This is no longer an interesting coincidence. It is an unmistakable message from God. I hope everyone is listening.

This is excellent!

Hurricanes: God - vs- FL Bush voters!

] The question lingers: Could the $144.4 billion spent on
] Iraq been better used to protect the American people from
] terrorist threats? The Center for American Progress
] offers this answer.

The Center for American Progress is a nonpartisan research group. Without taking sides for or against the war in Iraq, they examine how the cost of the war (now some 144 BILLON) could have been used to fund security inititives here in the US. Interestingly enough, most of these inititives are things recommended by the 9/11 Commitee, that the Bush Administration has underfunded or completely ignored.

The Opportunity Costs of the Iraq War

] I Found Some Of Your Life
]
] You are unknown to me.
] Your camera's memory card was in a taxi; I have it now.
] I am going to post one of your pictures each day.
] I will also narrate as if I were you.
] Maybe you will come here and reclaim this piece of your
] life.

A really cool concept, but rather boring reading.

I Found Some Of Your Life

terratogen wrote:
] Maybe they should make guns that don't kill people.

"Guns don't kill people. Physics kills people."
-Dick 3rd Rock from the Sun

Guns don't kill people...

] I, for one will be glad to see this sunset. It was poorly
] conceived and banned individual weapons based upon appearance
] rather than function. The majority of banned weapons were
] imported but for the most part, functionally identical to
] other non banned weapons which happened to have a less
] menacing physical appearance.

Well it looks like everyone bought a round at the I'm retarded bar this weekend.

It doesn't matter how the banned features were ultimately suggested, be it "menacing physical appearance," dice, or even bloody darts. Stop harping on how the items were choosen, because its irrelavent if the banning final features in the bill did have functions that it would be a good idea to protect. IE Stop judging the creation of the bill and judge it on what it does.

Your arguement, and indeed, the arguement that most people against this bill seems to be: This ban didn't reduce bullet size, packing, or rate of fire. Thus the ban is pointless. And the thing is, you are right about the power issue. So what is your problem with the ban then? It doesn't reduce the hole you are going to put in a deer or an intruder in your house.

So, yes, the bill doesn't solve the power issue. What does it do, and what features get banned? Lets exmaine a few:

-You can't have a folding stock, making weapons easier to hide under clothing. Makes sense. Handguns are easy to hide because of size, so we have a law against consealed weapons. This prevents you from making an semi-automatic weapon easier to hide.

-Cannot have flash suppressor. Again, makes sense. In hunting, the animals are gone as soon as they hear the gun fire. So having something to hide the visual notice of where a gun is being fired from is pointless. Sure it looks "scary," but this is a logical item to ban.

-Can't have 30 ammo clips. Shit! Now what will you do in case of Red Dawn?

-Do you even want to defend the grenade launcher? Come on!

The ban doesn't solve the power issue, but it does ban features which really shouldn't effect you anyway. Dismissing the law simply because appearence was a factor is by far the stupidest thing I have ever seen you meme.

RE: Weapons Ban Ends Today

] streets. If terrorism is our major concern right now why make
] it easier to buy automatic weapons in our country.

This wasn't a ban on automatic weapons (guns that continuously fire if you hold down a trigger). Those have been banned since the 1930s.

This was a ban on semi-atuomatic weapons. Well, thats not true either. You can get a gun that has the same rate of fire and uses the same ammo (ie same large holes), both before and after the ban.

This was a ban on accessories to semi-automatic weapons. The guns couldn't have certain things, like bayonet mount points, 30 bullet ammo clips, folding stocks, flash suppressors, grenade launchers, etc.

This is key. The guns available both before before and after the ban cause the same amount of physical damage. This is what the gun nuts harp on and say that the ban was stupid because of this so-called "power issue."

However, most of these features, (most notably the flash suppressors, large ammo clips, and of course, grenade launchers), make the guns more deadly, even if they shot them same bullets as banned guns. This exposes police and others to unecessary dangers. Thus I supported the ban and am sad to see it not restored.

It's rather funny to see NRA members balk when you ask them how a 30 bullet clip, flash suppressor, and bayonet mount help them "hunt" or protect their homes.

RE: Weapons Ban Ends Today

Photos from this weekend's Friends of O'Reilly (FOO) camp.

Foocamp 2004 pictures @ Smugmug

Through an unforunate turn of events, I'm going to be in the Bay area from thursday morning until friday afternoon, before I head to the O'reilly FOO camp. I have no idea how to fill my time. Is the ferry out to Alcatraz worth the time? What about Fishermen's wharf and the pier area?

What's a hacker to do with a day or 2 in SF? Felonies will be considered.

janelane wrote:
] ] People driving or riding in a sport utility vehicle in
] ] 2003 were nearly 11 percent more likely to die in an
] ] accident than people in cars, the figures show. The
] ] government began keeping detailed statistics on the
] ] safety of vehicle categories in 1994.
]
] I really cannot conceive of SUVs as the root of all evil of
] the auto industry. If anything, that title should belong to
] policy makers who refuse to hike min mpg requirements or
] lobbyists who insist that making such policy would send the
] U.S. back into little more than primordial ooze (technically
] speaking). If they could more than double the average mpg
] from 12 mpg in '72 to 24 mpg in '82, they can sure as hell
] stack on some additional efficiency now without flushing the
] economy.

Here Here! Uping the MPG and reducing consumption are alternatives we need to look at. However, I have a feeling Energy Policy meetings go a little something like this:

Sec. of Energy: Mr President, we are too dependant on foreign oil. We have 2 options, we could secure more oil reserves through some kind of military operation or trading treaties, or we could rise the MP...

Bush: Wait, wait wait! I found if people give me choices, my head hurts. What was the first thing?

Sec. of Energy: ... er... secure more oil reserves through military action or a trading treat...

Bush: What did I just tell you about give me options? What is the first part of the first thing?

Sec. Of Energy:... [sigh]... Secure more oil with military action.

Bush: I like it.

Powell: Sir, this is truly the most retarded thing I have ever...

Bush: Damn it Colin, what have I told you? If two people talk to me at once, my head hurts. Now, lets do this. Bring me my wall sized coloring book! [aid brings in a large map], ok, here we go [throws dart]... hmmm.... Pa, Pasiff... Pacific Ocean! Looks kind of big. I call do over! [throws dart]... damn it, not again! You didn't see anything did you?

Powell: Just my duty to the American people going to hell.

Bush: Good. Do over! [Throws dart]

[Hours pass, Powell shoots himself, Hours pass]

Bush: Damn it! I just might have to take on Pacific and his punk buddys Atlantic and Indian. One more! [throws darts]... hmmm. Somebody call Dick and ask him what I-R-A-Q spells.

Safety Gap Grows Wider Between S.U.V.'s and Cars

] In a far cry from the high-minded ideals of humanity and
] tolerance embodied by the Olympics, the organizers of the
] Athens games have warned spectators that they could be
] barred for taking a surreptitious sip of Pepsi or an
] illicit bite from a Burger King Whopper.

And the Olymipics will crash and burn in 3....2....1 games from now. Apparently, the IOC doesn't see the entire lack of attendees to the games as a show stopper for the "ambush marketers".

SBN