10 judges are nuts.
Court rules assault weapons are not protected under Constitution http://dailym.ai/2mmUuqG via http://dailym.ai/android Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 1:37 PM, jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:
Court rules assault weapons are not protected under Constitution http://dailym.ai/2mmUuqG via http://dailym.ai/android
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android <https://overview.mail.yahoo.com/mobile/?.src=Android>
I'm no fan of the US's view on firearms, but this makes no sense to me: 'Put simply, we have no power to extend Second Amendment protection to the weapons of war,' wrote Judge Robert King Wasn't the point in the 2nd to ensure there was a standing militia in case it was needed in times of War (civil or otherwise). If anything, you'd think that line of thought would lead to banning weapons with limited utility at war? Times change, and all that, but seems odd. -- Ben Tasker https://www.bentasker.co.uk
From: Ben Tasker <ben@bentasker.co.uk> On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 1:37 PM, jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote: Court rules assault weapons are not protected under Constitution http://dailym.ai/2mmUuqG via http://dailym.ai/android I'm no fan of the US's view on firearms, but this makes no sense to me: 'Put simply, we have no power to extend Second Amendment protection to the weapons of war,' wrote Judge Robert King You are right, it makes no sense: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html " We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.” See 4 Blackstone 148–149 (1769); 3 B. Wilson, Works of the Honourable James Wilson 79 (1804); J. Dunlap, The New-York Justice 8 (1815); C. Humphreys, A Compendium of the Common Law in Force in Kentucky 482 (1822); 1 W. Russell, A Treatise on Crimes and Indictable Misdemeanors 271–272 (1831); H. Stephen, Summary of the Criminal Law 48 (1840); E. Lewis, An Abridgment of the Criminal Law of the United States 64 (1847); F. Wharton, A Treatise on the Criminal Law of the United States 726 (1852). See also State v. Langford, 10 N. C. 381, 383–384 (1824); O’Neill v. State, 16Ala. 65, 67 (1849); English v. State, 35Tex. 473, 476 (1871); State v. Lanier, 71 N. C. 288, 289 (1874). It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment ’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right. However, the only reason that M16's are relatively rare is that they have been restricted/taxed/semi-outlawed since their origin. Thus, that sounds like a self-fulfilling prophecy. Jim Bell
From: jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> From: Ben Tasker <ben@bentasker.co.uk> On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 1:37 PM, jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote: Court rules assault weapons are not protected under Constitution http://dailym.ai/2mmUuqG via http://dailym.ai/android I'm no fan of the US's view on firearms, but this makes no sense to me: 'Put simply, we have no power to extend Second Amendment protection to the weapons of war,' wrote Judge Robert King You are right, it makes no sense: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html " We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.” See 4 Blackstone 148–149 (1769); 3 B. Wilson, Works of the Honourable James Wilson 79 (1804); J. Dunlap, The New-York Justice 8 (1815); C. Humphreys, A Compendium of the Common Law in Force in Kentucky 482 (1822); 1 W. Russell, A Treatise on Crimes and Indictable Misdemeanors 271–272 (1831); H. Stephen, Summary of the Criminal Law 48 (1840); E. Lewis, An Abridgment of the Criminal Law of the United States 64 (1847); F. Wharton, A Treatise on the Criminal Law of the United States 726 (1852). See also State v. Langford, 10 N. C. 381, 383–384 (1824); O’Neill v. State, 16Ala. 65, 67 (1849); English v. State, 35Tex. 473, 476 (1871); State v. Lanier, 71 N. C. 288, 289 (1874). It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment ’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right. However, the only reason that M16's are relatively rare is that they have been restricted/taxed/semi-outlawed since their origin. Thus, that sounds like a self-fulfilling prophecy. Jim Bell Also: I should add that this material I quoted above amounts to ONLY "dicta", short and plural for "Obiter dictum"."Dicta" is any statement made in a legal opinion that was not necessary to come to the conclusion the opinion stated. Such dicta are not considered binding on any court. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obiter_dictum " Jim Bell Significance of obiter dicta[edit] A judicial statement can be ratio decidendi only if it refers to the crucial facts and law of the case. Statements that are not crucial, or which refer to hypothetical facts or to unrelated law issues, are obiter dicta. Obiter dicta (often simply dicta, or obiter) are remarks or observations made by a judge that, although included in the body of the court's opinion, do not form a necessary part of the court's decision. In a court opinion, obiter dicta include, but are not limited to, words "introduced by way of illustration, or analogy or argument".[2] Unlike ratio decidendi, obiter dicta are not the subject of the judicial decision, even if they happen to be correct statements of law. The so-called Wambaugh's Inversion Test provides that to determine whether a judicial statement is ratio or obiter, you should invert the argument, that is to say, ask whether the decision would have been different, had the statement been omitted. If so, the statement is crucial and is ratio; whereas if it is not crucial, it is obiter.If a court rules that it lacks jurisdiction to hear a case (or dismisses the case on a technicality), but still goes on to offer opinions on the merits of the case, such opinions may constitute obiter dicta. Other instances of obiter dicta may occur where a judge makes an aside to provide context for the opinion, or makes a thorough exploration of a relevant area of law. If a judge, by way of illumination, provides a hypothetical example, this would be obiter even if relevant because it would not be on the facts of the case, as in the Carlill case (below).University of Florida scholars Teresa Reid-Rambo and Leanne Pflaum explain the process by which obiter dicta may become binding. They write that:[3] In reaching decisions, courts sometimes quote passages of obiter dicta found in the texts of the opinions from prior cases, with or without acknowledging the quoted passage's status as obiter dicta. A quoted passage of obiter dicta may become part of the holding or ruling in a subsequent case, depending on what the latter court actually decided and how that court treated the principle embodied in the quoted passage.
On 02/23/2017 05:37 AM, jim bell wrote:
Court rules assault weapons are not protected under Constitutionhttp://dailym.ai/2mmUuqG via
They aren't. You know why? When the Second Amendment was written, at 50 yards or so, you could literally outrun a musketball. If it didn't bounce off your coat. Besides, "Your puny AK-47 is useless. So, we need to have at least some of our volunteer resistance show up with Stinger missiles, some anti-aircraft batteries, maybe a submarine or two?" I hear Soros has a fleet of A-10 Warthogs he might call into service too if you talk to him purty. From a LIBERTARIAN legal wonkblog: Randazza: You Are Not Going to Resist the Government With Your Guns December 7, 2015 by Randazza "Bullshit quote memes piss me off so bad that I want to stab someone in their fat stupid face!" – Fred Rogers I'm not prepared to get rid of our right to keep and bear arms unless we do get rid of the Second Amendment. But, doing that requires tinkering with the Constitution, which makes me nervous. Once you open the hood, you never know what else someone will fuck with. With the state of our idiocracy, opening the Constitution is just as likely to wind up creating a right to keep and bear rape monkeys as it is to have its intended effect. So it is what it is. We have the Second Amendment, and while we can debate all we want about how we should interpret it, DC v. Heller pretty much did that for us. It is an individual right, and anyone who suggests that we might even ponder a dissenting view is not very likely to make it through Senate confirmation hearings. So here we are. Fallacy Killer Number One – George Washington Did Not Say That Lets talk about one justification for our right to keep and bear arms — the notion that we need the Second Amendment so that we can resist "tyranny." This George Washington quote sprouts up like mushrooms on cow shit every time there is a mass shooting – to remind us that even though a dozen kids just died, it is worth it, because one day we will want those guns – like the day that Obama comes to herd us into concentration camps where we will be forced to have free health care, or education, or Koran lessons, or whatever the fear-du-jour happens to be. "A free people ought not only be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government." -George Washington Well guess what? He never said that. Here is what he actually said: "A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite; and their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent of others for essential, particularly military, supplies." Pretty big difference by shifting a few words around. Fallacy Killer Number Two – The Second Amendment Will Preserve Our Right to Revolt Just because Washington didn't say that, it doesn't mean that there is no "right to revolution" theory to be found in the Second Amendment. After all, Jefferson did say "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure." In 1776, when the height of military technology was a musket and a cannon, both of which you could make by melting down church bells, there might have been something to it. When the contest was little more than numbers of guns you could drag through the woods, and how to play the weather, the government probably did need to worry a bit about insurrection – and that might have kept them a bit more honest. However, the first time someone tried that kind of thing, it didn't work out so well. In fact, Shays' Rebellion just led to Constitutional tweaks to make the federal government that much stronger. The Civil War led to even more, with harsher consequences. If 13 states, with the assistance of at least one superpower, didn't manage to get their way through armed insurrection, what the hell makes anyone think that armed insurgency is going to preserve our right to … whatever … not have affordable health care, or to coffee cups that say "Happy Birthday Jesus" on them? Ok, fine… lets come up with a cause worth fighting for. Lets say that Obama refuses to step down in 2016, and he not only declares himself dictator-for-life, but he also starts dressing like Ghadaffi, decrees that the national religion shall be Islam, the national language will be Klingon, there will be an efficient rail network in the United States, the writ of Prima Noctae is now in effect, and there shall be martial law to enforce all of the above, as well as any other laws that the President invents, on a daily basis. We managed to preserve our right to keep military grade rifles and machine guns, so we all muster down on the Town Common with our guns. We tried voting. We tried protesting. This is a reasonable time to start with the armed insurrection stuff. So, you, me, all our neighbors, hell our entire city builds a perimeter around it. We fill sandbags, we all have ammunition, we all have food, water, supplies, and most importantly, we are all unified and in complete solidarity. And we stand there, resisting whatever it is the government was going to do to us. And then they fly over with one jet, dropping one FAE bomb, and roll in with three tanks, and in about 12 hours, our "resistance" is reduced to a few smoking holes. The Tree of Liberty will get its manure all right, but it will be the manure that you shat out as you ran for cover, as long range artillery rains down on our town, as we get carpet bombed from 35,000 feet, and as the sky goes black with drones and cruise missiles. We're screwed. So… if the 2nd Amendment's "right to revolution" implication is real, both practically and legally, it must also include a right to possess tanks, jets, rocket launchers, etc. Your puny AK-47 is useless. So, we need to have at least some of our volunteer resistance show up with Stinger missiles, some anti-aircraft batteries, maybe a submarine or two? Oh, you can't afford that? That's ok, we have some patriotic citizens who can. Who? The same billionaires who already own the government, that's who. So what do they want to "resist?" I could only see them wanting to resist checks on their own power. So, if the Second Amendment implies a right to resist the government, then that would mean that we need our billionaire friends to start stockpiling these weapons now. We need a Koch brothers airfield with a few fighters and bombers, and Adelson should have a fleet of tanks somewhere, and I guess that George Soros would bring his collection of nuke-armed submarines up to date, right? So lets drop the crazy scenario of Obama-cum-Ghadaffi, and just think about something we were really likely to see upset us. Do you think for a moment that you, living in some apartment in Salt Lake City, or a house in Wyoming, or a condo in Boca Raton, would be ready to go to war with the Federal Government over the same shit that would get the Koch Brothers to fuel up their private stock of A10 Warthogs? Really? Because you know what the billionaires want the government to stop doing? They want it to get out of the way of their becoming trillionaires. If you think that the Second Amendment means what the Supreme Court said in Heller, and you believe that is a good thing, because it gives you the ability to resist the government, you might want to play out the long game in your head. The long game here is this interpretation leads to private armies, raised by limitless wealth, all of which looks at our quaint little republican form of government as nothing more than a paper justification to have a flag waving over a few national parks. I don't particularly love the federal government either, but ultimately, it is the only organization that we have where we can even hope to band together with enough authority to avoid being under the rule of the richest local family. Yeah, in large part, we're there already. Citizens United made sure of that. But, at least we still have some veneer of a republic. So the next time you see some fool cheering the Second Amendment as the text that protects us from tyranny, ask them to play all four quarters of the mental game. It isn't romantic pictures of regular guys crossing the Delaware in rowboats. The endgame is Ancient Rome meets The Terminator. [Update] – A few comments suggest that our modern military has not really been that effective against insurgencies in Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, and elsewhere. I concede that point. But, I did not think I needed to waste a paragraph in the original discussing how I hardly think that Americans would be prepared to hide in the woods and caves, en masse, to support an American insurgency. Not a chance. When our intelligentsia is crying for "safe spaces," our would-be "Wolverines" scream to give up every civil liberty except the Second Amendment, who are we going to have lead this "insurgency?" Maybe the Crips and the Bloods. That ought to work out well. Sorry, but anyone you might want to be in power doesn't have the yarbles to do it, and those with the great bolshy yarblockos are not exactly going to set up a rebel government on the principles of Oliver Wendell Holmes. https://www.popehat.com/2015/12/07/you-are-not-going-to-resist-the-governmen...
On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 7:38 AM, Razer <g2s@riseup.net> wrote:
On 02/23/2017 05:37 AM, jim bell wrote:
Court rules assault weapons are not protected under Constitution http://dailym.ai/2mmUuqG via
They aren't. You know why? When the Second Amendment was written, at 50 yards or so, you could literally outrun a musketball. If it didn't bounce off your coat.
You do know that black powder muskets and rifles are *still* used to hunt deer and black bear, and elk, right? And that at least the latter two usually weigh more than adult humans? More to the point, the Second Amendment is all about military weapons. Consider that much of the cannon used by the revolutionaries was privately owned. Get a grip, son - your struggle against reality is showing.
Besides, "Your puny AK-47 is useless. So, we need to have at least some of our volunteer resistance show up with Stinger missiles, some anti-aircraft batteries, maybe a submarine or two?" I hear Soros has a fleet of A-10 Warthogs he might call into service too if you talk to him purty.
You have truly gone off the deep end. Don't think that American revolutionaries can't whip up, or don't have, effective weapons beyond simple firearms? You might want to think again. And, if Soros *does* own some Warthogs, well, more power to him. I wish I were rich enough to do so. It's my favorite military aircraft. I'll not bother with rebutting the rest of the strawman arguments from popehat, but will provide a few quotes from the period before and during the ratification of the Constitution: No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms. ---Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution, 1776. Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive. ---Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787). I particularly like the following: *Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people. ---Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.* The whole of that Bill [of Rights] is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals...[I]t establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of. ---Albert Gallatin to Alexander Addison, Oct 7, 1789, MS. in N.Y. Hist. Soc.-A.G. Papers, 2. [C]onceived it to be the privilege of every citizen, and one of his most essential rights, to bear arms, and to resist every attack upon his liberty or property, by whomsoever made. The particular states, like private citizens, have a right to be armed, and to defend, by force of arms, their rights, when invaded. 14 Debates in the House of Representatives, ed. Linda Grand De Pauw. (Balt., Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, 1972), 92-3.
On 02/23/2017 08:38 AM, Razer wrote:
On 02/23/2017 05:37 AM, jim bell wrote:
Court rules assault weapons are not protected under Constitutionhttp://dailym.ai/2mmUuqG via
They aren't. You know why? When the Second Amendment was written, at 50 yards or so, you could literally outrun a musketball. If it didn't bounce off your coat. Besides, "Your puny AK-47 is useless. So, we need to have at least some of our volunteer resistance show up with Stinger missiles, some anti-aircraft batteries, maybe a submarine or two?" I hear Soros has a fleet of A-10 Warthogs he might call into service too if you talk to him purty.
For a credible revolution, you need real weapons and supplies, and people who know how to use them. So you need substantial involvement of trained military and veterans. With small arms and insiders, you get the real weapons and supplies. That seems pretty unlikely in the US. And it it did go down, the result would arguably be some mix of military dictatorship and feudalism. <SNIP>
On 02/23/2017 01:04 PM, Mirimir wrote:
On 02/23/2017 08:38 AM, Razer wrote:
On 02/23/2017 05:37 AM, jim bell wrote:
Court rules assault weapons are not protected under Constitutionhttp://dailym.ai/2mmUuqG via They aren't. You know why? When the Second Amendment was written, at 50 yards or so, you could literally outrun a musketball. If it didn't bounce off your coat. Besides, "Your puny AK-47 is useless. So, we need to have at least some of our volunteer resistance show up with Stinger missiles, some anti-aircraft batteries, maybe a submarine or two?" I hear Soros has a fleet of A-10 Warthogs he might call into service too if you talk to him purty.
For a credible revolution, you need real weapons and supplies, and people who know how to use them. So you need substantial involvement of trained military and veterans. With small arms and insiders, you get the real weapons and supplies.
That seems pretty unlikely in the US. And it it did go down, the result would arguably be some mix of military dictatorship and feudalism.
<SNIP>
ROTF! To be a revolution you need an IDEOLOGY. Greed is NOT an Ideology. Greed is a way of life in 'Merica. The ONLY accepted way. Social atomization has created the circumstance that 'Merican families and communities are not even understood as such by a large majority of the planet's inhabitants... ROTF! 'Merica is Doooooooomed! Bwhahhhaaa! Rr
"...Loneliness, estrangement, isolation describe the vast distance between man and man today.
These dominant tendencies cannot be overcome by better personnel management, nor by improved gadgets, but only when a love of man overcomes the idolatrous worship of things by man....
...We regard men as infinitely precious and possessed of unfulfilled capacities for reason, freedom, and love.
In affirming these principles we are aware of countering perhaps the dominant conceptions of man in the twentieth century: that he is a thing to be manipulated, and that he is inherently incapable of directing his own affairs.
We oppose the depersonalization that reduces human beings to the status of things -- if anything, the brutalities of the twentieth century teach that means and ends are intimately related, that vague appeals to "posterity" cannot justify the mutilations of the present.
We oppose, too, the doctrine of human incompetence because it rests essentially on the modern fact that men have been "competently" manipulated into incompetence -- we see little reason why men cannot meet with increasing skill the complexities and responsibilities of their situation, if society is organized not for minority, but for majority, participation in decision-making.
Men have unrealized potential for self-cultivation, self-direction, self-understanding, and creativity. It is this potential that we regard as crucial and to which we appeal, not to the human potentiality for violence, unreason, and submission to authority.
The goal of man and society should be human independence: a concern not with image of popularity but with finding a meaning in life that is personally authentic: a quality of mind not compulsively driven by a sense of powerlessness, nor one which unthinkingly adopts status values, nor one which represses all threats to its habits, but one which has full, spontaneous access to present and past experiences, one which easily unites the fragmented parts of personal history, one which openly faces problems which are troubling and unresolved: one with an intuitive awareness of possibilities, an active sense of curiosity, an ability and willingness to learn.
This kind of independence does not mean egoistic individualism -- the object is not to have one's way so much as it is to have a way that is one's own." ~Port Huron Statement, Students for a Democratic Society.
Judicial behavior is obviously criminal, illegal, and immoral. Trump is going to have many long confrontations with the judges during which this becomes increasingly obvious to everyone, and then he is going to blow the judges off. Possibly as early as October this year, but possibly after the 2018 mid term elections.
On 2/24/2017 10:40 AM, Razer wrote:
ROTF! To be a revolution you need an IDEOLOGY.
Greed is NOT an Ideology.
Liberty under law, private property, freedom of contract, and freedom of association is an ideology. Notice that we have a problem that our judges are lawless. At some point, to restore law and order, will need to drop some judges from a helicopter into the Pacific Ocean. Law, legality, and order is not judges getting their way. Law, legality, and order is a well armed, well disciplined, well trained man in a neat uniform enforcing explicit formal officially stated rules in obedience to his chain of command.
On Feb 23, 2017, at 7:55 PM, James A. Donald <jamesd@echeque.com> wrote:
On 2/24/2017 10:40 AM, Razer wrote: ROTF! To be a revolution you need an IDEOLOGY.
Greed is NOT an Ideology.
Liberty under law, private property, freedom of contract, and freedom of association is an ideology.
Liberty for who? White males exclusively, right? Go peddle your shit at your toxic fucking blog.
Notice that we have a problem that our judges are lawless. At some point, to restore law and order, will need to drop some judges from a helicopter into the Pacific Ocean.
Or some tired old fascists, all of whom seem to have forgotten that Hitler blew his own brains out after making sure his country burned down around him.
Law, legality, and order is not judges getting their way.
Law, legality, and order is a well armed, well disciplined, well trained man in a neat uniform enforcing explicit formal officially stated rules in obedience to his chain of command.
"With images of swastikas and gas chambers dancing in his head".... Your intellectual capacity alone is a quick proof that all your racist theories are just so much bullshit. Now I will restart imapfilter so you disappear and I stop feeding trolls like a fool.
On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 08:55:40PM -0500, John Newman wrote:
On Feb 23, 2017, at 7:55 PM, James A. Donald <jamesd@echeque.com> wrote:
On 2/24/2017 10:40 AM, Razer wrote: ROTF! To be a revolution you need an IDEOLOGY.
Greed is NOT an Ideology.
Liberty under law, private property, freedom of contract, and freedom of association is an ideology.
Liberty for who? White males exclusively, right? Go peddle your shit at your toxic fucking blog.
Notice that we have a problem that our judges are lawless. At some point, to restore law and order, will need to drop some judges from a helicopter into the Pacific Ocean.
Or some tired old fascists, all of whom seem to have forgotten that Hitler blew his own brains out after making sure his country burned down around him.
"Everybody knows" right ... like he didn't disappear with 130 submarines and 1100+ other scientists and personel (along with quite a few thousand books very recently retrieved from their main libraries), all of which is actually documented... Do NOT look into the south pole "conspiracy"!
Law, legality, and order is not judges getting their way.
Law, legality, and order is a well armed, well disciplined, well trained man in a neat uniform enforcing explicit formal officially stated rules in obedience to his chain of command.
"With images of swastikas and gas chambers dancing in his head"....
Your intellectual capacity alone is a quick proof that all your racist theories are just so much bullshit.
Now I will restart imapfilter so you disappear and I stop feeding trolls like a fool.
Jon you do amuse. I guess you're "since I'm now saying this for the THIRD TIME, I really mean it so there!"
On Feb 23, 2017, at 7:55 PM, James A. Donald <jamesd@echeque.com> wrote:
Law, legality, and order is not judges getting their way.
Law, legality, and order is a well armed, well disciplined, well trained man in a neat uniform enforcing explicit formal officially stated rules in obedience to his chain of command.
On 2/24/2017 11:55 AM, John Newman wrote:
"With images of swastikas and gas chambers dancing in his head"....
If judges and bureaucrats do whatever they fancy, impossible for the economy to function, because no one can invest in creating wealth, not knowing what rules are likely to apply. Investment requires long term planning, which is impossible in the present environment. The rules have to be clear, simple, and stated well in advance. Our current environment of capricious and unpredictable judicial and bureaucratic tyranny is making Americans poor. Freedom for judges to do as they please is anarcho tyranny.
On 02/23/2017 05:40 PM, Razer wrote:
On 02/23/2017 01:04 PM, Mirimir wrote:
On 02/23/2017 08:38 AM, Razer wrote:
On 02/23/2017 05:37 AM, jim bell wrote:
Court rules assault weapons are not protected under Constitutionhttp://dailym.ai/2mmUuqG via They aren't. You know why? When the Second Amendment was written, at 50 yards or so, you could literally outrun a musketball. If it didn't bounce off your coat. Besides, "Your puny AK-47 is useless. So, we need to have at least some of our volunteer resistance show up with Stinger missiles, some anti-aircraft batteries, maybe a submarine or two?" I hear Soros has a fleet of A-10 Warthogs he might call into service too if you talk to him purty.
For a credible revolution, you need real weapons and supplies, and people who know how to use them. So you need substantial involvement of trained military and veterans. With small arms and insiders, you get the real weapons and supplies.
That seems pretty unlikely in the US. And it it did go down, the result would arguably be some mix of military dictatorship and feudalism.
<SNIP>
ROTF! To be a revolution you need an IDEOLOGY.
Greed is NOT an Ideology.
Greed is a way of life in 'Merica. The ONLY accepted way.
Well, they call it "free enterprise" :)
Social atomization has created the circumstance that 'Merican families and communities are not even understood as such by a large majority of the planet's inhabitants...
ROTF! 'Merica is Doooooooomed! Bwhahhhaaa!
Well, maybe electing Trump wasn't a revolution, any more than electing Obama was. But Trump and his people seem even crazier than W and his minders. So yes, bad shit could go down ;) <SNIP>
On 02/23/2017 05:13 PM, Mirimir wrote:
Well, maybe electing Trump wasn't a revolution, any more than electing Obama was. But Trump and his people seem even crazier than W and his minders. So yes, bad shit could go down ;)
I'm still trying to figure out how many people voted for him, to simply break the motherfucker once and for all. Personally I've been waiting for that since '68 and George Wallace, redneck governor of Alabama. I took a look at him, and Hillary sans pantsuit... Hubert Humphrey, and said to myself "If we're gonna have an ignorant fucking racist warmonger as president, the best that could happen is to have one that's out there so everyone can see it and say W... T... F!" My concern, and we can see it post-Junior Bush with the teflon oreo following him, is after Donald Trump any ol' democratic party fascist will look good the socially and economically terrorized Americans. Rr
On 02/23/2017 05:40 PM, Razer wrote:
On 02/23/2017 01:04 PM, Mirimir wrote:
On 02/23/2017 05:37 AM, jim bell wrote:
Court rules assault weapons are not protected under Constitutionhttp://dailym.ai/2mmUuqG via They aren't. You know why? When the Second Amendment was written, at 50 yards or so, you could literally outrun a musketball. If it didn't bounce off your coat. Besides, "Your puny AK-47 is useless. So, we need to have at least some of our volunteer resistance show up with Stinger missiles, some anti-aircraft batteries, maybe a submarine or two?" I hear Soros has a fleet of A-10 Warthogs he might call into service too if you talk to him purty. For a credible revolution, you need real weapons and supplies, and
On 02/23/2017 08:38 AM, Razer wrote: people who know how to use them. So you need substantial involvement of trained military and veterans. With small arms and insiders, you get the real weapons and supplies.
That seems pretty unlikely in the US. And it it did go down, the result would arguably be some mix of military dictatorship and feudalism.
<SNIP> ROTF! To be a revolution you need an IDEOLOGY.
Greed is NOT an Ideology.
Greed is a way of life in 'Merica. The ONLY accepted way.
Well, they call it "free enterprise" :)
Social atomization has created the circumstance that 'Merican families and communities are not even understood as such by a large majority of the planet's inhabitants...
ROTF! 'Merica is Doooooooomed! Bwhahhhaaa! Well, maybe electing Trump wasn't a revolution, any more than electing Obama was. But Trump and his people seem even crazier than W and his minders. So yes, bad shit could go down ;)
<SNIP>
On 02/23/2017 06:22 PM, Razer wrote:
On 02/23/2017 05:13 PM, Mirimir wrote:
Well, maybe electing Trump wasn't a revolution, any more than electing Obama was. But Trump and his people seem even crazier than W and his minders. So yes, bad shit could go down ;)
I'm still trying to figure out how many people voted for him, to simply break the motherfucker once and for all. Personally I've been waiting for that since '68 and George Wallace, redneck governor of Alabama. I took a look at him, and Hillary sans pantsuit... Hubert Humphrey, and said to myself "If we're gonna have an ignorant fucking racist warmonger as president, the best that could happen is to have one that's out there so everyone can see it and say W... T... F!"
Well, the US political system is insidious. It's rather like a good cop bad cop shtik. But anyway, I doubt that there was any widespread intent to break shit. Some of the "alt-right" may be in it just for the lulz. Most Trump voters, though, were just pwned. Just like most Clinton and Sanders voters were. It's all con, all the time, in my opinion.
My concern, and we can see it post-Junior Bush with the teflon oreo following him, is after Donald Trump any ol' democratic party fascist will look good the socially and economically terrorized Americans.
That is the cycle, isn't it ;) It was WWII that led to economic prosperity in the US. The war effort built up industry. Europe and Asia were in ruins. The sense of shared sacrifice encouraged hard work, and more equity. There were good investment opportunities. But that's gone now. Since the 70s, at least, the US has been collapsing. Smart money has left. The rich have gotten richer, and don't much need the rest. What they need is good security. So yes, the US is fucked. Just another banana republic ;)
On Feb 23, 2017, at 9:24 PM, Mirimir <mirimir@riseup.net> wrote:
On 02/23/2017 06:22 PM, Razer wrote:
On 02/23/2017 05:13 PM, Mirimir wrote:
Well, maybe electing Trump wasn't a revolution, any more than electing Obama was. But Trump and his people seem even crazier than W and his minders. So yes, bad shit could go down ;)
I'm still trying to figure out how many people voted for him, to simply break the motherfucker once and for all. Personally I've been waiting for that since '68 and George Wallace, redneck governor of Alabama. I took a look at him, and Hillary sans pantsuit... Hubert Humphrey, and said to myself "If we're gonna have an ignorant fucking racist warmonger as president, the best that could happen is to have one that's out there so everyone can see it and say W... T... F!"
Well, the US political system is insidious. It's rather like a good cop bad cop shtik. But anyway, I doubt that there was any widespread intent to break shit. Some of the "alt-right" may be in it just for the lulz. Most Trump voters, though, were just pwned. Just like most Clinton and Sanders voters were. It's all con, all the time, in my opinion.
My concern, and we can see it post-Junior Bush with the teflon oreo following him, is after Donald Trump any ol' democratic party fascist will look good the socially and economically terrorized Americans.
That is the cycle, isn't it ;)
It was WWII that led to economic prosperity in the US. The war effort built up industry. Europe and Asia were in ruins. The sense of shared sacrifice encouraged hard work, and more equity. There were good investment opportunities.
But that's gone now. Since the 70s, at least, the US has been collapsing. Smart money has left. The rich have gotten richer, and don't much need the rest. What they need is good security.
So yes, the US is fucked. Just another banana republic ;)
That's what the saps who voted for Trump on a false promise of returned prosperity don't understand. Really the saps who voted at all, heh. The USA built its prosperity on the ashes of Europe and Asia, and now it's all a big con to keep the rich man rich. Maybe science will save us, transform us, or maybe it will just fucking destroy us... it's the only hedge against the crushing force of accrued wealth that i can see, and it's no sure thing..
On 2/24/2017 12:37 PM, John Newman wrote:
The USA built its prosperity on the ashes of Europe and Asia, and now it's all a big con to keep the rich man rich.
As Ayn Rand told us, wealth is created by talented businessmen. If you doubt it, observe China Compare China before 1980 with China after 1980 China went from poverty to wealth, by allowing businessmen to get rich. For the reverse transformation, from wealth to poverty, consider Venezuela before 1993 with Venezuela after 1993. Socialists can create a sand shortage in the Sahara desert, and socialists can transform oil wealth into oil poverty.
On Sat, 25 Feb 2017 09:46:21 +1000 "James A. Donald" <jamesd@echeque.com> wrote:
On 2/24/2017 12:37 PM, John Newman wrote:
The USA built its prosperity on the ashes of Europe and Asia, and now it's all a big con to keep the rich man rich.
As Ayn Rand told us, wealth is created by talented businessmen.
rand was an incredibly stupid cunt, Not to mention, she was morally despicable. That's why she stupidly lied about 'businessmen', aka corporatists.
On Sat, 25 Feb 2017 09:46:21 +1000 "James A. Donald" <jamesd@echeque.com> wrote:
As Ayn Rand told us, wealth is created by talented businessmen.
On 2/25/2017 9:57 AM, juan wrote:
rand was an incredibly stupid cunt, Not to mention, she was morally despicable. That's why she stupidly lied about 'businessmen', aka corporatists.
Hence the prosperity and success of Venezuela </sarcasm> Who is leftists favorite example of a real life evil capitalist? John D Rockefeller of Standard Oil, who reduced the cost of petrol to a tiny fraction of its previous cost by improvements in refining. And of course, their favorite fictional capitalist, JR Ewing of the television show "Dallas" - but it was the real life equivalents of JR Ewing that developed fracking, and without fracking, there would not be enough oil to go around. The reason lefties hate fracking so much, is that they were hoping we would run out of oil. Now it looks that we are good to go for at least another hundred years.
On Sat, 25 Feb 2017 10:26:09 +1000 "James A. Donald" <jamesd@echeque.com> wrote:
On Sat, 25 Feb 2017 09:46:21 +1000 "James A. Donald" <jamesd@echeque.com> wrote:
As Ayn Rand told us, wealth is created by talented businessmen.
On 2/25/2017 9:57 AM, juan wrote:
rand was an incredibly stupid cunt, Not to mention, she was morally despicable. That's why she stupidly lied about 'businessmen', aka corporatists.
Hence the prosperity and success of Venezuela </sarcasm>
Who is leftists favorite example of a real life evil capitalist?
John D Rockefeller of Standard Oil, who reduced the cost of petrol
He didn't reduce the cost of oil. Go learn the ABC of economics instead of parroting conservative corporatist propaganda. Oh wait. You won't learn anything because parroting anti-free-market, corporatist propaganda is your job description.
"James A. Donald" <jamesd@echeque.com> wrote:
Who is leftists favorite example of a real life evil capitalist?
John D Rockefeller of Standard Oil, who reduced the cost of petrol
On 2/25/2017 10:56 AM, juan wrote:
He didn't reduce the cost of oil.
He reduced the cost of what goes into your car's fuel tank. Standard Oil was primarily in the business of distilling oil into something that cars can use, rather than the oil business.
On Sun, 26 Feb 2017 14:26:49 +1000 "James A. Donald" <jamesd@echeque.com> wrote:
"James A. Donald" <jamesd@echeque.com> wrote:
Who is leftists favorite example of a real life evil capitalist?
John D Rockefeller of Standard Oil, who reduced the cost of petrol
On 2/25/2017 10:56 AM, juan wrote:
He didn't reduce the cost of oil.
He reduced the cost of what goes into your car's fuel tank.
maybe you are missing the point on purpose, or maybe you are retarded. again : rockefeller didn't "reduce the cost of what goes into cars' fuel tanks" but hey, you know what? bill gates invented the computer and the internet. And the door and the window. And ayn-cunt-randroid was the Greatest Philosopher in History.
Standard Oil was primarily in the business of distilling oil into something that cars can use, rather than the oil business.
"James A. Donald" <jamesd@echeque.com> wrote:
Who is leftists favorite example of a real life evil capitalist?
John D Rockefeller of Standard Oil, who reduced the cost of petrol
On 2/25/2017 10:56 AM, juan wrote:
He didn't reduce the cost of oil.
"James A. Donald" <jamesd@echeque.com> wrote:
He reduced the cost of what goes into your car's fuel tank.
maybe you are missing the point on purpose, or maybe you are retarded.
again : rockefeller didn't "reduce the cost of what goes into cars' fuel tanks"
the price of refined oil plummeted from more than 30 cents per gallon in 1869 to 10 cents in 1874 and 8 cents in 1885, primarily due to Rockefeller improving refining and building bigger refineries.
In the case of Standard Oil, we see technological advance driven by a rich capitalist radically reducing the cost of fuel, as in the standard Ayn Rand account of technological progress, industrialization, and economic development. We don't see any obvious reduction in the cost of fuel from the breakup of Standard Oil.
On Sun, 26 Feb 2017 17:14:59 +1000 "James A. Donald" <jamesd@echeque.com> wrote:
In the case of Standard Oil, we see technological advance
let's assume, for argument's sake, that there was some 'technological advance'
driven by a rich capitalist
nope, that's just your highly stupid, anti-free-market, corporatist propaganda. the price of commodities don't go down thanks to scumbags like rockefeller. Stop lying.
radically reducing the cost of fuel,
bullshit. now, get lost.
as in the standard Ayn Rand account of technological progress, industrialization, and economic development.
We don't see any obvious reduction in the cost of fuel from the breakup of Standard Oil.
On 2/26/2017 5:31 PM, juan wrote:
the price of commodities don't go down thanks to scumbags like rockefeller. Stop lying.
Almost every technological advance that is brought to the masses comes from someone like Rockefeller, who improved refineries, rapidly reducing the price of refined fuel from thirty cents a gallon down to eight cents a gallon. And every technological advance is brought to the masses by someone like Rockefeller. For example, transistors, invented by Shockley, brought to the masses by Shockley Semiconductor Laboratory. Shockley founded Silicon Valley. The Traitorous Eight learned how to build transistors directly from him and under him, and then, pissed off by his poor interpersonal skills, went on to found Fairchild. Only to have the same thing happen to them, resulting in the Fairchildren and the integrated circuit and Silicon Valley. Every modern electronic device everywhere comes from someone who learned to build transistors at the feet of someone who learned to build transistors at the feet of someone who learned to build transistors at the feet of Shockley in Shockley Semiconductor Laboratory. Rockefeller did not invent refining, but he invented the modern type oil refinery, making it large scale, efficient, and cheap. Shockley did invent the junction transistor, and did invent the theory and explanation of transistors. He literally wrote the book, and every transistor everywhere, except for the early crystal radios, every transistor that people use today, is built by people who learned from people who learned from people who learned from him in personal apprenticeship, the boss telling his employees how to produce the goods and personally showing them how to do so with his own hands.
On Mon, 27 Feb 2017 06:18:24 +1000 "James A. Donald" <jamesd@echeque.com> wrote:
On 2/26/2017 5:31 PM, juan wrote:
the price of commodities don't go down thanks to scumbags like rockefeller. Stop lying.
Almost every technological advance that is brought to the masses comes from someone like Rockefeller,
you a stupid liar and an anti-libertarian piece of shit. Too bad you're still alive.
"James A. Donald" <jamesd@echeque.com> wrote:
Almost every technological advance that is brought to the masses comes from someone like Rockefeller,
On 2/27/2017 6:44 AM, juan wrote:
you a stupid liar and an anti-libertarian piece of shit. Too bad you're still alive.
You have tried doing without capitalists thousands of times in the last two millenia. The same thing happened every time: Famine and mass murder. You don't know how to make a transistor, you don't know how to make a light bulb, you don't know how to make a pencil, except a capitalist tells you what to do.
On 2017-02-26 12:18, James A. Donald wrote:
On 2/26/2017 5:31 PM, juan wrote:
the price of commodities don't go down thanks to scumbags like rockefeller. Stop lying.
Almost every technological advance that is brought to the masses comes from someone like Rockefeller
I suppose you believe Edison invented the light bulb all by himself too... Take your individualistic BS down the road simpleton. Rr , who improved refineries, rapidly
reducing the price of refined fuel from thirty cents a gallon down to eight cents a gallon.
And every technological advance is brought to the masses by someone like Rockefeller.
For example, transistors, invented by Shockley, brought to the masses by Shockley Semiconductor Laboratory. Shockley founded Silicon Valley. The Traitorous Eight learned how to build transistors directly from him and under him, and then, pissed off by his poor interpersonal skills, went on to found Fairchild.
Only to have the same thing happen to them, resulting in the Fairchildren and the integrated circuit and Silicon Valley.
Every modern electronic device everywhere comes from someone who learned to build transistors at the feet of someone who learned to build transistors at the feet of someone who learned to build transistors at the feet of Shockley in Shockley Semiconductor Laboratory.
Rockefeller did not invent refining, but he invented the modern type oil refinery, making it large scale, efficient, and cheap. Shockley did invent the junction transistor, and did invent the theory and explanation of transistors. He literally wrote the book, and every transistor everywhere, except for the early crystal radios, every transistor that people use today, is built by people who learned from people who learned from people who learned from him in personal apprenticeship, the boss telling his employees how to produce the goods and personally showing them how to do so with his own hands.
On Sun, 26 Feb 2017 14:05:18 -0800 Razer <g2s@riseup.net> wrote:
On 2017-02-26 12:18, James A. Donald wrote:
On 2/26/2017 5:31 PM, juan wrote:
the price of commodities don't go down thanks to scumbags like rockefeller. Stop lying.
Almost every technological advance that is brought to the masses comes from someone like Rockefeller
I suppose you believe Edison invented the light bulb all by himself too...
edison didn't invent the light bulb - despite what right wing ignorant americans believe.
Take your individualistic BS down the road simpleton.
jd's mental vomits have nothing to do with individualism. As a matter of fact he's a collectivistic totalitarian (like you).
Rr
, who improved refineries, rapidly
reducing the price of refined fuel from thirty cents a gallon down to eight cents a gallon.
And every technological advance is brought to the masses by someone like Rockefeller.
For example, transistors, invented by Shockley, brought to the masses by Shockley Semiconductor Laboratory. Shockley founded Silicon Valley. The Traitorous Eight learned how to build transistors directly from him and under him, and then, pissed off by his poor interpersonal skills, went on to found Fairchild.
Only to have the same thing happen to them, resulting in the Fairchildren and the integrated circuit and Silicon Valley.
Every modern electronic device everywhere comes from someone who learned to build transistors at the feet of someone who learned to build transistors at the feet of someone who learned to build transistors at the feet of Shockley in Shockley Semiconductor Laboratory.
Rockefeller did not invent refining, but he invented the modern type oil refinery, making it large scale, efficient, and cheap. Shockley did invent the junction transistor, and did invent the theory and explanation of transistors. He literally wrote the book, and every transistor everywhere, except for the early crystal radios, every transistor that people use today, is built by people who learned from people who learned from people who learned from him in personal apprenticeship, the boss telling his employees how to produce the goods and personally showing them how to do so with his own hands.
On 2/27/2017 9:12 AM, juan wrote:
edison didn't invent the light bulb - despite what right wing ignorant americans believe.
1. Edison and Swan, the owners of the Edison & Swan United Electric Light Company, did invent the light bulb, and did not waste too much time arguing with each other over who made the greater contribution, because they were too busy making money. 2. Your theory (that capitalists are unproductive) has been put to test thousands of times in the last two thousand years, and the result every time is poverty and terror. 3. You do not know how to make a light bulb, or a transistor, or even a pencil. You need a capitalist to tell you what to produce and how to produce it. Without capitalists, everyone starves, as they are starving right now in Venezuela and North Korea.
On Mon, 27 Feb 2017 09:57:04 +1000 "James A. Donald" <jamesd@echeque.com> wrote:
On 2/27/2017 9:12 AM, juan wrote:
edison didn't invent the light bulb - despite what right wing ignorant americans believe.
1. Edison and Swan, the owners of the Edison & Swan United Electric Light Company, did invent the light bulb,
no they didn't
2. Your theory (that capitalists are unproductive)
that's not my theory - looks like every sentence you write contains at least one lie.
3. You do not know how to make a light bulb, or a transistor, or even a pencil.
you know fuck regarding what I know.
You need a capitalist to tell you what to produce and how to produce it. Without capitalists, everyone starves,
you are a crazy, ignorant piece of shit. as they are
starving right now in Venezuela and North Korea.
"James A. Donald" <jamesd@echeque.com> wrote:
1. Edison and Swan, the owners of the Edison & Swan United Electric Light Company, did invent the light bulb,
On 2/27/2017 10:15 AM, juan wrote:
no they didn't
Oh? Who did then? Invented in the Soviet Union, no doubt, like everything else. Or was it black Egyptians?
On 02/26/2017 05:19 PM, James A. Donald wrote:
"James A. Donald" <jamesd@echeque.com> wrote:
1. Edison and Swan, the owners of the Edison & Swan United Electric Light Company, did invent the light bulb,
On 2/27/2017 10:15 AM, juan wrote:
no they didn't
Oh?
Who did then?
Lewis Howard Latimer, who, like Garrett Augustus Morgan, inventor the modern Traffic Light, was wait for it... a Knee-Grow.
Latimer received a patent in January 1881 for the "Process of Manufacturing Carbons", an improved method for the production of carbon filaments used in lightbulbs.[6][7]
The Edison Electric Light Company in New York City hired Latimer in 1884, as a draftsman and an expert witness in patent litigation on electric lights. Latimer is credited with an improved process for creating a carbon filament at this time, which was an improvement on Thomas Edison's original paper filament, which would burn out quickly.[8]
Here is material and links relavant to the original subject on why bans are false to some of the reasons what the US is actually part of being... https://www.reddit.com/r/news/comments/5w6vm8/second_amendment_does_not_cove... It's all over reddit... a bunch of irresponsible liberal crybabies plus their partners in big control and enslavement buddies, vs actual freedom and responsibility distributed among everyone. Depowering vs empowering. Etc. Have fun.
"James A. Donald" <jamesd@echeque.com> wrote:
1. Edison and Swan, the owners of the Edison & Swan United Electric Light Company, did invent the light bulb,
On 2/27/2017 10:15 AM, juan wrote:
no they didn't
Oh?
Who did then?
On 2/27/2017 11:27 AM, Razer wrote:
Latimer received a patent in January 1881 for the "Process of Manufacturing Carbons", an improved method for the production of carbon filaments used in lightbulbs.[6][7]
Latimer's employer at the time was the notable inventor and businessman Hiram Maxim, who claimed that Latimer falsely patented that method, when in fact it had been developed by Hiram Maxim. But in any case, whether it was the thieving negro with no particular qualifications, or the businessman with a long history of inventing stuff, the fact is that Edison and Swan were first, and Hiram Maxim (or Latimer) was second.
On Mon, 27 Feb 2017 12:19:00 +1000 "James A. Donald" <jamesd@echeque.com> wrote:
the fact is that Edison and Swan were first, and Hiram Maxim (or Latimer) was second.
no, that is not a fact - it's just a stupid lie coming from a right wing asshole (you) . stop lying, shitbag https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incandescent_light_bulb#History
On 2/27/2017 12:49 PM, juan wrote:
On Mon, 27 Feb 2017 12:19:00 +1000 "James A. Donald" <jamesd@echeque.com> wrote:
the fact is that Edison and Swan were first, and Hiram Maxim (or Latimer) was second.
no, that is not a fact - it's just a stupid lie coming from a right wing asshole (you) . stop lying, shitbag
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incandescent_light_bulb#History
Which tells us that: In 1880, the Oregon Railroad and Navigation Company steamer, Columbia, became the first application for Edison's incandescent electric lamps (it was also the first ship to execute use of a dynamo).[39][40][41] And does not mention Latimer etc, until quite some time later.
On Mon, 27 Feb 2017 14:28:09 +1000 "James A. Donald" <jamesd@echeque.com> wrote:
On 2/27/2017 12:49 PM, juan wrote:
On Mon, 27 Feb 2017 12:19:00 +1000 "James A. Donald" <jamesd@echeque.com> wrote:
the fact is that Edison and Swan were first, and Hiram Maxim (or Latimer) was second.
no, that is not a fact - it's just a stupid lie coming from a right wing asshole (you) . stop lying, shitbag
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incandescent_light_bulb#History
Which tells us that:
it tells us the same stuff I copypasted in a previous message and which I'll copypaste again so that you stop lying. READ THE FUCKING QUOTE ASSHOLE : "In 1802, Humphry Davy used what he described as "a battery of immense size",[13] consisting of 2,000 cells housed in the basement of the Royal Institution of Great Britain,[14] to create an incandescent light by passing the current through a thin strip of platinum, chosen because the metal had an extremely high melting point. It was not bright enough nor did it last long enough to be practical, but it was the precedent behind the efforts of scores of experimenters over the next 75 years.[15] Over the first three-quarters of the 19th century many experimenters worked with various combinations of platinum or iridium wires, carbon rods, and evacuated or semi-evacuated enclosures. Many of these devices were demonstrated and some were patented.[16] In 1835, James Bowman Lindsay demonstrated a constant electric light at a public meeting in Dundee, Scotland. He stated that he could "read a book at a distance of one and a half feet". However, having perfected the device to his own satisfaction, he turned to the problem of wireless telegraphy and did not develop the electric light any further. His claims are not well documented, although he is credited in Challoner et al. with being the inventor of the "Incandescent Light Bulb".[17] In 1838, Belgian lithographer Marcellin Jobard invented an incandescent light bulb with a vacuum atmosphere using a carbon filament.[18] In 1840, British scientist Warren de la Rue enclosed a coiled platinum filament in a vacuum tube and passed an electric current through it. The design was based on the concept that the high melting point of platinum would allow it to operate at high temperatures and that the evacuated chamber would contain fewer gas molecules to react with the platinum, improving its longevity. Although a workable design, the cost of the platinum made it impractical for commercial use. In 1841, Frederick de Moleyns of England was granted the first patent for an incandescent lamp, with a design using platinum wires contained within a vacuum bulb. He also used carbon.[19][20] In 1845, American John W. Starr acquired a patent for his incandescent light bulb involving the use of carbon filaments.[21][22] He died shortly after obtaining the patent, and his invention was never produced commercially. Little else is known about him.[23] In 1851, Jean Eugène Robert-Houdin publicly demonstrated incandescent light bulbs on his estate in Blois, France. His light bulbs are on display in the museum of the Château de Blois.[24] In 1872, Russian Alexander Lodygin invented an incandescent light bulb and obtained a Russian patent in 1874. He used as a burner two carbon rods of diminished section in a glass receiver, hermetically sealed, and filled with nitrogen, electrically arranged so that the current could be passed to the second carbon when the first had been consumed.[25] Later he lived in the US, changed his name to Alexander de Lodyguine and applied and obtained patents for incandescent lamps having chromium, iridium, rhodium, ruthenium, osmium, molybdenum and tungsten filaments,[26] and a bulb using a molybdenum filament was demonstrated at the world fair of 1900 in Paris.[27] On 24 July 1874, a Canadian patent was filed by Henry Woodward and Mathew Evans for a lamp consisting of carbon rods mounted in a nitrogen-filled glass cylinder. They were unsuccessful at commercializing their lamp, and sold rights to their patent (U.S. Patent 0,181,613) to Thomas Edison in 1879
In 1880, the Oregon Railroad and Navigation Company steamer, Columbia, became the first application for Edison's incandescent electric lamps (it was also the first ship to execute use of a dynamo).[39][40][41]
And does not mention Latimer etc, until quite some time later.
On 2/27/2017 2:39 PM, juan wrote:
On Mon, 27 Feb 2017 14:28:09 +1000 "James A. Donald" <jamesd@echeque.com> wrote:
On 2/27/2017 12:49 PM, juan wrote:
On Mon, 27 Feb 2017 12:19:00 +1000 "James A. Donald" <jamesd@echeque.com> wrote:
the fact is that Edison and Swan were first, and Hiram Maxim (or Latimer) was second.
it tells us the same stuff I copypasted in a previous message and which I'll copypaste again so that you stop lying.
READ THE FUCKING QUOTE ASSHOLE :
You could not buy useful lights until Edison started making them. The first electric lights that were actually practical to use, and you could buy, and worked well enough that people were inclined to buy them for actual use, were sold by Edison and Swan in 1880. Everything before that was an experiment or a toy.
On Mon, 27 Feb 2017 16:57:53 +1000 "James A. Donald" <jamesd@echeque.com> wrote:
On 2/27/2017 2:39 PM, juan wrote:
READ THE FUCKING QUOTE ASSHOLE :
You could not buy useful lights until Edison started making them.
above, yet another stupid lie. And below : 1) stupid lie from a worthless scumbag "Edison and Swan, did invent the light bulb" 2) stupid lie from a worthless scumbag "Edison and Swan, did invent the light bulb" 3) stupid lie from a worthless scumbag "Edison and Swan, did invent the light bulb" 4) stupid lie from a worthless scumbag "Edison and Swan, did invent the light bulb" 5) stupid lie from a worthless scumbag "Edison and Swan, did invent the light bulb" Anyway, keep trolling. That's the only thing you can - barely - do. Perhaps you need to be ass raped by a black capitalist?
On 2/27/2017 5:14 PM, juan wrote:
On Mon, 27 Feb 2017 16:57:53 +1000 "James A. Donald" <jamesd@echeque.com> wrote:
On 2/27/2017 2:39 PM, juan wrote:
READ THE FUCKING QUOTE ASSHOLE :
You could not buy useful lights until Edison started making them.
above, yet another stupid lie. And below :
You can always find precursors for any invention, but it is not really invented until it is useful enough that people will pay money to put it to its intended use for practical purposes. And by this standard of what constitutes an invention, pretty much everything that was ever invented, was invented by a businessman.
On Mon, 27 Feb 2017 18:49:08 +1000 "James A. Donald" <jamesd@echeque.com> wrote:
And by this standard of what constitutes an invention,
your 'standard' is deranged nonsense. You are fully out of touch with reality. Go suck some black cock. We all know that's your favorite passtime.
On 2/27/2017 7:02 PM, juan wrote:
On Mon, 27 Feb 2017 18:49:08 +1000 "James A. Donald" <jamesd@echeque.com> wrote:
And by this standard of what constitutes an invention,
your 'standard' is deranged nonsense.
You could not buy a useful lightbulb until Swan and Edison started manufacturing light bulbs. In this sense, Swan and Edison invented the lightbulb. Similarly, transistors were not very useful until Shockley invented the junction transistor, and started manufacturing them.
On Mon, 27 Feb 2017 09:57:04 +1000 "James A. Donald" <jamesd@echeque.com> wrote:
On 2/27/2017 9:12 AM, juan wrote:
edison didn't invent the light bulb - despite what right wing ignorant americans believe.
1. Edison and Swan, the owners of the Edison & Swan United Electric Light Company, did invent the light bulb,
of course they did no such thing. even wikimierda is a lot more useful than you and your stupid lies. "On 24 July 1874, a Canadian patent was filed by Henry Woodward and Mathew Evans for a lamp consisting of carbon rods mounted in a nitrogen-filled glass cylinder. They were unsuccessful at commercializing their lamp, and sold rights to their patent (U.S. Patent 0,181,613) to Thomas Edison in 1879" In 1761 Ebenezer Kinnersley demonstrated heating a wire to incandescence.[12] In 1802, Humphry Davy used what he described as "a battery of immense size",[13] consisting of 2,000 cells housed in the basement of the Royal Institution of Great Britain,[14] to create an incandescent light by passing the current through a thin strip of platinum, chosen because the metal had an extremely high melting point. It was not bright enough nor did it last long enough to be practical, but it was the precedent behind the efforts of scores of experimenters over the next 75 years.[15] Over the first three-quarters of the 19th century many experimenters worked with various combinations of platinum or iridium wires, carbon rods, and evacuated or semi-evacuated enclosures. Many of these devices were demonstrated and some were patented.[16] In 1835, James Bowman Lindsay demonstrated a constant electric light at a public meeting in Dundee, Scotland. He stated that he could "read a book at a distance of one and a half feet". However, having perfected the device to his own satisfaction, he turned to the problem of wireless telegraphy and did not develop the electric light any further. His claims are not well documented, although he is credited in Challoner et al. with being the inventor of the "Incandescent Light Bulb".[17] In 1838, Belgian lithographer Marcellin Jobard invented an incandescent light bulb with a vacuum atmosphere using a carbon filament.[18] In 1840, British scientist Warren de la Rue enclosed a coiled platinum filament in a vacuum tube and passed an electric current through it. The design was based on the concept that the high melting point of platinum would allow it to operate at high temperatures and that the evacuated chamber would contain fewer gas molecules to react with the platinum, improving its longevity. Although a workable design, the cost of the platinum made it impractical for commercial use. In 1841, Frederick de Moleyns of England was granted the first patent for an incandescent lamp, with a design using platinum wires contained within a vacuum bulb. He also used carbon.[19][20] In 1845, American John W. Starr acquired a patent for his incandescent light bulb involving the use of carbon filaments.[21][22] He died shortly after obtaining the patent, and his invention was never produced commercially. Little else is known about him.[23] In 1851, Jean Eugène Robert-Houdin publicly demonstrated incandescent light bulbs on his estate in Blois, France. His light bulbs are on display in the museum of the Château de Blois.[24] In 1872, Russian Alexander Lodygin invented an incandescent light bulb and obtained a Russian patent in 1874. He used as a burner two carbon rods of diminished section in a glass receiver, hermetically sealed, and filled with nitrogen, electrically arranged so that the current could be passed to the second carbon when the first had been consumed.[25] Later he lived in the US, changed his name to Alexander de Lodyguine and applied and obtained patents for incandescent lamps having chromium, iridium, rhodium, ruthenium, osmium, molybdenum and tungsten filaments,[26] and a bulb using a molybdenum filament was demonstrated at the world fair of 1900 in Paris.[27] Heinrich Göbel in 1893 claimed he had designed the first incandescent light bulb in 1854, with a thin carbonized bamboo filament of high resistance, platinum lead-in wires in an all-glass envelope, and a high vacuum. Judges of four courts raised doubts about the alleged Göbel anticipation, but there was never a decision in a final hearing due to the expiry date of Edison's patent. A research work published 2007 concluded that the story of the Göbel lamps in the 1850s is a legend.[28]
On 02/26/2017 03:57 PM, James A. Donald wrote:
On 2/27/2017 9:12 AM, juan wrote:
edison didn't invent the light bulb - despite what right wing ignorant americans believe.
1. Edison and Swan, the owners of the Edison & Swan United Electric Light Company, did invent the light bulb, and did not waste too much time arguing with each other over who made the greater contribution, because they were too busy making money.
A crew of engineers and experimenters invented the light bulb. Edison, as you said, was too busy making money and infringing on other people's patents like good capitalists are wont to do Same with Rockefeller and oil refining. He knew less than squat about petro-engineering.
Born into a large family in upstate New York, he was shaped by his con man father and religious mother. His family moved several times before eventually settling in Cleveland, Ohio. Rockefeller became an assistant bookkeeper at the age of 16, and went into a business partnership with Maurice B. Clark and his brothers at 20.
When he was a boy, his family moved to Moravia, New York, and in 1851 to Owego, New York, where he attended Owego Academy. In 1853, his family moved to Strongsville, Ohio and he attended Cleveland's Central High School, the first high school in Cleveland and the first free, public high school west of the Alleghenies. Then, he took a ten-week business course at Folsom's Commercial College, where he studied bookkeeping.[26] Despite his father's absences and frequent family moves, young John was a well-behaved, serious, and studious boy. His contemporaries described him as reserved, earnest, religious, methodical, and discreet. He was an excellent debater and expressed himself precisely. He also had a deep love of music and dreamed of it as a possible career.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_D._Rockefeller#Early_life No engineering background there. Just 'bookkeeping'. So tell me Rockefeller was responsible for improving oil refining again?
2. Your theory (that capitalists are unproductive) has been put to test thousands of times in the last two thousand years, and the result every time is poverty and terror.
Capitalism as an economic shitstem has only existed for a few centuries, or so.
Capital has existed incipiently on a small scale for centuries,[36] in the form of merchant, renting and lending activities, and occasionally as small-scale industry with some wage labour. Simple commodity exchange, and consequently simple commodity production, which are the initial basis for the growth of capital from trade, have a very long history. The "capitalistic era" according to Karl Marx dates from 16th century merchants and small urban workshops.[37] Marx knew that wage labour existed on a modest scale for centuries before capitalist industry. Early Islam promulgated capitalist economic policies, which migrated to Europe through trade partners from cities such as Venice.[38] Capitalism in its modern form can be traced to the emergence of agrarian capitalism and mercantilism in the Renaissance.[39]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism Your time estimate is just a little... bit... off.. Oh, and it won't be 'coming back around again'. Resources are finite. Unlike human greed and obsessive compulsive accumulative behavior. Regarding teror Living in a rat-infested ghetto while your boss shits in a gold-plated toilet is terror, and a damn good reason to inflict terror on your boss. Actually, they DO live in terror, but psychopaths don't display 'distress'. Want to know what they're terrified of (except violence in the streets...)? They're terrified of dying (Roszak). Because that hearse isn't going to have a luggage rack and their whole live's worth of fuckery and thuggery and accumulation will mean less than shit when they're rotting in a grave.. About that fear of violence in the streets. Part 1 http://auntieimperial.blogspot.com/2011/07/for-damn-good-reason-too-why-rich... Part 2 http://auntieimperial.blogspot.com/2011/07/for-damn-good-reason-too-part-2-w...
3. You do not know how to make a light bulb, or a transistor, or even a pencil. You need a capitalist to tell you what to produce and how to produce it. Without capitalists, everyone starves, as they are starving right now in Venezuela and North Korea.
ROTF suuuuuuure. For a start I predate transistors, and despite the fact I didn't invent them (i was a little young), I understand how they work and I certainly learned how to create a diode... In the boy scouts. Building a crystal radio. Besides, transistors, light bulbs and pencils keep sooooo many people from starving in Malaysia. Right. Unhhunh. Listen idiot I trained Thai farmgirls, who didn't even have the cognitive skills for it, in precision machine shop inspection skills. SOMEONE built a factory in their rice paddy, so they HAD TO work in it, or starve. That must be what you mean by: "Without capitalists, everyone starves." You ARE a fucking apathetic-pathetic vicious midget. Rr
On Sun, Feb 26, 2017 at 05:05:00PM -0800, Razer wrote:
Resources are finite.
This may be so in an absolute sense, as in "the amount of energy coming out of our sun is finite, and the amount of energy we can tap from the electrons and energy composing/constituting matter" is finite, BUT, just like software today is essentially a field of abundance (unlimited creativity/ unlimited combinations of bits or ways of conceiving things), likewise tomorrow's 3D printers (and their counterpart 'recycling mono atomic deconstructors') will mean essentially unlimited creativity in the combinations of matter. Abundance is merely an engineering problem.
Unlike human greed and obsessive compulsive accumulative behavior.
I agree that these are definitely not finite.
ROTF suuuuuuure. For a start I predate transistors,
Note to Razer: do not predate on transistors. Be an ethical predator, predate on vegetables! [... Razer's "vicious midgeting" ignored]
On Thu, 23 Feb 2017 19:24:03 -0700 Mirimir <mirimir@riseup.net> wrote:
It was WWII that led to economic prosperity in the US. The war effort built up industry. Europe and Asia were in ruins. The sense of shared sacrifice encouraged hard work, and more equity. There were good investment opportunities.
Only partially correct. The 'war effort' destroyed industry and competitors outside of the US and made the whole of the world subservient to the US nazi government. That in turn meant that the americunts were able to sell coca cola all over the world, among other things...
But that's gone now. Since the 70s, at least, the US has been collapsing.
US nazi empire is collapsing? That is Bullshit. Or self-delusion. Or US military propaganda.
Smart money has left. The rich have gotten richer, and don't much need the rest. What they need is good security.
So yes, the US is fucked. Just another banana republic ;)
The US is the biggest fascist organization on the planet. It is (way) worse than a banana republic from the moral point of view. But if one considers the military and industrial/thieving performance of the US, then the US is highly succesful and not 'collapsing' in any shape or form.
On 02/23/2017 08:44 PM, juan wrote:
On Thu, 23 Feb 2017 19:24:03 -0700 Mirimir <mirimir@riseup.net> wrote:
It was WWII that led to economic prosperity in the US. The war effort built up industry. Europe and Asia were in ruins. The sense of shared sacrifice encouraged hard work, and more equity. There were good investment opportunities. Only partially correct. The 'war effort' destroyed industry and competitors outside of the US and made the whole of the world subservient to the US nazi government. That in turn meant that the americunts were able to sell coca cola all over the world, among other things...
If the German Nazis won we'd be drinking Fanta Cola instead. http://www.snopes.com/cokelore/fanta.asp Odd though. You can still buy Fanta in the US. It must be a 5th column! Rr
On Feb 23, 2017, at 11:56 PM, Razer <g2s@riseup.net> wrote:
On 02/23/2017 08:44 PM, juan wrote: On Thu, 23 Feb 2017 19:24:03 -0700 Mirimir <mirimir@riseup.net> wrote:
It was WWII that led to economic prosperity in the US. The war effort built up industry. Europe and Asia were in ruins. The sense of shared sacrifice encouraged hard work, and more equity. There were good investment opportunities. Only partially correct. The 'war effort' destroyed industry and competitors outside of the US and made the whole of the world subservient to the US nazi government. That in turn meant that the americunts were able to sell coca cola all over the world, among other things...
If the German Nazis won we'd be drinking Fanta Cola instead.
http://www.snopes.com/cokelore/fanta.asp
Odd though. You can still buy Fanta in the US. It must be a 5th column!
Rr
I'm afraid Trump is going to get the Mexican coca-cola, the shit in a glass bottle made with real cane sugar, locked up on the other side of the border due to his fucking wall/trade wars/deportations/etc.... Mexican coke is good! Err, mexican coca-cola...
On 02/24/2017 01:19 AM, John Newman wrote:
On Feb 23, 2017, at 11:56 PM, Razer <g2s@riseup.net> wrote:
On 02/23/2017 08:44 PM, juan wrote: On Thu, 23 Feb 2017 19:24:03 -0700 Mirimir <mirimir@riseup.net> wrote:
It was WWII that led to economic prosperity in the US. The war effort built up industry. Europe and Asia were in ruins. The sense of shared sacrifice encouraged hard work, and more equity. There were good investment opportunities. Only partially correct. The 'war effort' destroyed industry and competitors outside of the US and made the whole of the world subservient to the US nazi government. That in turn meant that the americunts were able to sell coca cola all over the world, among other things...
If the German Nazis won we'd be drinking Fanta Cola instead.
http://www.snopes.com/cokelore/fanta.asp
Odd though. You can still buy Fanta in the US. It must be a 5th column!
Rr I'm afraid Trump is going to get the Mexican coca-cola, the shit in a glass bottle made with real cane sugar, locked up on the other side of the border due to his fucking wall/trade wars/deportations/etc....
Mexican coke is good! Err, mexican coca-cola...
Hate to say it but most indigenous Mexicans would relish that. Coca Cola has privatized most of Mexico's water, and maybe that would knock the price of water down. But for the brown bubbly sugar water,,, I think the local family restaurant has connections. Sort of like Okie cigarette smuggling out of the trunks of windowless Dodge Chargers Rr.
On 02/23/2017 08:13 PM, Mirimir wrote:
On 02/23/2017 05:40 PM, Razer wrote:
On 02/23/2017 01:04 PM, Mirimir wrote:
On 02/23/2017 08:38 AM, Razer wrote:
On 02/23/2017 05:37 AM, jim bell wrote:
Court rules assault weapons are not protected under Constitutionhttp://dailym.ai/2mmUuqG via They aren't. You know why? When the Second Amendment was written, at 50 yards or so, you could literally outrun a musketball. If it didn't bounce off your coat.
Sorry to bring up guns. Um, Jim. I own a black powder rifle in a common musket calibre. I've put a slug deep into hard beech wood at 50 yards. The musketballs fly even faster than the slugs. With a good charge the balls have far more energy than an AK-47 bullet. ....but it takes almost a minute to load and it makes a pretty big cloud of smoke. My black powder gun is rifled - the muskets were smoothbores and not so accurate so the range i can hit things is better. Besides, "Your puny AK-47 is useless. So, we need
to have at least some of our volunteer resistance show up with Stinger missiles, some anti-aircraft batteries, maybe a submarine or two?" I hear Soros has a fleet of A-10 Warthogs he might call into service too if you talk to him purty. For a credible revolution, you need real weapons and supplies, and people who know how to use them. So you need substantial involvement of trained military and veterans. With small arms and insiders, you get the real weapons and supplies.
That seems pretty unlikely in the US. And it it did go down, the result would arguably be some mix of military dictatorship and feudalism.
<SNIP>
ROTF! To be a revolution you need an IDEOLOGY.
Greed is NOT an Ideology.
Greed is a way of life in 'Merica. The ONLY accepted way.
Well, they call it "free enterprise" :)
Social atomization has created the circumstance that 'Merican families and communities are not even understood as such by a large majority of the planet's inhabitants...
ROTF! 'Merica is Doooooooomed! Bwhahhhaaa!
Well, maybe electing Trump wasn't a revolution, any more than electing Obama was. But Trump and his people seem even crazier than W and his minders. So yes, bad shit could go down ;)
<SNIP>
On 02/23/2017 07:15 PM, Marina Brown misquoted Jim... I wrote the bit about outrunning a musketball...Yeah well perhaps I was jesting. But what might happen if the ball hit a solid object, or thick chopped pressed wool (imagine a peacoat on steroids) with a bunch of undergarments are two different things. I'm not saying it wouldn't hurt, or break a bone or something, but the ball would most likely get stuck in the wool. Don't ask me for a test drive k? Rr
On 02/23/2017 08:13 PM, Mirimir wrote:
On 02/23/2017 05:40 PM, Razer wrote:
On 02/23/2017 01:04 PM, Mirimir wrote:
On 02/23/2017 08:38 AM, Razer wrote:
On 02/23/2017 05:37 AM, jim bell wrote:
Court rules assault weapons are not protected under Constitutionhttp://dailym.ai/2mmUuqG via They aren't. You know why? When the Second Amendment was written, at 50 yards or so, you could literally outrun a musketball. If it didn't bounce off your coat.
Sorry to bring up guns.
Um, Jim. I own a black powder rifle in a common musket calibre. I've put a slug deep into hard beech wood at 50 yards. The musketballs fly even faster than the slugs. With a good charge the balls have far more energy than an AK-47 bullet. ....but it takes almost a minute to load and it makes a pretty big cloud of smoke.
My black powder gun is rifled - the muskets were smoothbores and not so accurate so the range i can hit things is better. Besides, "Your puny AK-47 is useless. So, we need
to have at least some of our volunteer resistance show up with Stinger missiles, some anti-aircraft batteries, maybe a submarine or two?" I hear Soros has a fleet of A-10 Warthogs he might call into service too if you talk to him purty. For a credible revolution, you need real weapons and supplies, and people who know how to use them. So you need substantial involvement of trained military and veterans. With small arms and insiders, you get the real weapons and supplies.
That seems pretty unlikely in the US. And it it did go down, the result would arguably be some mix of military dictatorship and feudalism.
<SNIP> ROTF! To be a revolution you need an IDEOLOGY.
Greed is NOT an Ideology.
Greed is a way of life in 'Merica. The ONLY accepted way. Well, they call it "free enterprise" :)
Social atomization has created the circumstance that 'Merican families and communities are not even understood as such by a large majority of the planet's inhabitants...
ROTF! 'Merica is Doooooooomed! Bwhahhhaaa! Well, maybe electing Trump wasn't a revolution, any more than electing Obama was. But Trump and his people seem even crazier than W and his minders. So yes, bad shit could go down ;)
<SNIP>
On 2/24/2017 1:20 PM, Razer wrote:
On 02/23/2017 07:15 PM, Marina Brown misquoted Jim...
I wrote the bit about outrunning a musketball...Yeah well perhaps I was jesting. But what might happen if the ball hit a solid object, or thick chopped pressed wool (imagine a peacoat on steroids) with a bunch of undergarments are two different things. I'm not saying it wouldn't hurt, or break a bone or something, but the ball would most likely get stuck in the wool.
Traditional muskets are big, clumsy, and kick like a horse, but they blow great big holes in people. Remember, they rendered armor irrelevant, because they can punch through armor and kill horses with the greatest of ease. It is the famous AK-47 that is relatively quiet and low power. Assault weapons are so called because they are designed to be fired while running around, like a handgun. Assault weapons were named by Hitler (or at least he signed off on the name), "Sturmgewehr", literally "Storm gun, Sturm gewehr" because unlike the considerably heavier guns of World War I, designed to be fired while kneeling in a trench, they were designed to be fired while running towards your enemies, while storming the enemy. In consequence an assault rifle makes an excellent hunting weapon for a seven year old girl, but adult males generally prefer considerably more powerful guns for hunting, unless they are varmint shooting. A small child using an assault rifle to hunt usually shoots while kneeling or lying down, and resting the front of the rifle on something, because the weight and recoil makes it difficult for a small child to aim while walking around.
On 2/24/17, James A. Donald <jamesd@echeque.com> wrote:
Traditional muskets are big, clumsy, and kick like a horse, but they blow great big holes in people.
Bigger holes, more assured death.
Remember, they rendered armor irrelevant
Armor piercing is relavant.
It is the famous AK-47 that is relatively quiet and low power.
Energy delivered upon terminus is a worthwhile calculation.
Assault weapons are so called because they are designed to be fired while running around, like a handgun.
No. Assault weapons are fully automatic. Handguns and other semi-auts are not. You can 'run around' with whatever the fuck you want and are good at. Ammo is life, don't waste it.
Assault weapons designed to be fired while kneeling in a trench
Yes, due to physical suport for accuracy present in trenches needed for full-auto assault.
they were designed to be fired while running towards your enemies
Yes since spray and pray is exactly what you get and can expect in that case.
In consequence an assault rifle makes an excellent hunting weapon for a seven year old girl
False. On hunt, only single shot does. Semi is even quite hard to moving target.
but adult males generally prefer considerably more powerful guns for hunting, unless they are varmint shooting.
Muzzle and terminal energy has absolutely nothing to do with whether full-auto assualt or semi-auto.
A small child using an assault rifle to hunt usually shoots while kneeling or lying down, and resting the front of the rifle on something, because the weight and recoil makes it difficult for a small child to aim while walking around.
You do not ever give your a child full-auto assault to hunt or target with, you fool. That is a much later and more irrelavant training in life. And barrel rise is only upon off-axis distance from force accelleration. And weight is just weight. You clearly not studied and operated various wepons. Go do that. Learn, respect, appreciate, enjoy, value, share. Then your report will be more correct. And for sakes, follow your laws, or act to change them first.
The US has gone paranoid expeditionary since decades, that's very hard psycological problem to recover from. Often outcome is spiral till weak and ultimately dead. Armed revolutions are possible if needed. The naysayers have relic notions of quaint little firing lines in pretty colors with cannon versus A-10. They cannot comprehend guerilla warfare, defections, leaks, silent disaffected sleepers picking away at the top, sabotage, siege upon supplies to elite in bunkers, so many ways. They should grok this, after all they see it on the news since decades of Vietnam and IQ beyond. Some euros have some more pragmatic govt's, small more intimate, mostly they just vote, even China India is progress evident. US is more idealogic, flaky risky scary, parties constructed upon sheep in maximum crazy diametric opposition, so the check of balance held in common among the quiet rational is guns. And in this circumstance the gun owners are right defenders of freedom. Look at the data news since decade, lots of loss of freedom creeping on peoples, fighting for silly grants of rights instead of default having them. Even with a ban they will hide the guns for future among family / friend, only to even consider giving up when ideologies and schemes against peoples no longer present to need defended against. Yet know, giving up powerful tools of freedom, no matter the tool, even in a current state of freedom, is stupid, because tomorrow can still happen, faster than ever thought before.
On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 01:21:58AM -0500, grarpamp wrote:
The US has gone paranoid expeditionary since decades, that's very hard psycological problem to recover from. Often outcome is spiral till weak and ultimately dead.
to need defended against. Yet know, giving up powerful tools of freedom, no matter the tool, even in a current state of freedom, is stupid, because tomorrow can still happen, faster than ever thought before.
Ack!
From: Marina Brown <catskillmarina@gmail.com> On 02/23/2017 08:13 PM, Mirimir wrote:
On 02/23/2017 05:40 PM, Razer wrote:
On 02/23/2017 01:04 PM, Mirimir wrote:
On 02/23/2017 08:38 AM, Razer wrote:
On 02/23/2017 05:37 AM, jim bell wrote:
Court rules assault weapons are not protected under Constitutionhttp://dailym.ai/2mmUuqG via They aren't. You know why? When the Second Amendment was written, at 50 yards or so, you could literally outrun a musketball. If it didn't bounce off your coat.
Um, Jim. I own a black powder rifle in a common musket calibre. You may be misattributing what I wrote. Others added to my original post. I've
Sorry to bring up guns. put a slug deep into hard beech wood at 50 yards. The musketballs fly even faster than the slugs. With a good charge the balls have far more energy than an AK-47 bullet. ....but it takes almost a minute to load and it makes a pretty big cloud of smoke. My black powder gun is rifled - the muskets were smoothbores and not so accurate so the range i can hit things is better. Besides, "Your puny AK-47 is useless. So, we need
to have at least some of our volunteer resistance show up with Stinger missiles, some anti-aircraft batteries, maybe a submarine or two?" I hear Soros has a fleet of A-10 Warthogs he might call into service too if you talk to him purty. For a credible revolution, you need real weapons and supplies, and people who know how to use them. So you need substantial involvement of trained military and veterans. With small arms and insiders, you get the real weapons and supplies.
That seems pretty unlikely in the US. And it it did go down, the result would arguably be some mix of military dictatorship and feudalism.
<SNIP>
ROTF! To be a revolution you need an IDEOLOGY.
Greed is NOT an Ideology.
Greed is a way of life in 'Merica. The ONLY accepted way.
Well, they call it "free enterprise" :)
Social atomization has created the circumstance that 'Merican families and communities are not even understood as such by a large majority of the planet's inhabitants...
ROTF! 'Merica is Doooooooomed! Bwhahhhaaa!
Well, maybe electing Trump wasn't a revolution, any more than electing Obama was. But Trump and his people seem even crazier than W and his minders. So yes, bad shit could go down ;)
<SNIP>
participants (11)
-
Ben Tasker -
grarpamp -
James A. Donald -
jim bell -
John Newman -
juan -
Kurt Buff -
Marina Brown -
Mirimir -
Razer -
Zenaan Harkness