Bad date joke.
Dec03
I can attest that being funny is a hell of a lot better than being a Fabio-esque hunk, when it comes to romance. I’m a pretty hideous monster, but I’ve been damn good at wooing the womens, because I make ’em laugh. That said, making a joke this bad might end the night abruptly.
We live in the goddamn future. This video seriously gave me goosebumps.
Very cool painting mechanism. But it only paints a point in space, right? That is, if you tag a deer’s heart, and the deer moves before you reacquire it, you’re not going to hit the heart, right?
This supposedly goes on sale in January 2013.
Henry- the unit follows the target as it moves (well the military one does). The civilian one probably doesn’t to prevent some crazy sniper from using it as a way to fix reality to exist the way he wants to if you get my inference there. Then again, this is a tool that should be left in the hands of military or law enforcement to begin and on a restricted basis. While it’s cool to help people learn to shoot, it can be abused by some nutter with a desire to change history like others before him in radical ways.
As apposed to any varmint hunter worth his salt who can hit a rat sized target at 6 to 8 hundred yards with a H&R Handi Rifle? The thing is that the less tech you rely on the better off you are. I have met a heck of alot of people who can shoot 1500 yards with a M1A without a tracking optic. It doesn’t make a bullet any more deadly. And In fact It makes you a worse shot by relying on technology that will break or run out of power.
I heard this a lot from older gun guys, but I never understood it as a disincentive to use technology. Sure, don’t be dependant on it, keep your iron sights as backup, whatever; but technology still gives you a great advantage. That’s like saying “Well, the power could go out, so we should just live off of candles and and a wood stove so we don’t get used to a luxury we might lose.”
Todd, I have to say that anytime I hear someone opine that somethign should be “for military and law enforcement only” I get chills. The purpose of the second ammendment was not to have hunting guns, or to repel invaders; it is, unequivocally, to defend oneself and one’s loved ones, and one’s liberty, from our government.
Nice to see someone else who remembers that part. =D
By the basic logic of the second amendment, you have a legal right to own a guy in case your government becomes tyrannical, but are not enumerated any specific rights for personal defense, home defense or hunting.
That being said, the real issue with guns isn’t who can have them, or how deadly they are. The real issue is the ‘why’ people use them. If we eliminated the ‘why’ reasons that weren’t decent civilized reasons, like hunting wild game or practicing marksmanship, we’d have less people complaining about gun control.
Yup. I agree wholeheartedly with the last part.
As far as the second amendment goes, I always argue against those who try to interpret what the founding fathers “meant.” It’s pretty damn straightforward: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. This does not mean “You need an army, therefore you might let the people have guns.” It means “You will have guns, period, and you might need an army.”
Gun Control in America started in the Battle of Concord. The founders knew that in order to remain free, people needed guns.
I don’t understand the hangup on the so-called “militia clause.” Especially when anti-gunners start in about, “Well, your taking one sentance ouot of context.” If you read anything written by Jefferson, Washington, even Franklin relating to gun control or the second ammendment, they couldn’t be clearer that we need firearms to protect ourselves from our government. That’s the context right there.
Fundamentally, it is about the right to protect one’s own existence. Without a right to self-defense, any other rights are meaningless. Anyone who chooses not to respect your rights could violate them at any time, and you would have no recourse. On the other hand, if one does accept a right to self-defense, then it logically follows that one has a right to possess the tools to do so effectively. (Just imagine decreeing “freedom of the press”, but then banning paper and ink.) Further, it makes no sense to limit this right to only one source of danger. Aggression is equally illegitimate whether it come from a tyrannical government, foreign invaders or domestic criminals.
As for specifically enumerated rights, the Constitution, especially the Bill of Rights, was based on the assumption that the powers of government were limited and specific, while the rights of the people were broad and expansive. This isn’t just my interpretation; the Ninth Amendment flat out says that the BoR shouldn’t be considered an exhaustive list of the people’s rights, while the Tenth clearly states that the Federal Government has only those powers delegated to it by the Constitution. Granted, the courts have done an abysmal job of upholding the Tenth; actually enforcing it would shut down at least half of the current FedGov. (And wouldn’t that be a shame?) That doesn’t change what it says, though.
PS – I believe the 13th Amendment made it illegal to own a guy. Okay, sorry, I really am trying to cut back on making fun of spelling errors, but that was just too good to pass up.
Snake- I agree that the 2nd Amendment is for the right of the people to protect themselves from an oppressive govt. However, I look at our EU counterparts in that our nation is turning into a backwards 2nd world banana republic. That unlike our peers, we have no mandatory military training, yet 16 EU nation-state have either civil service or military training.
I look at the fact we make weapons of warfare that only serve the purpose of killing a limited number of people and often times we get so dependent on it that when something new comes along the HRT and other police units are totally useless.
I’m not really sure what you’re saying. But slow your roll on the mandatory military training. That is not how we do it here. The whole idea of the American constitution is maximum individual liberty with minimum government interference. Our government is subserviant to us, not the other way around.
Anyone else feeling old by .38 Special being called “Classic Rock?” 🙂
WTF is 38 special lol
Dude, the classic rock station out here just started playing Metallica.
By modern standards, .38 Special is about as old as The Beach Boys.
i used to think optics were for shots over 300 yards. now, with cateracts and astigmatism, whatever gets you there is fair. as far as the future, it aint what it used to be.