Cheech

Ah. You can use ADSS to force replication to the secondary DC, then check the event log to make sure the sync took. Glad you got it worked out.

Stump, I hope you get this worked out. This is why I'm so fucking happy I switched to network instead of staying with server administration. Blosser and Tonik are smart guys, they'll get you sorted out.

Merry Christmahanukwanzaa everyone!

If there's a party in Cleveland I'm fine with that, I just have no intention of shelling out cash to go to the IMS show.

seriously, someone tell me where the hell I need to be

I'll chime in on this point. In my opinion, we in the United States, being the only country that's ever used nuclear weapons on civilians in anger, lack the moral high ground to "declare" a country "criminal" in the nuclear sense of the word, and in doing so actively deny them access to nuclear technology for peaceful purposes.

Yeah, I don't forsee a lot of other places doing that steak deal. Too bad. I'm with MJ on this one, I'm a bit blasé about the show. I just want to see (and take part in) all the bullshits that develops afterwards.

So your argument is that the ability to carry weapons should be predicated by your intelligence or job standing? That sounds...idiotic.

And now she's dead by her son's hand. What more do you want?

Assault weapon: Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following: Folding or telescoping stock Pistol grip Bayonet mount Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one Grenade launcher (more precisely, a muzzle device that enables launching or firing rifle grenades, though this applies only to muzzle mounted grenade launchers and not those mounted externally). This is the definition from the previous ban in 1994. Yes, a "assault rifle" is a different category than "assault weapon". I think everyone in this thread is speaking about the same thing, even though some of the terms may be used in error.

Need to read a little farther. "...support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic;that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice." Before you say "b-b-but officers!", the only part of that oath omitted is the part about obeying orders. The part about "enemies, foreign and domestic" is still there, so by taking up arms against the US, anyone care to guess which one you might be?

If I may indulge in wild speculation, I'd say she's been doing it since they were a young age, because she enjoyed the hobby and to instill respect for the weapon to her children, just as a responsible gun owner would and many on this forum already do. His mental condition may not have developed until he got older, but who knows. I think you're right, we will (or at least, should) hear more about this as things develop.

So, in the context of arming yourself to prevent a *actual* repressive government (not the Alex Jones/Rush Limbaugh/Wayne LaPierre/etc. version), your plan is to depend on a foreign actor to help you, or hoping that highly trained soldiers that have sworn to obey the chain of command (which now leads to the new asshole) will suddenly say "screw it" and abandon their posts? Although the former is plausible given the history surrounding this, it doesn't sound like a good plan (what happened to autonomy and self-preservation?), the latter just sounds silly. You don't think that the soldiers would be fed sufficient propaganda to ensure their compliance and loyalty to the regime?

Proxy war with the US providing advanced weaponry including Stinger missiles. Doesn't really apply. Venezuela was doing a lot of the supplying of FARC weaponry as well. Doesn't apply. Libya/Central Europe, and also through smuggling from the US. Unclear, could be left over from the Soviet bloc, unconfirmed reports of Russian soldiers selling arms to Chechens. , the US and Afghanistan Iran/Hezbollah/AQ, take your pick of American enemies in the ME . etc., etc., etc. All are large countries who are/were fighting smaller, lesser armed groups. All have spent billions to succeed and all have failed. You can have the biggest, smartest weapons in the world at your disposal but the battle will be long, painful and bloody when you fight against a group of people fighting for their homes, families and their country. All are countries who were fighting smaller, lesser armed groups until a state actor or quasi-state actor stepped in to level the playing field. You don't necessarily have to "win", you just have to make it hurt for the other guys, and advanced weaponry does just that. This level of arms isn't something that the average Joe has access to in the US.

Before I get started, I think some definitions are in order. For purposes of my reply, I'm defining "assault weapons" as any semi-auto rifle with a removable magazine of more than 10 rounds. Rifles like the SKS would not be considered an assault rifle (unless you manually convert to removable mag). In all that exposition above, you only have one sentence delineating "assault rifles" from regular firearms. Body-armor: Sandy Hook shooter had it, Aurora theater shooter had it. For the VAST majority of instances where you have a home invasion or other threat to your person, those shooters aren't going to have it. In order to penetrate Level III or above body armor, you have to be using a caliber round like a 5.56/.223 or above, shotgun slugs aren't going to do it. So what happens if you have a home invasion where you're coming at the bad guy with a fully locked and loaded AR-15? You're going to open fire on him, I'd imagine firing off at least half the magazine due to the adrenaline. Some of your shots will hit, the rest won't. Since you're using a rifle round, those rounds are now going to sail through every wall in your house, and assuming you're shooting at a exterior wall, sail through your wall, into the house next door, and through THEIR wall(s). Don't worry, I'll get to the "rural property" point soon. Multiple criminals: Unless the criminals are attacking you in a orderly line ala the Revolutionary War, this is going to be a problem no matter what gun you're using. If your argument is a matter of round capacity, then I think the risk of unintented penetration to someone else's home outweighs your desire to tote around 30 rounds so you can hunt down the other guy in your house without having to reload. If you want more capacity, bring another magazine. At least at that point you have to stop and reload, and in that pause you have time to think about what's going on instead of instinctively pulling the trigger due to adrenaline overload. Rural area: This ties back to the last two points. You don't have any risk of hitting another home, but what will a .223 round do that a 9mm or a .45 won't, besides go through the body armor that the perp isn't wearing? Australia never had a constitutional right to own guns, nor did Britain. I will agree that Britain's gun crime is up, and that is largely localized in the gang sections of town. I seem to remember a huge problem with gun-related gang violence in Chicago in recent memory as well, and Detroit, and elsewhere that hasn't made front-page news, so it seems that not having gun control is about as effective as having gun control. It might have something to do with the fact that we are at least in the top 2 of standing armies in the world, and most likely number 1 when you factor in active/reserve/paramilitary/police/etc, and definitely number 1 when it comes to technology and readiness. Possible foreign invaders aren't concerned about you clutching your 10/22, they are concerned about the local police force and their well-stocked armory of full-auto, military grade weapons, and the speed in which active and reserve forces can be deployed state-side. This is so preposterous I can barely respond. First off, my guess is the Germans didn't invade Switzerland because the Nazis were using Swiss banks to move all the gold and spoils they were collecting from their activities to places that are neutral, stable, and are guaranteed to be there after the war is over. Second, if there was a dictator to assume power in the US, do you really think that you and your merry band with whatever weapons you have to bear can stop it? You'd be going up against the entirety of the US government, with seemingly endless levels from the local police, county sheriff, state police, ATF, and FBI, all with VASTLY superior firepower and training. No, no, and hell no.

Then that "ban" will have no teeth, given the hundreds of thousands of bannable rifles already in circulation.

How very internet tough guy of you.

I think he's referring to the engine cover and exhaust damage, the exhaust is a little more costly to replace than some plastics.

Is it wrong that I kinda felt bad for the skydivers? Here they can't wait to get out of the plane, and in doing so miss all the awesomeness to come.

that's how you buzz the goddamned tower.

There's a old technology phrase that applies even more so to political policy: "There's nothing temporary in IT." Enacting "temporary", knee-jerk reactionary solutions to the symptom instead of to the underlying problem doesn't do much but to give a small part of the population the warm and fuzzies for a bit by putting a superficial band-aid on the problem. There's another technology idiom that applies here, and that's "Don't throw technology at a process problem." Yes, it would be nice to close the gun show loophole, I'm all for that. However, throwing all that technology as a response to this, then saying to everyone that "we responded, we're done!" isn't a response at all. The process problem is mental health care and American society's aversion/underfunding of it (which I'm sorry to say peoples, but that ties into the universal health care debate as well)

I'm sorry that this national news interrupted your regularly scheduled showing of All My Children. Would you rather this be so commonplace as not to warrant news coverage? Yes, it is a media circus, and yes, the 24-hour news media overblow things so they can fill airtime, but most (not all, but most) of this is necessary to help the nation get actionable, truthful information, and to help them process their grief.

Bing-fucking-go. ANY other policy debates are treating the symptoms and not the problem.