What does this mean for me? You will always be able to play your favorite games on Kongregate. However, certain site features may suddenly stop working and leave you with a severely degraded experience.
What should I do? We strongly urge all our users to upgrade to modern browsers for a better experience and improved security.
We suggest you install the latest version of one of these browsers:
Kongregate is a community-driven browser games portal with an open platform for all web games.
Get your games in front of thousands of users while monetizing through ads and virtual goods.
Learn more »
> *Originally posted by **[jhco50](/forums/9/topics/314934?page=37#posts-6768125):***
> > *Originally posted by **[donseptico](/forums/9/topics/314934?page=37#posts-6767306):***
> > > *Originally posted by **[jhco50](/forums/9/topics/314934?page=37#posts-6766981):***
> > >
> > > I would also like to know why the UK is spending almost a billion dollars on Tasers when there is no crime there.
> > a) Source please.
> > b) Nobody’s ever said there’s ‘no crime here’
> > c) Without seeing the source I’d have to say it was baloney in so far as, like other ‘offensive weapons’, they’re illegal here (and in several other places).
> > d) However, we do buy some as some police officers (about 10% if memory serves) are designated firearms officers and carry tasers as a ‘less than lethal’ option for dealing with criminals, for example.
> Some of the important uses for the implementation of Tasers.
Thanks for that 1st link… so we ordered 10,000 in 2008 (didn’t realise that equated to nearly a billion dollars, boy those things are expensive!) for the police…
Number of police in the UK currently [136K](http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16739311) having fallen in the last few years – so looks like I was near enough on the 10% figure.
Haven’t looked at the other 2 links (a couple of potentially rogue uses might be statistically irrelevant)… so I went to look for the total number of times these things are used…
It’s a bit dodgy but I’m gonna have to extrapolate from [this](http://www.southyorks.police.uk/foi/disclosurelog/discharged-taser-statistics-2009-2012) I’m afraid…
1 Police force discharged their tasers a total of 69 times from Jan 1st 2009 to October 5th 2012.
We have 54 county/non-military police forces in the UK.
Let’s round that 69 up to 100 to make the maths easier :) – gives something like 5400 taser discharges over 3.83 years… or approx 1400 per annum.
* * *
EDIT: Yay for extrapolation… [this](http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/oct/21/campaigners-concerns-increased-taser-use-police) recent piece criticising the police’s use of tasers states circa 1500 last year, although it fails to say out of how many incidents/arrests/etc.
* * *
1400 out of ??? a few million ‘police actions’ (by which I mean incidents where police attend an incident/arrest someone/etc) is hardly significant. A few ‘misuses’ out of 1400 is a few too many, but hardly significant overall.
> *Originally posted by **[jhco50](/forums/9/topics/314934?page=37#posts-6768230):***
> These are dangerous as it puts health officials in a position to ask patients if they have firearms. It has nothing to do with health, but allows government to locate gun owners.
> 2. Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system.
> 21. Finalize regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within ACA exchanges.
> 22. Commit to finalizing mental health parity regulations.
> 16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.
> 14. Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.
> This one eliminates the ability to use a firearm of self-defense. In some sections of the country where this has been implemented it has gone to a point that in order to bring the firearm into operation you must unlock your firearm, go find your ammunition to load it. This basically takes enough time to make the use of a firearm for defense null.
> 8. Review safety standards for gun locks and gun safes (Consumer Product Safety Commission).
Glad there are at least some of which you approve or at least find acceptable.
As I read them;
1. 2 doesn’t make doctors ask ‘do you have a gun?’… it asks doctors/hospitals to make available to the background check system relevant health information (e.g. does this person have a history of paranoid schizophrenia?)
2. 16 doesn’t make doctors ask ‘do you have a gun?’… it clarifies that they’re not actually prohibited from doing so by the introduction of the Affordable Care Act (which implies, in certain circumstances, they already do so).
3. 14 doesn’t make doctors do anything… it allows the CDC to research the ‘causes and prevention of gun violence’ (something that any other research institute could do/attempt).
4. 8 doesn’t eliminate the ability to use a firearm for self defence, it doesn’t mandate the use of a lock or a safe. All It does is ask the CPSC to review minimum safety standards for those who chose to use such devices. (As I’ve mentioned before, I believe ‘not in use’ firearms should be safely locked away… but for clarity, in jurisdictions such as yours where self defence is permitted your ‘under the pillow emergency gun’ would constitute being in use).
I can honestly say I have no idea what 21 & 22 mean ;)
> These are a scheme for gathering information and keeping a database. although they seem innocuous, they can be expanded to a point of keeping a database of all firearms owners which is a step toward confiscation. All dictators who have gained power go for these lists to disarm the potential enemy of the state. Hitler did this in the name of safety. Up to this point, our congress has made all data collected from gun purchasers be destroyed after so many days. a national registry is a very dangerous thing.
> 9. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations.
> 10. Release a DOJ report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and make it widely available to law enforcement.
Can’t really see why you’d have a problem with these two… again, as I read them…
1. 9 Trace (and return to their legitimate owners) guns recovered in criminal investigations and/or find out who’s supplying guns illegally to organised criminals (as I believe this is the sort of thing the feds investigate, no?)
2. 10 Release an existing DOJ report on lost and stolen guns… show the national scale of lost and stolen guns and thereby let the police know the true scale of the problem they’re dealing with (so they can advise ‘vulnerable’ owners how they might better protect their firearms, etc).
> This has been tried before and has been a failure. fingerprinting of bullets was one such idea that was found to be easily changed with a rat-tail file. Tags in gun powder cased the powder to be erratic and firearms to actually blow up in some circumstances, causing inquiry and/or death.
> 15. Direct the Attorney General to issue a report on the availability and most effective use of new gun safety technologies and challenge the private sector to develop innovative technologies.
Umm, by definition, # 15 hasn’t been tried before, and has nothing to do with ‘detection’ (e.g. fingerprinting bullets). It instructs the AG to report on the ‘current state of play’ of gun safety technologies and challenge the private sector to come up with to innotavate (“Featuring new methods; advanced and original.”) to improve gun safety.
In the realm of sci-fi a bit here… but this could be something like a fingerprint reader built into the trigger, the gun only firing when held by the registered owner (or a permitted group – e.g. members of a family).
> These are an attempt to take more states rights. Now, many states perform the background checks on there own, Just another power grab.
> 1. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system.
> 3. Improve incentives for states to share information with the background check system.
Now, being a foreigner I’d assume the present system is for the State to run the background check against its own ‘local’ data AND the federal database. If that’s not the case, why not?
If, for example, you commit a crime in Illinois and move to Texas where you try to buy a gun, the check run in Texas should pull up **any** relevant criminal convictions (i.e. those that would stop you from buying the gun).
To whit, it’s very beneficial for all states to provide relevant information to the background check system… and I see nothing that stops the states from running the checking system.
> *Originally posted by **[tenco1](/forums/9/topics/314934?page=38#posts-6769063):***
> > *Originally posted by **[macfan1](/forums/9/topics/314934?page=38#posts-6769051):***
> > In my opinion, restricting guns is violating the constitution.
> Really depends on how you do it.
Who cares? militia-men?
Let’s look at it from a civilized nation. let’s look at it from…Canada’s point of view: The americans are retarded, literally. Do you know who Silas Deane was? He was the american envoy to France during the revolutionary wars. He hated the idea of union…but he joined in during independance because he saw no other option. He is a Great Man specifically because although he could have joined up with the loyalists, he realized that they would fall and took to preserving the conservative voice on the new american senate. There is no American that a canadian should hold higher in esteem. He defied his constituents when he realized that settlement with Britain was impossible, and helped the americans to settle on the laws to be obeyed by all citizens, set nearly four hundred years before their time; that said, to obey those laws now is idiotic. At that point, the present-day democrats WERE the republicans, if just a scooch off liberally. the republicans, in contrast, are exactly the sort of crazies that the americans were fleeing from at the time – crazy, irrational, puritans, unable to accept any law but their own. Christ, even Frum knows it! There is no gain looking to the constitution for gun rights unless the constitution is updated. There is no militia; there hasn’t been for ages. There needs to be a modern constitution drawn up for the ordinary citizen. only that will be fair and just to americans. Anything else is either unconstitutional or completely ridiculous – ie. giving assault rifles to civilians.
> *Originally posted by **[Jantonaitis](/forums/9/topics/314934?page=38#posts-6769109):***
> Obeying laws set nearly four hundred years before their time is idiotic.
If you’re talking about the US Constitution it was set in 1787, and the Bill of Rights was added in 1789. That’s not nearly four hundred years.
Obeying a law set four hundred years ago is only idiotic if that law doesn’t make sense today.
> *Originally posted by **[Jantonaitis](/forums/9/topics/314934?page=38#posts-6769109):***
> Do you know who Silas Deane was?
I know of a Seline Diane, if that counts.
> There needs to be a modern constitution drawn up for the ordinary citizen.
Yeah, but we don’t have any more political super-geniuses like Jesus Ben Franklin, Jesus Thomas Jefferson, Jesus John Hancock, Jesus George Washington and Jesus Benedict Arnold.
All right, take my modern meaning: it doesn’t. You have no true milita aside from state militia; if that militia is what is meant by the second amendment, no citizen not part of the militia should own a gun. but in the sense meant by the courts, any citizen should own a gun. that is idiotic and unconstitutional; if the law is to be metaphorical then any citizen should be given the most current technology available, which they aren’t constitutionally recognized to possess. The only reason your courts are bent this way is that they ARE bent, they ARE structured on the whims of their constituents, who, knowing nothing, proceed from nothing, and demand, not a literal truth to the constitution, but a liberal one. By any definition it is ridiculous. We canadians acknowledge your stupidity and falseness. You don’t because you prefer to take the wrong belief to give yourselves unwarranted liberty. If every civilian had the sort of firepower supposedly recommended by the courts then you would have NO liberty and twice as much spies and saboteurs in revolutionary America. It is no way to win a war nor to maintain a peacetime accord. The law, as it stands, is no way to live, and thus conceived under war-time and very practical circumstances.
Neither Jefferson, nor Franklin, nor any of the rest would be fit to lead in this day and age. It’s as much folly as asking Socrates to lead your senate! Washington was elected for two terms and given further leave to lead three terms, but he abstained (having died the next year). That is why your laws allow only two terms. By deifying your leaders you make yourselves vulnerable to a stalin or Brezhnev, and, having done so already – if Nixon is any judge – you find you can’t trust another great leader. Well, welcome to the club. No leader should be treated as completely infallible and again it is a stupid, primitive mistake to think otherwise. Our greatest leader in Canada was MacKenzie King followed shortly by Trudeau, and I wouldn’t trust either to lead us into the future, nor would any Canadian who wasn’t brainlessly opposed to the contrary party. Similarly, the greatest prime minister who wasn’t taken particularly at fault by either party was lester pearson, who devised the Canadian Peacekeepers movement. That movement has long since dissolved. I myself would welcome such a movement, but NOT under pearson’s aims. Pearson was too idealistic; he would not be be a trustworthy guiding hand, mainly because he wouldn’t be able to predict what is to come. Why? He was born into different circumstances; he isn’t alive as we are. Obviously. To assume he is capable of knowing is to assume some retrograde like Franklin or Jefferson was, and that is to lend prophecy to mortals. Only WE can judge our current circumstances. This is obvious to Canadians. But for Americans, it is apparently the height of philosophy.
> *Originally posted by **[tenco1](/forums/9/topics/314934?page=38#posts-6769173):***
> > *Originally posted by **[Jantonaitis](/forums/9/topics/314934?page=38#posts-6769109):***
> > Do you know who Silas Deane was?
> I know of a Seline Diane, if that counts.
She had a nice voice
> *Originally posted by **[Jantonaitis](/forums/9/topics/314934?page=38#posts-6769175):***
> Neither Jefferson, nor Franklin, nor any of the rest would be fit to lead in this day and age. It’s as much folly as asking Socrates to lead your senate!
When one says the phrase “Jesus Benedict Arnold,” the other one should not take oneself seriously.
> *Originally posted by **[donseptico](/forums/9/topics/314934?page=38#posts-6768766):***
> - 2 doesn’t make doctors ask ‘do you have a gun?’… it asks doctors/hospitals to make available to the background check system relevant health information (e.g. does this person have a history of paranoid schizophrenia?)
If you ever wondered why, when debating the Affordable Care Act, people were against creating a huge database of patient information… this is why. The government can just ignore doctor-patient confidentiality and check the file to see whatever it is they want to know today.
And guess what… you can’t diagnose me if I never go in for treatment. How many gun owners will agree to see a psychiatrist if they know they could have their guns taken away forever? (And if they’re at the point of involuntary commitment, they’re probably committed crimes that would show up on a background check anyway.)
> 3. Improve incentives for states to share information with the background check system.
First, let me say that I have no problem with states sharing their criminal conviction records with each other. These should all be public records anyway. I’m not sure what else goes into these checks.
By “incentives” they mean “Legally, we can’t actually FORCE you to do this, but either you do it or we withhold a few hundred million dollars of federal aid.” It’s basically an end-run around the Constitution. It’s how the federal government got the states to all pass mandatory seat belt laws, drinking age laws, and other things that are supposed to be the individual states’ business.
> lthough, compulsive avoidance of ‘the state’ may be taken as evidence of paranoid tendencies warranting closer inspection during a background check (pure speculation).
They don’t go into that kind of detail. They check the records for particular red flags. This isn’t a background check for clearance to read classified documents or anything, where they talk to everyone who knows you. Anyway, “avoids the doctor” isn’t really going to be a valid reason to deny someone a gun permit.
> That aside, what makes you think the government, if it so chose, couldn’t just ignore patient/doctor confidentiality if it chose to do so? I don’t know what you’d call the things… but the ‘feds’ issue a ‘super secret warrant’ on your doctor’s office, waltz in and seize his records.
That requires them to actually go to the doctor’s office, at least. If they abuse it, say by requesting the records of half the guy’s patients, the doctor could potentially blow the whistle. And judges are kinda reluctant to allow warrants for medical information. But if it’s all online, the doctor may never even know they accessed it. The guy at the data center is unlikely to care, since he doesn’t know the people involved. And if they had that secret warrant, that would mean that something was signed by a judge. At least then somebody has oversight.
I suppose it’s way off topic, but the government has requested (and received) data on particular cell phones over a MILLION times per year (which might include the content of text messages, or the location of the phone), often without having ANY warrant or court order. I just bring this up to show that they are perfectly willing to take a mile when you give them an inch, as far as accessing supposedly private records, if you make it easy for them.
> at one extreme, gun owner tries to shoot themself… ‘only’ succeeds in blowing half their face off… hospitalised
Well, gunshot wounds are required to be reported to the police. But I see your point. Such a person should obviously not have a gun.
> and do you not have something like child and family services to whom a person’s neighbours, family, etc could report concerns over the sanity someone’s mental health (that could then be investigated)?
I don’t think a person could be forced to go against his will unless he is considered a danger to himself or others. Simply being mentally ill is not enough. I don’t know exactly how it works, but I assume the exact rules vary by state.
what if a dictatorship is established in america and the military is used to kill the people – then the people would need to fight back, butt they are going to need really good weaponry to fight back against such an advanced force.
luckily you can still buy tanks and fighter jets in usa ;)
> *Originally posted by **[Jantonaitis](/forums/9/topics/314934?page=38#posts-6768316):***
> > 2. Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system.
> > 3. Improve incentives for states to share information with the background check system.
> > 4. Direct the Attorney General to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.
> > 5. Propose rulemaking to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun.
> What’s wrong with these?
> > These are dangerous as it puts health officials in a position to as patients if they have fireams. It has nothing to do with health, but allows government to locate gun owners.
> > 21. Finalize regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within ACA exchanges.
> > 22. Commit to finalizing mental health parity regulations.
> > 16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.
> > 14. Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.
> First two don’t seem to have anything to do with guns.
> Third one i dunno. it doesn’t **instruct** doctors to ask, however, which it would if it was supposedly as tyrannical as you’d like to think.
> Fourth one is also sketchy. But frankly if i were living in the US i’d be wondering if gun-nuttiness was some kind of transmittable mental disease too.
> > These are an attempt to take more states rights. Now, many states perform the background checks on there own, Just another power grab.
> > 1. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system.
> > Just BS as millions of backgrounds are performed every year and even I know how to perform them.
> > 6. Publish a letter from ATF to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers.
> First one is strictly about federal agencies. Has nothing to do with individual states.
> Second one is redundant. Still has nothing to do with state rights.
> That’s enough. Most, if not all of these, are redundant – they add nothing of particular significance to current legislation; I’ve seen UN resolutions with more teeth. There is no power-grab here…while you’re complaining about needles in a haystack, you’ve got indefinite detention for any citizen still on the books in 2013. That’s a cause of concern, that’s actual tyranny. This, on the other hand, is just an excuse to bitch about obama. There are far better reasons to bitch about him then watered-down EO’s that do next to nothing to prevent you from shooting anyone, anytime, anyplace. You Americans are soaked in gun liberty. It’s your other civil rights you should be worried about.
they are reaching for power they don’t have and belongs to the states. For instance, my state conducts it’s own background checks. With central databases at the federal level, any privacy we might have is gone. the states are more than able to conduct background checks on their own. Something I think is misunderstood is you cannot by a hand gun in another state. You can a rifle, but you still have to have a background check and they will contact your state and the federal check system. Btw, it is the NRA that pushed for a background system.
They do and they don’t. It has been the custom lately to have doctors ask if you own firearms. Asking adults is one thing, but they are questioning the children as to their parents ownership of guns. the third one isn’t to instruct doctors to ask about firearms ownership, it seems to be a mandate to compare firearms ownership to violence.
I take #1 as a mandate to obtain state records. Centralization of information like this gives our government a lot of power. #6 is as you say, redundant. I take it for show.
Truthfully, I don’t need an excuse to complain about Obama. He has supplied plenty of reason to dislike his policies on every level. There are so many things on so many levels, such as indefinite detention of a citizen, that are just wrong. So many attacks against our society from the federal level and I am talking about both parties. I have watched the republicans do nothing but cave on every issue and it is sickening. Yes, I agree, our civil liberties are under attack, along with our constitution.
I was quetioned about tagging gun powder. without digging too deeply, I will supply links proving that these were tried.
Although I am not a fan of Wikipedia the link is pretty accurate.
I mentioned large acquisitions of ammunition by odd sources. This is just one of the government agencies making these kind of purchases. The question is…why?
This link is just an example of too much power in the hands of the wrong people;
And the last link shows that it isn’t just this administration drunk with power. Read some of the myths and the truth the provide.
> *Originally posted by **[jhco50](/forums/9/topics/314934?page=38#posts-6770585):***
> I mentioned large acquisitions of ammunition by odd sources. This is just one of the government agencies making these kind of purchases. The question is…why?
> This link is just an example of too much power in the hands of the wrong people;
> And the last link shows that it isn’t just this administration drunk with power. Read some of the myths and the truth the provide.
Well a lot of important buildings have their own guards(and I hope you see why those have to train as well). And I hope you see why homeland security needs a lot more ammo then the rest.
Jan, The Constitution refered to the unorganized (the people) militia and the organized militia which consisted mainly of the Navy, as the organized militia you are thinking of (national guard) was not established until 1903.
Examples of militia within US:
The organized militia created by the Militia Act of 1903 which consists of State militia forces, notably the National Guard and the Naval Militia.
**The reserve militia or unorganized militia, also created by the Militia Act of 1903 which presently consist of every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age who are not members of the National Guard or Naval Militia.**
“When a legislature undertakes to proscribe the exercise of a citizen’s constitutional rights it acts lawlessly and the citizen can take matters into his own hands and proceed on the basis that such a law is no law at all.”
Justice William O. Douglas
Don, you might find this interesting. View the video.