Nobody actually uses burst fire. Does the Spear have burst fire? I haven't looked too closely because I seriously doubt they're ever actually going to make it the standard issue rifle.
The US military would one million percent prefer the population be trained and familiar on the standard issue rifle than on any other platform. (Arguments of the quality training put aside)
Independent of Uvalde, it's generally a bad idea as a sniper to just take someone else's wors that the target you're looking at is hostile. Kinda wanna confirm for yourself before you pull the trigger.
The vast majority of people never read the source material for anything, and that's usually perfectly fine. They learn new things because other people told them about it. Most of the time this works great. Sometimes small changes in the explanation can make a big difference, and the game of telephone can have big impacts on people's perception of a thing. It's almost certain that most people complaining haven't read the explanation, and in this particular situation it's an issue.
The issue becomes when things are developed with a mix of public and private money. I'm not saying we shouldn't tackle the issue, only that it can't be as simple as public money = public resource. If that were true, nearly all of us would be required to work for free, since we got the majority of our education through public funding.
Edit: It seems everyone ignored the generalization I was replying to. Yes, in terms of code it's actually relatively easy to require that a publicity funded project be open source and leave it at that. The business can decide if they want to write everything from scratch to protect their IP or if they want to open up existing code as a part of fulfilling/winning the contact.
In terms of other partially government funded projects, like the pharmaceutical example given, it's much more difficult to say how much of the process and result are thanks to public funding. That's really the only point I was trying to make, that it can get very hard to draw the line. With code, it can be relatively easy.
What? No it wouldn't? They hand grunts 30 round magazines for a reason. They used to give them 20 round magazines for the same rifle. Minimizing administrative tasks is good for your soldier.
Which arguably makes the AR-15 one of the most protected guns, if we're using the wording of the second amendment as the only justification for firearms rights.
Yeah but you need a hard ID that the guy has a gun. The second worst thing to letting a former president get shot is killing a random person at a rally because you thought they might have a gun.
I highly suggest everyone in this thread read Angry White Men by Michael Kimmel. HIGHLY suggest you read it to understand the kind of person in America that does this and why.
It's my understanding that you're only required to protect the information if you've actually agreed to do so, which is obviously a retirement for being given access. Elected officials are a weird area where they have a much easier time getting clearance, but they've still made agreements to protect the information.
Trump was authorized to handle classified information in the first place, which is why his mishandling was a problem. I haven't read the actual law, but I'm pretty sure ordinary people who happen across classified information have no duty at all in any direction. If you can show me an example of a random person getting in trouble for sharing classified information that they didn't steal or get others to steal, well, let me know.
You're both right. The beer people drank back then was usually very low alcohol content. It was essentially fermented just enough so that it would stay safe to drink for a while. There was stronger stuff, yes, but especially the stuff they had on ships was very weak.
So, taking away the guns is a solution to mass shootings I just don't think we should do that. (You could argue they'd switch to cars.) The reasons get into conflicting principles in society and would derail the point in trying to make which is this:
We used to have a society with lots of easily accessible guns whose build were conducive to doing a mass shooting, and yet we didn't have mass shootings. That's really my fundamental point. Mass shootings are a social phenomenon. We can get rid of the mass shootings without getting rid of the guns. It basically involves a bunch of left-wing policy, ignoring anything they have to say about guns. Strengthen unions, M4A, fixing town planning, strengthen EPA, break up the monopolies, go after wage theft, go after business that hire under the table, uncap social security, send social workers to 911 calls that don't actually need a cop. Etc. Etc.
So, taking away the guns is a solution, I just don't think we should do that. The reasons get into conflicting principles in society and would derail the point in trying to make which is this:
We used to have a society with lots of easily accessible guns whose build were conducive to doing a mass shooting, and yet we didn't have mass shootings. That's really my fundamental point. We can get rid of the mass shootings without getting rid of the guns. It basically involves a bunch of left-wing policy, ignoring anything they have to say about guns. Strengthen unions, M4A, fixing town planning, strengthen EPA, break up the monopolies, go after wage theft, go after business that hire under the table, uncap social security, send social workers to 911 calls that don't actually need a cop. Etc. Etc.
Liz @ Liz @midwest.social Posts 5Comments 1,119Joined 2 yr. ago
Nobody actually uses burst fire. Does the Spear have burst fire? I haven't looked too closely because I seriously doubt they're ever actually going to make it the standard issue rifle.