Janke 1st MRB

So for those of you who don't know me, hi. For those of you who do, I haven't changed much in the last 3 years. This was me in July, I tend to look like this most often, but with longer hair. Kinda like a Duck Dynasty reject. And here's me today after a shave and a haircut: I forgot to take a before picture.

Feldwebel =/= Hauptfeldwebel Now now, calm down, don't want anyone to come off as a deutschbag now, do we?

You didn't really just assume that drunk driving is a result of "fully-aware and in control of their means" drunk drivers did you? Because when you say that "those who drive drunk know very well", it kind of sounds like that's what you're saying. I think I might have mentioned something about a democratic system built with checks and balances on many levels to prevent that kind of ultimate corruption. If modern Americans think they need to ensure that interpretation of the 2nd amendment, I think that they'll have more to worry about then gun ownership. I do believe that Fort Hood has armed MPs? I won't even go into the slippery slope of the argument that more people with more guns = better deterrent because any rational exploration exposes the rather titanic flaws in that defense. And you said you were concerned about what kind of government would be around in 30 or 50 years... Oy vey! Thanks for understanding my OP Everyone who drives drunk knows fully well what can happen when they do so, whether it be when they're drunk or before hand. If one is going to get so shit-faced that they forget the consequences of drunk driving, then they have a responsibility when they're sober to prepare for their drunken stupidity and make a motor vehicle inaccessible to themselves. The main point, though, is no legislators go after the car when someone drives drunk, they go after the person and the root cause. Why is it then when a gun is involved in a crime the causes are seemingly ignored, and the only focus becomes on the gun? And no democracy is absolute, there are plenty of examples of democracies throughout history being subverted and overthrown, one of the checks you mention for the US to prevent that is the means to fight back against such a government. The Fort Hood shooting too place in a gun-free section of the base and was perpetrated by a high-ranking officer, whom nobody had reason to believe would do such a thing. As for these apparent "titanic flaws" I fail to see them, the US is at a 50-year low in murders despite there being more guns in circulation now than ever before, and murder rates dropped significantly as more people in the US gained the ability to carry their guns for self-defence. Dr. John Lott explored the idea in the book by the same name as it, More Guns, Less Crime. And it'd take it kindly for you not to brush off certain aspects of my post in such an condescending and insulting manner. I'm sure the people of Germany in the 1930s never expected their nation to become a dictatorship, nor many of the nations in Europe affected by the Nazis and the Soviets. Nobody can predict the future, especially the future of politics. That exact idea, actually, was from Ben Shapiro's interview with Piers Morgan. And while I am concerned about the future political atmosphere of America, hell I'm concerned about its current political atmosphere, I'm not even American. Your idea of "excessive amount of hoops" is not the same as my "reasonable training," the implications of your idea are that it should be next to impossible for someone to get a gun, in contrast mine is that one should only need to demonstrate their ability to safely handle the firearm before being able to acquire it. They haven't, I already showcased an NBC segment saying that Newtown was committed with 4 handguns, Virginia Tech was committed with handguns, the shootings at Danzig St. and the Eaton Centre in Toronto were committed with handguns, the shooting at Concordia University in 1992 was committed with handguns, the Dunblane Massacre was committed with handguns, the Sikh Temple shooting was with handguns, Columbine was committed with weapons legal during the last AWB, including a shotgun. These shooters do not have a preference, though perhaps the AR-15 is noted across the media so often because of its appearance, and perhaps its widespread attention is why several shooters recently have been using it. And the thing is here and now is not getting worse, it's getting better. I've mentioned this before, homicide rates are down, violent crime is down, but gun ownership is up. As am atter of fact, according to the FBI, just about ever form of violent crime in America is at a lower rate than it was in 1991 and the Bureau of Justice reports homicide rates are at a low not seen since the 1960s. Why indeed should here and now get worse? Here and now is not getting worse with the gun control the US has in place currently, as a matter of fact here and now is getting better. Why then, if there is no statistical detriment to society, should one's freedoms be taken from them in the name of so-called "security"? As Benjamin Franklin said, "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." As defined in the US Constitution, the ownership of firearms is indeed an essential liberty, necessary to the security of a free state. Penn and Teller did a piece in their series called Bullshit about Gun Control, it's a rather good watch.

The idea of allowing citizens to own private property is not a dangerous one, and to call opposition to gun control dangerous is to insult the majority of America's gun owners. If you look at the effectiveness of the last AWB, as well as analyzing crime statistics over a period in time in the US, you will see that the last AWB accomplished nothing and that there is generally accepted to be no direct correlation to gun ownership and gun crime, though murder rates dropped quite noticeably between 1989-1999, the period in time when most US States adopted CCW laws, with Illinois now being the only one without any at all, and that's soon to change, and 4 States; Alaska, Arizona, Vermont, and Wyoming; not requiring any license at all to carry a handgun. Those who drive drunk know very well the consequences of such an action, they know it can be lethal. And you misinterpret the 2nd Again, tyranny was not only foreseen by the British, the founding fathers were worried about future tyranny from their own government, from the American government. The 2nd was not just to fight against the invading British, it was to ensure the American government never became the British, because the citizens would be able to fight the government if it tried. In accordance with the principles of the 2nd, it is still relevant today, because while the government may still be fair today, who's to say what the government will be like in 30 years? 50 years? Virginia Tech, the most lethal school shooting in the US, was committed by a man armed with only 2 pistols, each with only 10-round mags, the shooter simply chained the doors shut and brought a lot of magazines. The Cumbria Shootings in England were committed by a man with a double-barrelled shotgun, and he killed 13 people. The École Polytechnique shooting was committed by someone who broke his Ruger Mini-14 so that it was basically a straight-pull bolt-action, and he killed 15. And as for Newtown, I've heard from NBC that no AR-15 was used in Newtown, it was also only handguns, the AR-15 was in the car the whole time. Adam Lanza was also denied the ability to buy a gun, he stole them from his mother. The looks of a gun also mean absolutely nothing in terms of its function. Why target a gun based on looks? What will that accomplish? So they ban "evil, scary guns" like this one but guns like this are not "assault weapons"? You know what the difference is between those two guns? Nothing. Banning a gun based off of aesthetic features is absolutely ridiculous, because it accomplishes absolutely nothing. It will not stop mass shootings, both the North Hollywood Shootout and Columbine happened during the last AWB, it failed to stop either. Canada's restrictive gun laws failed to stop shootings just last year in Scarborough, Downtown Toronto, and Edmonton. Britain's gun laws failed to stop the 2010 Cumbria Shootings. Gun laws in both France and Germany have failed to stop mass shootings. Gun laws fail to stop these because they do not address the core issue, and the core issue of mass shootings is mental illness. Moreover, as I already mentioned, mass shootings account for less than 1% of America's national murders, rifles and shotguns account for about 3% of all national gun murders combined, America's true problem with gun violence is the 97% of murders committed with a handgun, which is largely gangsters in inner-city ghettos. To address the real issue, one must address the causes of murder, not the tool. For one, the criminals who cause the majority of the murders already ignore all firearms law, they actually love gun control, it disarms their targets. Why then, if they already blatantly ignore all current laws, would one more suddenly make a criminal change their mind? Criminals will always have guns, regardless of whether or not the law-abiding do, all you accomplish by disarming the law-abiding is giving the criminals easier targets. Secondly, even if by some miracle you managed to do the literally impossible and take all the 300 million guns out of America, these gangsters would still kill each other, they'd simply resort to stabbing each other. Knife crime in Britain skyrocketed following the gun bans there, and it's actually the most violent place is Europe, more violent than the US or South Africa. They banned guns, and it didn't stopped violent crime, murder, or mass-shootings. It's also interesting to note that at this time America's homicide rate and violent crime rate is at the lowest point it's been since the 1960s, and that is despite the fact that there are more guns in America, approximately 300 million, than ever before. As well, with the exception of the shooting of Gabrielle Giffords, every mass shooting in the last 30 years has been committed in a gun-free zone. Virginia Tech? Columbine? The Aurora Theatre (and by the way, there was a theatre closer to his house and a theatre with a larger auditorium he could have shot up, he chose the one he did because it advertised nobody inside would be armed)? Sandy Hook? École Polytechnique? All gun-free zones, meaning nobody in the building could possibly stop the shooter, they wouldn't have the means to. The Oregon Mall Shooting? It ended after a CCW holder drew his gun. He actually wasn't supposed to be carrying in that mall, it was supposed to be a gun-free zone. He didn't shoot, because of bystanders behind the shooter, but the shooter saw the permit holder, and the next shot he got off after un-jamming his gun was to kill himself, because he knew he was done. These killers chose these places because they knew they wouldn't have resistance, because they knew they would have easy, vulnerable targets. You do not need to ban guns to reduce violent crime, murder, or mass shootings in the US. While I do believe that America could do with some slightly stronger gun control in the form of better screening, perhaps even a license covering the acquisition of a gun, and only the acquisition, I do not believe that the word "banned" needs to be used at all in relation to functional gun control. In the Czech Republic there is technically no such thing as a banned gun, legally you can get any gun you please, even automatics if you can justify to the police why, and yet it has a murder rate comparable to Canada's, but like I said previously, the US is unlike any other nation and it's not entirely fair to compare its situation to the situation of any other nation. I do think, however, that every nation around the world could learn some things about effective gun control by looking at certain parts of the gun control in the Czech Republic. No gun needs to be banned, not even automatics; which have since 1934 only ever been used in 2 shootings, one by a cop; in order to have effective gun control, all you need is varying levels of restriction, but no gun should ever be or need to be entirely inaccessible to a law-abiding citizen who wishes to acquire such a firearm.

I take special contention with the people trying to claim Canada's gun control methods have done anything positive here, they haven't, and as a matter of fact they've been used to harass law-abiding citizens and marginalize certain aspects of shooting sports. There was a study done by McMaster University's Dr. Caillin Langmann about the effects of gun control in Canada from the '70s until 2008, and it was peer-reviewed and is being published in the Journal of Interpersonal Violence, and it found that gun control here has done absolutely nothing to effect murder rates. However, as I said earlier, it has been used to harass the law-abiding who attempt to protect themselves, like Mr. Ian Thompson who was charged with unsafe storage of a firearm after defending his house from firebombers. His guns were stored legally, locked unloaded in a safe, they eventually were trying to argue about ammo in his nightstand. A key fallacy people don't realize is that the media is stupid, they don't know what they're talking about and try to hype the hell out of just about anything, especially shootings. Military assault rifles have been banned in the US since 1986, they are incredibly hard to get, the cheapest pre-86 automatic weapon in the US is about $10,000. An AR-15 is NOT a military weapon, it is a civilian sporting rifle, and it is certainly neither powerful nor large. People and the media take contention with a completely made-up term, "assault weapons." In truth, there is no such thing. An Assault RIFLE is a select-fire rifle, these are already banned, an assault WEAPON is a fabricated term to mean a gun that LOOKS like the military MIGHT use it. This website goes into it fairly well: http://www.assaultweapon.info/ The AR-15 is one of America's most popular sporting rifles, it is used every day for hunting, recreational shooting, and self-defence. It is not a military gun, anyone who thinks otherwise is quite ignorant, actually. Just because the gun is black and looks "scary" doesn't mean it's any more dangerous than any other semi-auto sporting rifle, or that it is used by the military. As for the 2nd Amendment, it states: "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." What does this mean? This has been the centre of hot debate for years. Some people keep trying to say that the 2nd was made at a time when there were only muskets, and that the founding fathers couldn't have ever possibly envisioned the guns of today, so it shouldn't apply to them. The argument of the amendment being outdated crumbles as soon as you apply it to the First amendment, obviously if the 2nd doesn't apply to modern guns, the First amendment doesn't apply to modern forms of communication, because they never could have envisioned the radio, television, and internet back in the day, so they must not be covered under the 1st, right? No, of course not, just like the 2nd doesn't only apply to muskets, both amendments are designed, as they are written, to last through the ages. The purpose of the 2nd Amendment, especially when you look up some quotes from the founding fathers about it, is quite clear; it is to give the people the means to protect themselves against a tyrannical government. This means the citizenry is given the right to be equally, or comparably, armed to any given national military, so that they may have a feasible means of defending their nation from tyranny, be it foreign or domestic. As for the section of a militia, people think this means only a militia should be given the right to own guns, and they're wright, but they're wrong on what that militia comprises of. The militia mentioned in the 2nd amendment is not any one explicit militia, no, it's an implicit one, consisting of every able-bodied US citizen. Every citizen of the US is a member of the militia laid out in the 2nd amendment, and this militia of the American People is necessary to the security of the free state of the United States of America. This is why the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, it's because the people are all part of the largest militia in the world, the militia of the American citizen. Blaming the gun in these shootings would be like blaming the car for causing a drunk driving accident, it doesn't address the core issue. People don't shoot up a school because they own an AR-15, they do so because they have a very serious mental problem, and they need medical attention. Mental illness is incredibly stigmatized in North America, the vast majority of those who are mentally ill go undiagnosed because they don't want to be outcast from society as a "loony" or as "mental" or something like that. Banning guns would not stop these shootings from happening, Britain has some of the world's strictest gun control measures, and like almost all gun control it was enacted emotionally with absolutely no factual base or scientific research to back it up immediately following a series of massacres, and yet still in 2010 a man took his legally owned shotgun and killed 13 people including himself, in what became known as the Cumbria Shootings. Britain has a total ban on semi-automatics and handguns, and yet that didn't stop a mass shooting, and no more gun control in Britain could possibly be enacted, save a complete ban on guns. Addressing the tool has not helped Britain, and as a matter of fact gun crime in Britain jumped significantly following the handgun ban, because it's not the gun that's the problem, it's the person, they need help because they have a mental illness. If the government wants to do something to actually help stop mass shootings specifically, they can allocate the funding they'd waste on ridiculous and ineffective gun control into helping make America's medical system better so it can better help those with mental illness. Moreover, mass shootings account for less than 1% of the ~8000 US gun deaths any given year, and 97% of those shootings are committed with handguns, yet we don't see a politician going after them. And why not? Because they're used primarily for self-defence as well and politicians know many more people own a handgun than a so-called "assault weapon" and they'd therefore have a harder time getting support for any legislation surrounding handguns. But who commits these shootings with handguns? It's mostly violent gang members in inner-city ghettos. It's people who resort to crime because they see no other choice for themselves, because they've become lost and their guiding hand has become a violent gang. These kinds of murders are the real issue America has, mass shootings pale in comparison to the number of people killed in gang shootings in America's top 5 most violent cities alone. The real way the US will help reduce its murder rate is not through wasteful and proven ineffective gun control (and the 1994 AWB was proven ineffective), it is though addressing the core causes of violent crime; social inequality, poverty, and gang culture. America needs to have a better welfare system to assist its poor, a better healthcare system to assist its week it needs to work harder to abolish institutional discrimination for the poor and institutional racism, and it needs to make sure gang culture is not romanticized for young, impressionable inner-city children. There are plenty of examples of places with stricter gun control than the US and less gun crime, there are plenty of examples of the opposite as well. The key difference between America and many of the European nations people attempt to use as examples, and even Canada, is that they have better healthcare and welfare systems in place, as well as providing more equal-opportunities for their citizens. America is, of course, anywhere from 3-20 times the size in terms of population of any country one could find as an example, and that presents issues in of itself. America is unlike any other nation in the world, and it is entirely unfair to compare it to any other nation in the world when trying to address the issues America has. As for the idea that gun control has, internationally, been proven to lower crime rates, I present a Harvard Study of Europe that proves otherwise. It's not the gun that kills someone, it's the person, and addressing anything other than the person committing the crime will not help stop further crimes. Rather than asking "how did he kill all those people?" it's more important to ask "Why did he kill all those people?" The former addresses a method, but not cause, and without addressing cause you cannot stop further acts of murder. The latter, however, addresses cause, and by finding out the cause for the commission of murder and addressing why the murder happened and not how it was done, you gain knowledge you can put into practice to stop further murders.

My Linksys E2000 is not IPv6 supportive, and it's only 2 years old, on standard firmware at least. It really wasn't until last year that it became a concern for hardware makers. I also know my modem doesn't support IPv6 either, and I'm unsure if my ISP has appropriate tunnelling, though they likely do at this point.

Due to the fact that we have now run out of IPv4 addresses, it's important that you get a router that is fully supportive of IPv6, whose implementation has already started, and is intended to phase out the old IPv4 system in the coming years. Any of the routers on this list are supposed to be approved as IPv6 ready. While we may still have IPv4 support now, I can't be sure how long that will last, and seeing as implementation of IPv6 has already started, it's important to have this technology supported by your network going forward.

This, of course, doesn't talk about the new methods of oil sands mining or Alberta's provincial movements towards the reclamation of mined land. There are two sides to these things, and while people criticize the size and look of a traditional oilsands mine, strip mines for any mineral all operate in the same fashion, but because this one is getting oil rather than gold, it became the hot topic for environmentalist attacks. It's no worse than strip mines for gold, nickel, platinum, or anything else, they just want to make it look like it because they don't want people using the oil, but we have to, because there's no viable alternative available yet, electric cars are too expensive and have environmental problems of their own with the replacement of their batteries, as are fuel cell cars, as well as being dangerous since they operate on compressed hydrogen. Until we have a cheap alternative to the gas powered car, we need this oil. What pisses me off is that we mine all this oil, yet we STILL buy oil from OPEC, and that's why our gas prices are so damn high, and instead of using this oil locally to keep gas prices down, we're trying to sell it to Texan oil barons and China.

Have you tried the maps yet? I think you'll find your issue.

So did anyone see SNL last night? They had Psy show up and do Gangnam Style.

When they shrink his face like that he looks kinda like Jay Leno.

She really doesn't have the voice for this song, way too squeaky.

No, Moxy Fruvous was better.

I'm telling you I was the King of Spain, And now I vacuum the turf at Skydome

NO