011 20:12, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> if there is a way to circumvent them,
>
> One of the things to remember during such a rant is that making guns is
> *easy*. People were doing it before they even had any power sources
> beyond human muscles.
>
> If you have $1000 worth of machine tools, you can probably make as many
> machine guns as you like, just like you can make a zip gun for $5 or so.
>
Yeah. But if you had to make your own, or buy them off someone that did 
(versus a big corporation that makes thousands), the number of people 
that where not total nuts doing either.. well...

>> Gun laws in the US are a damn mess, with so many loopholes that it is
>> absurd.
>
> Except we're not supposed to have such gun laws in the first place, so
> the fact they exist at all is considered a loophole to the other side.
>

Snort.. All over a damn comma.

Post a reply to this message

On 12/1/2011 13:30, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> the number of people that
> where not total nuts doing either.. well...

The number of people who buy actual machine guns are very low. You need a 
FFL3 license to even own one. Most people *selling* guns don't have that.

> Snort.. All over a damn comma.

Not really. You're already in the militia. So am I. At least according to 
federal law.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   People tell me I am the counter-example.

Post a reply to this message