America - The Official Thread

[Famine]

Well, it's more that it's Independence Day to you rowdy colonials and the 4th of July to everyone else on the planet that uses the usual calendar.

 

[FoolKiller]

Well, it's more that it's Independence Day to you rowdy colonials and the 4th of July to everyone else on the planet that uses the usual calendar.

You're lucky I kept the international audience in mind and didn't just call it The 4th, as is common around here. I can refer to The 4th in February and most people will know what day I am referring to.

But the bigger point is the video and the point it makes. Nearly everything we do on Independence Day is heavily regulated. In many places we have to cross state lines to buy our fireworks. It is possible that when you see someone firing off fireworks that person has violated at least one federal law, possibly multiple state laws in multiple states, and at least one local fire ordinance. Depending on the language in the laws, it is even possible that each type of firework breaks its own set of laws, eg. A bottle rocket (airborne explosive) may violate different laws than a firecracker (explosive device) or sparkler (fire hazard).

 

[dhandeh]

You're lucky I kept the international audience in mind and didn't just call it The 4th, as is common around here. I can refer to The 4th in February and most people will know what day I am referring to.

But the bigger point is the video and the point it makes. Nearly everything we do on Independence Day is heavily regulated. In many places we have to cross state lines to buy our fireworks. It is possible that when you see someone firing off fireworks that person has violated at least one federal law, possibly multiple state laws in multiple states, and at least one local fire ordinance. Depending on the language in the laws, it is even possible that each type of firework breaks its own set of laws, eg. A bottle rocket (airborne explosive) may violate different laws than a firecracker (explosive device) or sparkler (fire hazard).

I'm playing The Simpson's Tapped Out and the Apu quest where you have to smuggle and hide fireworks makes more sense after reading this!

 

[GTsail]

No, it's the 4th of July for us too.

Wait.... didn't America claim the 4th for ourselves...... on a first come - first serve basis?

Hmmm.... maybe I have my dates and time zones messed up....

What time is it over there, across the Pond?

Well, can we at least borrow the 4th once a year?

US Colonial types would like to have a summer holiday, even if, as FoolKiller says, fireworks are heavily regulated.

Thanks!
GTsail

 

[Famine]

You're lucky I kept the international audience in mind and didn't just call it The 4th, as is common around here. I can refer to The 4th in February and most people will know what day I am referring to.

But not in May

But the bigger point is the video and the point it makes. Nearly everything we do on Independence Day is heavily regulated. In many places we have to cross state lines to buy our fireworks. It is possible that when you see someone firing off fireworks that person has violated at least one federal law, possibly multiple state laws in multiple states, and at least one local fire ordinance. Depending on the language in the laws, it is even possible that each type of firework breaks its own set of laws, eg. A bottle rocket (airborne explosive) may violate different laws than a firecracker (explosive device) or sparkler (fire hazard).

We have such ludicrously overbearing fireworks rules that it's amazing anyone can even buy them. Of course the ones we can buy are exactly as impressive as a Party Popper.

We used to buy loads of fireworks - from our good friend Shay at the Chinese Fireworks Shop in Sheffield (other fireworks shops are available; they're not as good) - every year for November 5th. Then we started being able to get fewer and fewer types - first mortars were banned*, then Chinese Firecrackers were banned and we just stopped because the choice became a bunch of unimpressive cakes and rockets at £5 a pop. And a literal "pop" at that - no bangs.

Oh, we also have times of day they can be used too - which are waived on special occasions (New Year, royal jubilees) because no-one needs to sleep on those nights.


*They were banned from public sale because an individual at a private display - the headmaster of a local school - went back to a malfunctioning one and peered into the tube to see why it hadn't gone off...

 

[TheCracker]

We used to buy loads of fireworks - from our good friend Shay at the Chinese Fireworks Shop in Sheffield (other fireworks shops are available; they're not as good)

No idea how that place stays open. What do they do for the other 50 weeks of the year? A big four story building like that, has to be a front for drug or human trafficking or prostitution.

 

[GTsail]

***In many places we have to cross state lines to buy our fireworks. It is possible that when you see someone firing off fireworks that person has violated at least one federal law, possibly multiple state laws in multiple states, and at least one local fire ordinance. Depending on the language in the laws, it is even possible that each type of firework breaks its own set of laws, eg. A bottle rocket (airborne explosive) may violate different laws than a firecracker (explosive device) or sparkler (fire hazard).

I found a nice map that shows which states allow fireworks:

Map of Fireworks by State

I would say that about half the Country has some sort of limit on fireworks, though I guess only eleven States are really strict.

Edit: Please consider this map as just a guide. As Justin (thanks:tup points out below, it is not completely accurate or up-to-date.

Respectfully,
GTsail

 

[marxlien]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WDBZr4ie2AE
The land of the freedom...

Edit:Warning, NSFW content.

 

[DK]

I think you should have warned us about NSFW content first.

 

[Northstar]

I found a nice map that shows which states allow fireworks:

Map of Fireworks by State

I would say that about half the Country has some sort of limit on fireworks, though I guess only eleven States are really strict.

Respectfully,
GTsail

That map isn't accurate as you can but aerial fireworks in Wisconsin(they even air commercials here for their shops across the border). Not sure of any other inaccuracies.


Personally, I think it's stupid that Minnesota has a "Safe and Sane" law considering we are close to a state which allows aerial fireworks. I have always wondered how much we lose economically from this.

 

[GTsail]

Personally, I think it's stupid that Minnesota has a "Safe and Sane" law considering we are close to a state which allows aerial fireworks. I have always wondered how much we lose economically from this.

The same is true here in Massachusetts.

New Hampshire, which is right next door, sells and allows all sorts of fireworks, so many individuals from Mass will make the short trip over the State line and procure whatever they desire.

Mass law is pretty strict, so you can have your fireworks confiscated, and sometimes get fined $100. I have found a link to a Summary of Mass Fireworks Law

Respectfully,
GTsail

 

[Northstar]

Penalties seem a bit harsher here, at least money wise.

Link (On page 2)

Granted the cops themselves seem pretty lenient about it since it seems unless you are doing stupid crap or lighting them off at odd hours they just ignore it or give a warning.

 

[marxlien]

I think you should have warned us about NSFW content first.

yes i should, sorry.

 

[White & Nerdy]

Well, here in my part of AK it's officially the 4th. Just one time zone left...

 

[Keef]

Police in Nevada commandeer a house, arrest the residents, and then get sued for, among other things, Third Amendment violations, that Amendment preventing quartering of troops in houses without permission.

https://www.courthousenews.com/2013/07/03/59061.htm

The interesting thing is that if this had taken place in Indiana the resident would have been within their rights to kill those police officers as they entered the house. Then after that they could have sued.

 

[FoolKiller]

The teen arrested for his comments after a video game is reportedly bring beaten while behind bars.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/alltechcon...cebook-comment-reportedly-beat-up-behind-bars

"Without getting into the really nasty details, he's had concussions, black eyes, moved four times from base for his own protection," says Carter's father, Jack. "He's been put in solitary confinement, nude, for days on end because he's depressed. All of this is extremely traumatic to this kid. This is a horrible experience."

We've all heard enough stories to imagine the "really nasty details."

Good thing we are being safe and this kid isn't out to shoot up a school, jk.



Speaking of going insane in the war on terror, a report from the military shows that drones kill 10 times more[/] civilians than manned aircraft strikes.
http://m.guardiannews.com/world/2013/jul/02/us-drone-strikes-afghan-civilians

A study conducted by a US military adviser has found that drone strikes in Afghanistan during a year of the protracted conflict caused 10 times more civilian casualties than strikes by manned fighter aircraft.

The new study, referred to in an official US military journal, contradicts claims by US officials that the robotic planes are more precise than their manned counterparts.

It appears to undermine the claim made by President Obama in a May speech that "conventional airpower or missiles are far less precise than drones, and likely to cause more civilian casualties and local outrage".

Happy Independence Day!!!

 

[sumbrownkid]

Obama really needs to cut back on these drone strikes. Too much collateral damage for the work we want them to do.

 

[BobK]

The interesting thing is that if this had taken place in Indiana the resident would have been within their rights to kill those police officers as they entered the house. Then after that they could have sued.

Their estate could have sued, you mean. Sure they'd be right to resist the police. Dead right.

That particular police department really does need to be held accountable, though, and some heads should roll.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Police in Nevada commandeer a house, arrest the residents, and then get sued for, among other things, Third Amendment violations, that Amendment preventing quartering of troops in houses without permission.

https://www.courthousenews.com/2013/07/03/59061.htm

The interesting thing is that if this had taken place in Indiana the resident would have been within their rights to kill those police officers as they entered the house. Then after that they could have sued.

That's crazy. Sounds like the kind of stuff that used to happen in the old Soviet Bloc or Nazi Germany. I hope they get millions and the cops in charge fired.

 

[-Cheezman-]

Police in Nevada commandeer a house, arrest the residents, and then get sued for, among other things, Third Amendment violations, that Amendment preventing quartering of troops in houses without permission.

https://www.courthousenews.com/2013/07/03/59061.htm

The interesting thing is that if this had taken place in Indiana the resident would have been within their rights to kill those police officers as they entered the house. Then after that they could have sued.

I'm not taking a side of debate here.

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

But, can you call law enforcement soldiers or troops? Legally, are they the same thing, or is there a distinction?

 

[FoolKiller]

I'm not taking a side of debate here.

But, can you call law enforcement soldiers or troops? Legally, are they the same thing, or is there a distinction?

That is the debate. It has never been an issue brought up before. That alone tells you what kind of police they are dealing with, that they performed an act to cause an accusation never before seen in court.

It has been decide that the National Guard, controlled by the states, is regulated by the 3rd Amendment. The question will be a mix of original intent and modern interpretation. The 4th Amendment applies to emails and phone calls, but it doesn't mention those or any non-written communications. The real question is if the military/soldiers were used to police in the 18th century. At a minimum the British soldiers were, but was that a result of it being the only way to police a colony on the other side of the world?

Ultimately, the suit also claims 4th Amendment was violated, assault & battery, conspiracy, malicious prosecution, and enough other charges to see these cops removed from their positions and likely jailed, if only the 3rd Amendment charges are dropped. The police have a tough case because the man was on his phone when they came in, ordering him off of it, and then allegedly shooting him with pepper balls at close range. The fact that they did a similar thing to another house really hurts the case of the police.

 

[Liquid]

In regards to the United Kingdom, and this is purely on a comparative rationale, there is a difference between soldiers and policemen. The often pondered question about why the British police aren't armed, or more specifically, completely unarmed upon the met police's formation, is because the government feared that having armed officers manning the streets would alienate the public, as if it was the beginning of a slippery slope towards martial law.

I'm not saying it's right, I'm neither agreeing nor disagreeing, but that is how we over here attempted to differentiate between police and army.

In specific regards to the case at hand, it is a grossly arrogant abuse of power, regardless of whomever it is.

 

[Schwartz]

I'm surprised at the complete lack of discussion about the 19 firefighters killed in Arizona a few days ago. There are a number of members I would have expected to create a thread dedicated to the story just as the news broke. Anyway, I'm going to skip the whole part where I'm supposed to say how sad it is and grieve over it and stuff. I'm more interested in what exactly happened. The only thing I can gather from the news outlets is that the wind suddenly changed direction and the fire overtook the firefighters. I'm sure in the coming weeks the investigation will paint a clearer picture of the situation. In the mean time, does anyone here have a better idea of what happened than I do?

 

[Keef]

It has been decide that the National Guard, controlled by the states, is regulated by the 3rd Amendment. The question will be a mix of original intent and modern interpretation. The 4th Amendment applies to emails and phone calls, but it doesn't mention those or any non-written communications. The real question is if the military/soldiers were used to police in the 18th century. At a minimum the British soldiers were, but was that a result of it being the only way to police a colony on the other side of the world?

Ultimately, the suit also claims 4th Amendment was violated, assault & battery, conspiracy, malicious prosecution, and enough other charges to see these cops removed from their positions and likely jailed, if only the 3rd Amendment charges are dropped. The police have a tough case because the man was on his phone when they came in, ordering him off of it, and then allegedly shooting him with pepper balls at close range. The fact that they did a similar thing to another house really hurts the case of the police.

There's also the idea of a "militia" to consider. Militias don't exist today as they did back then except in the form of police. Either way, police have taken a sworn oath just like the national guard and military. They're responsible for protecting public safety without infringing their rights during peace time like those other two organizations as well.

 

[Slash]

Deleted.

 

[Carbonox]

"Oh my god, shoot him before he sprays water on us!"

 

[Slash]

"Oh my god, shoot him before he sprays water on us!"

I just made a thread for that so it doesn't de-rail this.

 

[Adamgp]

Mexico has passed us up:

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/news/america-fattest-obese-un-144341236.html

 

[playnthru]

Well...We did name town for them http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gorda,_California


Watch out for their gas.

 

[Sanji Himura]

Gun Map News Paper back in the news:

The suburban New York newspaper that created a firestorm earlier this year when it published the names and addresses of gun permit holders has requested more data regarding legal owners of firearms, apparently to determine if handgun ownership patterns have changed in the last six months.

The Journal News, a Gannett-owned paper that covers suburban counties just north of New York City, requested more personal information in May. This time, it included statistical data, as well as names and addresses of gun permit holders from Rockland, Putnam and Westchester counties. Out of the paper's reach are the names of those that opted out of the public records under the NY SAFE law, passed after the Journal News published an interactive map showing the address of every registered handgun owner in two counties it covers.

“The request indicated that it was in relation to a ‘news event,’” Westchester County spokeswoman Rosia Blackwell Lawrence told FoxNews.com.

The latest document request, made on May 15, sought the names and addresses of all permit holders in the Westchester database, along with other data that pertained to some 9,996 opt-out requests, including reasons for the requests, total number of requests received, and the total number of requests approved.

Lawrence said that the request was ultimately approved, except for the breakdown of approved opt-out requests by reason, as that information was not captured electronically.

Last December, following the Sandy Hook school shootings in Connecticut, the Journal News filed Freedom of Information Law requests for gun permits and then compiled names and addresses of registered gun owners in Westchester and Rockland counties into an interactive map. Putnam County Clerk Dennis Sant refused to release the names and addresses of handgun permit holders, saying it was a matter of public safety.

Sant told FoxNews.com that he also denied the newspaper's recent request. The Journal News then appealed to Putnam County Executive MaryEllen Odell, who ultimately denied the request.

Journal News officials did not respond to repeated requests for additional comment. But in a May 15 article, published the day of the records request, the paper said it plans to produce a static map using new information to show how the distribution of pistol permits has changed since the paper published its map in December.

The reporter who requested the information, Dwight Worley, confirmed to FoxNews.com that he is planning on using the requested information.

Although much of the journalism community supported the newspaper's decision to publish the map, the move sparked a backlash among the general public. Some gun owners felt that the map stigmatized them, while others said the map gave burglars a handy tool for targeting victims. As a result of the highly controversial map, when New York State passed the SAFE Act, options were included to allow for permit holders to opt-out of a public record.

Rockland County Clerk Paul Piperato was going through the requests, according to the Rockland County Times

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/07/0...irearms-owners/?test=latestnews#ixzz2YcXl48ip

Disgusting on anyone willing to own a gun in those counties. The Supreme Court ruled that you can't yell fire in a full building, so a few of you living there need to step up and put a stop to putting your names on Google again.