WheelsRCool

DAYUM!!!

Believe it or not, jugglers actually used to be world famous, the equivalent of movie and music stars back in the 1800s. Juggling as an art is as complicated as arts like opera and ballet, with some of the moves taking years to learn. But as the 20th century came on, it fell by the wayside for some reason, and mostly became associated as just a sort of party trick or a court jester type of thing. One problem with the art I know is that some of the most difficult moves don't appear that way to an audience, whereas some of the simpler tricks can look difficult. So to an audience that isn't familiar with juggling, the juggler might pull off an extremely difficult move and nobody even notices it.

So I don't know if any of you have ever heard of the Ukrainian-born juggler Viktor Kee, but he is very spectacular. I first saw him back in 2003 when watching Cirque du Soleil's Dralion on TV, and was so inspired, that I went through the effort to learn to juggle from scratch. Anyhow, he was on America's Got Talent recently and had some really awesome performances IMO: EDIT: Video function seems to not be working; maybe it is just my computer, but in case not, here is the link:

Never seen Bladerunner, will have to make sure to watch it.

Yeah sorry. Just this issue can be hard to be succinct about.

Well in terms of numbers of guns, that really means nothing. Whether a person has 1 or 100 guns, all it takes is one. Regarding where are weapons limited, that is a good question and I would say that the word "arms" in the Second Amendment applies to what are today called small arms and melee and bladed weapons, and other basic projectile weapons (bow and arrow, sling, etc...). War hammer, battle axe, sword and shield, would be protected. At the time, the word "arms" meant personal weapons and armor. So body armor would be covered and also gas masks I'd say as they are a form of armor. While we use the word "arms" as a catch-all today for all weapons, for example, "global arms trade," "arms embargo," "nuclear arms," etc...at the time, the word was more specific. "Arms" then was distinguished from "munitions" which were explosives. The major military vehicle of the time was the Ship-Of-the-Line, the big naval sailing ships with the huge cannons arrayed on the side. I am pretty sure that "arms" in the Second Amendment did not mean a right to possess those (although interestingly there were some privately-owned gunships and cannon). Similarly, in modern times, it does not mean a right to possess modern naval gunships, or attack aircraft, or gun vehicles, such as battle tanks. Modern munitions in terms of all the various bombs would not be covered, up to nuclear weapons. Biological warfare was known of and used at the time, they just did not yet have engineered biological weapons. But for example the British used smallpox-infected blankets to kill Native Americans, so the concept of using disease as a weapon of war was well-known. But the word "arms" likely did not mean a right to keep smallpox-infected blankets in one's home. Similarly, it does not mean a right to keep weaponized anthrax for example today.

Slightly long post, but just wanted to address Fortis's points: In the event that the people had to actually take up arms against a tyranny, things would already be so terrible that there wouldn't be much to lose. Armed resistance to a tyranny is only for a last resort. Armed resistance can tear the society apart because of the warfare and also can lead to the replacement of the existing tyranny with another tyranny. Peaceful resistance should always be tried first, and has a history of working a lot of times, but it doesn't always work. And the Founding Fathers of America, BTW, were fully aware of this; they wrote it right into the Declaration of Independence: Nuclear weapons I doubt would be used by a tyranny because they'd be destroying their own country. Regarding conventional bombs, war planes, helicopters, tanks, etc...I'd say that YES, the people could resist them with small arms. The reason is because there are only so many places that you can send tanks, troops, aircraft to bomb, etc...if the people, en masse, rise up in resistance, it can be EXTREMELY difficult to put down. And yes the government can switch off the electricity, water, and fuel, but the people can do that to the government too. They can sabotage the rail lines and the infrastructure. Tanks, aircraft, etc...can't move without fuel. Look at South Korea. Back when it was a dictatorship, one of the cities fought back via force of arms. They hijacked an armory to get weapons. The military responded and beat them down. However, this caused the whole country to rise up in mass protest. At this point, the dictatorship realized they couldn't hold power and gave it up. Now imagine if all of those people were in possession of arms. Why doesn't a disabled person have a right to an AR-15? What if a drugged-out criminal breaks into their home? Here some years back, three guys broke into a man's home and beat him to death. My mom is disabled. Why shouldn't she be able to possess a firearm that is easy to use, has good accuracy, and good stopping power?

IMO, no one can predict the future regarding what the government might turn into. A semi-automatic rifle such as an AR-15 though can be useful for physically weaker people, physically disabled people, elderly people, etc...due to its excellent stopping power, accuracy, and lower amount of recoil.

I don't think you have much familiarity with the Gun Control Complex. They are among the most conniving, dishonest, misleading, underhanded group of people you will come across and when it comes to any kind of gun control, you can bet your butt you had better be careful with how it is worded or it will come back to bite you. Yes, though it can seem nitpicky, stuff like those details matter. All one need do is look at the different "Assault Weapons Bans" to see the stunts the gun controllers pull.

The reason why private party sales of guns are unregulated at the federal level and mostly at the state level, and unenforceable in some of the states that do have the requirement, is because the only way to enforce such a provision is to require universal registration of firearms. The government otherwise has no way to know who owns what guns. For example, here in New York State, they have a requirement for universal background checks. But, only hand guns are required to be registered. Long guns, such as shotguns and rifles, are not. So technically I could sell my shotgun to another guy without the state government knowing anything about it. The only way they'd find out is if I sold it unknowingly to an undercover police officer. The reason why registration is resisted is because it almost always leads to gun confiscation. We have seen this in other countries and also within the U.S. itself, California and New York City being two good examples. Plus the opinion of many, including myself, that it is none of the government's business what firearms I own, no more than it is any of their business what books I own. No, it's not a loophole. Again, to be a loophole, there has to be a law against it.

No, because you don't infringe on rights in the name of security from terrorism. To me, it would no longer be a truly free society anymore if the State gains a monopoly on arms. It becomes a form of soft tyranny (and yes I would argue that almost all the liberal democracies in the world are forms of soft tyranny in this sense because they ban arms). The people are the sovereign. The government the servant. Right to privacy can inhibit solving terrorism too, but we don't just throw that out the window either. Americans have a great attachment to freedom in all respects. For example, in France after that terror attack, the whole country was put under martial law with certain civil rights suspended. Here in the United States, after 9/11 in which far more people were killed, about 3,000, where the military's central headquarters was hit (Pentagon), main center of economic power hit and destroyed (World Trade Center), and an attempt to hit either the White House or the Capitol Building, the response was nothing involving mass martial law or suspension of civil liberties. And to the extent anything was done, for example the Patriot Act and Guantanomo Bay for terrorists, there was an UPROAR.

Very nice What is with all you people saying it is a "ridiculous" vehicle though, it is very good for off-road right? And also this is a Lambo site, no more pointless car than that!

Diane Feinstein introducing bill to ban bump-stocks. Some problems I have been reading about with it however are that she words the bill to ban all devices that "increase the rate of fire of a semi-automatic." The problem with that is for one, how do you define "rate of fire?" That depends on the shooter and the quality of the weapon and its components. For example, some people can fire a pump-action shotgun significantly faster than others. Same with a lever-action and same with a semiautomatic. There are different types of triggers that you can buy for your gun, some of the higher-quality ones which are easier to pull, and thus allow you to fire it more quickly. So are those going to be banned? Would gun manufacturers have to put in the crappiest-quality trigger? This reminds me of the whole "Assault Weapons" Ban dilemma, where they want to claim any ergonomic feature on the weapon is a "military-style feature."

There is no "private party sale loophole" or "gun show loophole." To be a loophole means that there has to be an existing law against it, and due to some quirk, you can still violate the spirit of the law without violating the law itself. But there is no law against private party sales without background checks. The background check law only applies to sales of guns through licensed gun dealers. The reason is because in order to cover private party sales, you'd have to require registration of firearms, and that is a no-go considering that gun registration always leads to gun confiscation. Regarding the CDC, the reason their funding got canned (it actually didn't, just they couldn't use it to promote gun control) was because they got caught red-handed back in the 1990s engaging in biased research to promote gun control. In addition, the CDC has no business studying gun violence because it is not a public health issue. Public health deals with physical things and how they can affect health, whether they be chemical pollutants in the air or water, germs of various kinds in the air/water/food, automobile safety, etc...it does not deal with why humans use certain items to harm others. For example, how airbags were found to suffocate children in the front seat, was a public health issue. If you have a problem with people falling down stairs in their home, studying how to prevent that is a public health issue. Ways to prevent accidental shootings with guns, can be a public health issue. On the other hand, if you have a problem with people using cars to run other people over, that is not a public health issue, it is a criminology issue. If you have a problem with people pushing others down the stairs, again, that's criminology. And regarding people using firearms to kill other people, that is a criminology issue. The public health profession has been trying for years to act as if they are some authority that should be listened to on the issue of gun violence, but they aren't. They are no more qualified to comment on it than criminologists are to research the effectiveness of vaccines and pharmaceuticals.

A few thoughts: 1) I don't know if Congress will do anything about bump-fire. The problem is even if they wanted to, you couldn't trust the Democrats to not sneak something else in at the last second IMO. 2) Yes, a lot of the guns in Chicago come from outside of Chicago, but that doesn't address the issue of WHY Chicago has such a high level of gun violence. If it was due to the guns, then cities with less gun regulation in more gun-friendly states one would expect to be even more violent, for example Salt Lake City, Orlando, Phoenix, Dallas, Houston, Austin, El Paso, Nashville, etc... 3) Assman has me blocked, but his point on a militia I'd argue is incorrect. The right to keep and bear arms isn't about "forming a militia," to the contrary, the people ARE the militia. The militia consists of all able-bodied adults able to bear arms, and in terms of fighting a tyranny, it would be about the whole population resisting the government, not some small band of rebels. 4) I do not trust the SCOTUS, even conservative-leaning, necessarily on 2nd Amendment issues. 5) Three of our recent mass shootings have been due to Muslim terrorism (Ft Hood, San Bernadino, Orlando nightclub). Others due to mental illness. We should not disarm the populace because of problems with terrorism and mental illness.

I might be wrong, but from what I've read, silencers were only subjected to regulation in the first place because the U.S. Department of Fish & Wildlife during the Great Depression didn't like people using firearms with silencers to poach various animals because they wanted food. Silencers do not make weapons silent, they just reduce the decibel level to a more safe amount. If you have to use a gun for self-defense in your home, ear muffs are not necessarily a good solution, because you may not want to put them on so that you can hear where the criminal is and if you family is asleep, they won't be able to put them on. If you have to fire the weapon indoors, you are going to be subjected to an extremely loud crack, and if it's in a hallway, probably even louder (like how a vacuum gets louder when in a hallway). The crack could permanently damage your hearing and in the short term, make you deaf, which means you may not be able to use the phone to dial 911 or even hear the commands of police if they see you and think you are the criminal. Silencers should not be restricted because some criminal might use them in a mass shooting IMO. BTW, warning shots are generally illegal, and especially in California, so I'd be careful about firing 12 gauge shots in the air for trespassers. IMO, the guns aren't the issue. Something else is going on in society that is causing this mass killing. Maybe the breakdown of the mental health system to some degree, who knows, but this kind of stuff did not happen back in 1960s, 70s, and 80s, and yet the guns were just as available then.

Been reading up lately on the problems there as I had never paid attention to Puerto Rico, but it is very interesting. The big ones highlighted I've found are: 1) Elimination of 936 (although according to this, the elimination of 936 is not a reason: LINK) 2) Welfare - cost of living on the island I've read is a lot less but yet the welfare payments from the federal government are the same, making it much easier and tempting to just ride the system as not work 3) Federal minimum wage on the island is too high for the island; it prices low-skilled labor out of the market, as their median wage is about $9.42 yet the federal minimum wage is $7.25. 4) Making it easier for the PR government to borrow funds which was meant to grow the private sector but instead only grew the government and welfare state there.

Keep in mind that you have to take Pravda on the Hudson (a.k.a. the New York Times) with a grain of salt on these things. You also have to take the political Left as a whole with a grain of salt on such things. They ALWAYS claim that tax cuts proposed by Republicans "benefit the rich." They claimed it about Reagan's, they claimed it about Bush Jr's, they'll claim it about Trump. I don't know if you remember for example, but during the eight years of Bush Jr, we heard ad nauseum from the media and the Left about how the Bush tax cuts were "for the rich" and how we thus had to "End the Bush tax cuts!" Yet, the reality was that the Bush tax cuts were in fact for everybody. Every single bracket/income level received a tax reduction under the those tax cuts. In addition, the Child Income Tax Credit was also doubled, from $500 per child to $1000 per child. And the poorer you were, the higher percentage tax cut you received. For example, if you fell into the 39.6% tax bracket, the reduction to 35% was a 12% cut. However, if you fell into the 20% rate, the reduction to 15% was a 25% cut. So basically it was all a big lie the Left spouted for eight years. Now in 2009, when Obama came into office with the goal of "Ending the evil Bush tax cuts for the rich!" the rhetoric was subtly changed, from "End the Bush tax cuts" to "End the Bush tax cuts for those earning $250,000 and up" because to actually flat-out end the Bush tax cuts would have raised taxes on everybody. Yes, of course, a wealthy guy making $400,000 a year saves more raw dollars with a 12% cut than a guy making $30,000 does with a 25% cut, but that should be irrelevant. Another thing is that about 40-50% of the population already pays zero in federal income taxes. They do "pay taxes," but after all those credits kick in, it ends up on the net where they are ultimately paying nothing or even being given free money in their tax return.

I think the Jones Act issue is more complex than Trump just not caring about brown people. What is ironic is that historically it seems to have been a more Democrat-supported law, as it is very pro-union and protectionist, whereas conservative organizations have long supported its being ended.

Perceived police brutality toward blacks is fine to protest, but do it outside of the games, not during the games. It is a complex issue. For example, yes police may shoot blacks more, but blacks also commit a majority of the violent crimes, so race may have nothing to do with it. Don't blame the flag or "America" at football games over it. Jones Act I don't know enough about, but on the surface I would support repeal. Healthcare fail I blame Congress more. The private email use in the WH is not the same as the Secretary of State having a private server in her home. Expansion of the travel ban I do not see a problem with.

The NFL never let any pro-American statements be made by the players during games, but anti-American or America-critical statements are apparently okay. I don't think you have any understanding of patriotism in America if you think it's the equivalent of the North Koreans bowing to Dear Leader. Don't confuse patriotism with nationalism. There can be a fine line between the two, but nationalism is more of a collectivist, non-thinking type of movement, a wave, cult-type of thing that people get caught up in. Patriotism, by contrast, is more individual-based, something that people are because of deeply-held beliefs, not because of some cult-mindset or wave or mania movement that they got swept up in. Basically nationalism depends a lot on brainwashing, whereas patriotism does not. Patriotic people will be patriotic whether it is popular or not. Patriotism also is not about blind loyalty or not engaging in criticism of one's nation. While I have not yet travelled abroad, from what I have read, American patriotism is a bit of an alien thing to many non-Americans. For example, I've read one of the things that shocks many who visit America is all the American flags everywhere. I've been told that in England, if you were to hang the British flag outside your house, you'd be viewed as some form of nationalist or something, whereas it is quite common in the USA to see the American flag hanging outside of people's homes. Also common to see little American flags on cars (and sometimes bigger and multiple ones on pickup trucks ), and people wearing clothing with American flag artwork on it, and the flag flying big and proud all over. So I suppose American patriotism can be a bit of a culture shock to those not familiar with it.

The GOP I think, and in particular McCain it seems, are more intent on denying Trump any victories than fixing any problems. I think if they liked Trump, we'd have a legitimate Obamacare fix. I think his language regarding NK is exactly what NK needs to hear, as NK needs to be made aware that if they ever lob any nuke into the U.S. or attack SK, they will be destroyed. Regarding Puerto Rico, well it's not a U.S. state, so much of the public probably doesn't care as much about it unfortunately, which I suppose if probably why the media isn't making much of a deal about it. Maybe Trump is dealing with it as best he can, but is also tweeting and that is just getting the most attention. I certainly believe he has the energy to do both, so I would hope that is the case and that he isn't ignoring PR. But hurricane destruction in Puerto Rico vs American football, American football probably wins out ratings-wise.

Very strong defense of the nation-state as a concept and patriotism, which is IMO quite refreshing to this whole, "One World, Borders-Are-A-Thing-Of-The-Past" we've been hearing a lot from the elites in the past years. Strong, free, proud, independent nation-states that are patriotic are what make for a prosperous, free, peaceful world.

Yes, the CGI in the new Disney films is a lot less cartoonish than in the prequels, where it looked very much like watching a video game sequence. They also are using a lot of physical props as well in the new ones. It's amazing to watch Episode IV right after Rogue. If you have not seen the prequels and want to, well keep in mind that they are much more kid-movie films than these new ones.

Well both AEGIS and the Patriot system are offshoots of the Strategic Defense Initiative, so it's sorta there. The actual SDI is still a work-in-progress.