Kind of like how I complain more rather than less about people writing "definately" as the frequency increases. I understand (too well) haste and fatigue, but when I see consistent error, until it is clear someone just knows no better, it tends to be the LAST thing I see before coming to my senses holding a blood-stained dictionary. ' /> What can I say? As a charter and (I believe) last regularly active member of the Society for Better Spelling and Grammar, I am a renegade with naught to lose....


The Observable Universe is a significant, but rather anthrocentric, distinction. Considering existence literally from a human perspective inevitably puts us at its center, but that is an arbitrary perspective with little logical justification or likelihood of accuracy. What do Dark Matter and Energy do to the Observable Universe?

As an aside, if we further simplify "cogito ergo sum" to a phenomenological rather than identity statement it is a rigorously established fact; debating it at all proves at least one phenomenon of SOME kind is occuring. Logically progressing from there to a particular identity is arguably as challenging as taking the same route from Deism to a particular creed, but the basic assertion of existence is unassailable. Details and definitions are the tricky (but fascinating) part.


It got better as both actor and character developed, but we literally just finished watching Nemesis, so I will hear not a word against my fellow Houstonian.


I misspelled "achievement." *self-flaggelates* I think we are essentially on the same page here though, yes. Since I am far more supportive of requiring legal competence for all weapons than of banning any, the semi/full auto distinction is more a matter of casual curiosity and pedantry for me anyway.


My rule of thumb is anything that needs machining is not quick and easy for most people; anything else is practical for those knowledgeable enough to succeed.


In one of the umpteen thousand threads on the topic, one person responded with "I guess you could, if you started with a full-auto sear. Which kinda defeats the purpose..." Of course, AR-15s lead right back to our above discussion about the ease of "unconverting" a weapon originally fully automatic in the first place. Again, I have not spent much time looking, but each mention I have seen of converting a gun to full auto, even people just seeking instruction, always referenced automatics factory-modified to civilian semi-autos. I find that highly suggestive of the difficulty in converting a gun semi-auto by design, though perhaps it is just another case where it is easier and more sensible to buy what one wants instead of buying something one does NOT want and MAKING it into the desired item.


"Gun store commandoes," as I saw one responder put it. Another person told a would-be automatic owner that "If anyone should file down their firing pin, it should be you." Since federal law sets no age limit for private rifle purchases though, I cannot help thinking the questioners criminal history is the reason he is not allowed to have a gun. It is interesting that supporters of both gun rights AND gun control (and I hope I have demonstrated they are not mutually exclusive) oppose felons, the mentally ill and the incompetent having guns—yet only the latter seem willing to DO anything about it.


"Who does the screening?" always strikes me as a copout. Obviously, a government licensing authority, though I have no problem with a federal law empowering states to do that individually according to a uniform federal standard, so long as the feds fund each such state effort adequately (i.e. the last thing we need is a NCLB for guns.) In other words, gun screening would be conducted by the equivalent of the same people who screen explosives purchases, drivers licenses and everything else that constitutes a serious threat to public safety in the hands of incompetent and/or irresponsible owners.

I am not talking mandatory interviews; I am libertarian enough to accept "presumption of sanity." However, where a documented RECORD exists, I do not believe it unreasonable, invasive or unconstitutional to check that record. That is to say, it is not a matter of proving one is sane and law-abiding before buying a weapon (I would never place the burden of proof on an individual to show their rights should NOT be denied,) but verifying there is no recorded proof one is NOT sane and law-abiding. All 50 states prohibit convicted felons buying or even owning guns—but why bother if gun buyers are on the honor system? Every employer in America knows asking whether someone is a convicted felon is pointless if no one ever bothers to CHECK. We keep records of that for a reason, y'know.

Same with mental health: I think it reasonable to expect would-be gun owners release mental health records to a confidential state review board. Mental health treatment should not prevent the sale, but a record of diagnosed mental illness impairing judgement should. The board should also be required to purge its own records of peoples confidential data immediately after review. Psychiatric medicine is far from perfect but, as you say, is what it is; if you are worried about improper loss of civil liberties on that basis, worry more about people being involuntary committed than denied guns. I do not think the proper solution to mentally ill gun owners is "let them have guns, but kill them as soon as they attack someone."