Go Down

Topic: Keep weapons off Arduino forum and website (Read 13199 times) previous topic - next topic

AlxDroidDev

I saw this on Atmel's Facebook page and immediatly thought about this thread:

Arduino-powered Nerf Vulcan sentry gun automatically aims and fires at targets

http://atmelcorporation.wordpress.com/2013/07/05/building-an-arduino-powered-nerf-vulcan-sentry-gun/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C70R7oo4jMc
Learn to live: Live to learn.
Showing off my work: http://arduino.cc/forum/index.php/topic,126197.0.html

CrossRoads

Designing & building electrical circuits for over 25 years.  Screw Shield for Mega/Due/Uno,  Bobuino with ATMega1284P, & other '328P & '1284P creations & offerings at  my website.

kf2qd

To those who don't understand the USA and our stance on guns/firearms/weapons. The very people who fought the British and fought over the framing of the Constitution and the first ten amendments was that these very men also saw that there might come a day when the citizens of this country might have the need to rise up against that government. They also saw the possibility that is the people had their own weapons, that alone might prevent the need for them to ever have to rise up and defend themselves from their government.

They saw that the people might someday need to rise up just as they had. And if that day ever were to come they wanted those cictzens to be able to.

The first ten amendments were put in because several groups felt that they had reason to NOT TRUST the government. Those amendments were NOT considered to be a grant of rights, for they believed those rights were inherent to all men,(all men are endowed by there creator with certain inalienable rights...) but rather to be a written safeguard because they did not trust any government of men to be trusted. In other words, they had those first ten amendments added because they understood human nature and did not trust those in power to not become tyrants. And the whole world has seen just how easy it is for tyrants to rise up.

Unlike Switzerland, in the US we don't require anyone to have a firearm. And it is interesting to note that the cities with the strictest gun laws are also the cities with the highest number of gun crimes. Why? No-one wants to explain that...

AWOL

Quote
Unlike Switzerland, in the US we don't require anyone to have a firearm

By my rough estimate, at least 50% of Swiss citizens are not required to have a gun.
The same 50% who have only been enfranchised in my lifetime.

Quote
all men are endowed by there[sic] creator with certain inalienable rights

And how many of the men who endorsed that document owned slaves?
What happened to their rights?

Times change, get over it.
"Pete, it's a fool looks for logic in the chambers of the human heart." Ulysses Everett McGill.
Do not send technical questions via personal messaging - they will be ignored.

wizdum


That's just sophistry: Clearly, the "well-regulated militia" and the "free state" are meant to be seen as Good Thingstm - the colonists had not just spent two years fighting the well-regulated militia of a free state; in their eyes, they had just fought the brutal armies of a tyrannical oppressor.

Quote
Depending on who you ask, it is any able-bodied citizen, so 75%?

75% are reservists? That's impressive.


A well-regulated militia is by definition not a state sponsored army. Its purpose is to protect the people in the event that a tyrannical government attempts to use its military on the people.

The well regulated militia is separate from a citizen's second amendment rights anyway. It is not the right of the militia to bear arms, it is the right of the people.
"Anyone who isn't confused really doesn't understand the situation."

Electronic props for Airsoft, paintball, and laser tag -> www.nightscapetech.com

AWOL

Quote
A well-regulated militia is by definition not a state sponsored army.

By who's definition?
Not your finest legal minds, it seems, who consider them an irrelevance, or an inconvenient truth.
The guys in Somalia on the backs of Toyota technicals, with NSVs, they're well-regulated, right?

Quote
It is not the right of the militia to bear arms, it is the right of the people.

But you need a well-regulated militia to maintain a free state?
That's what the amendment says.
If they have no right to bear arms, what do you give them?
Loofahs?
"Pete, it's a fool looks for logic in the chambers of the human heart." Ulysses Everett McGill.
Do not send technical questions via personal messaging - they will be ignored.

Jack Christensen

#96
Jul 05, 2013, 10:23 pm Last Edit: Jul 05, 2013, 10:33 pm by Jack Christensen Reason: 1
I find it interesting that Amendments I, II, and IV all use the same words, "the right of the people", yet no one argues that the first and fourth amendments do not apply to individuals, but to some collective government body.

Quote
Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


I also find it interesting that some of the states have confirmed the Bill of Rights with slightly different language, for instance the Michigan Constitution:

Quote
ARTICLE 17
MILITIA
Militia; members; military duty; exemptions.
Sec. 1. The militia shall be composed of all able bodied male citizens between the age of eighteen and forty-five years, except such as are exempted by the laws of the United States, or of this State; but all such citizens, of any religious denomination whatever, who, from scruples of conscience, may be averse to bearing arms, shall be excused therefrom, upon such conditions as shall be prescribed by law.

Right to bear arms.
Sec. 7. Every person has a right to bear arms for the defense of himself and the state.


I've followed this thread on-and-off but it is quite distasteful to me because this is such a great community and the divisiveness, especially on off-topic subjects is detrimental. I have hesitated to comment; this will be the last. AFAIC, everyone is entitled to their opinions, and that includes the hoplophobes. This thread serves no purpose, no minds will be changed.

I just hope that we don't have to keep threads about Nerf off the forum and website.
MCP79411/12 RTC ... "One Million Ohms" ATtiny kit ... available at http://www.tindie.com/stores/JChristensen/

wizdum

#97
Jul 05, 2013, 10:25 pm Last Edit: Jul 05, 2013, 10:29 pm by wizdum Reason: 1

Quote
A well-regulated militia is by definition not a state sponsored army.

By who's definition?
Not your finest legal minds, it seems, who consider them an irrelevance, or an inconvenient truth.
The guys in Somalia on the backs of Toyota technicals, with NSVs, they're well-regulated, right?

Quote
It is not the right of the militia to bear arms, it is the right of the people.

But you need a well-regulated militia to maintain a free state?
That's what the amendment says.
If they have no right to bear arms, what do you give them?
Loofahs?


Somali mercenaries are in fact a well-regulated militia.

I did not say that the militia did not have the right to bear arms. The second amendment gives the people the right to bear arms. The militia is made up of the people, so they still have the right to bear arms. There are many well-regulated militias in the US if you know where to look.




I've followed this thread on-and-off but it is quite distasteful to me because this is such a great community and the divisiveness, especially on off-topic subjects is detrimental. I have hesitated to comment up until now; this will be the first and last. AFAIC, everyone is entitled to their opinions, and that includes the hoplophobes. This thread serves no purpose, no minds will be changed.

I just hope that we don't have to keep threads about Nerf off the forum and website.


I don't know, I'm kind of impressed at the civility in this thread. Usually people are cursing at me and calling me a baby killer by now.
"Anyone who isn't confused really doesn't understand the situation."

Electronic props for Airsoft, paintball, and laser tag -> www.nightscapetech.com

CrossRoads

#98
Jul 05, 2013, 10:29 pm Last Edit: Jul 05, 2013, 10:31 pm by CrossRoads Reason: 1
I can't see any group besides a state national guard rising up against the federal military (edit - and having a chance of surviving). Not gonna happen, not when those groups have fought side by side together overseas.
And the thugs & gang members and drug runners that do the drive by shootings killing innocent kids in the cities - are they going to rise up & join a militia? Or more likely, be part of the problem the military and national  guard come in to do something about.
Designing & building electrical circuits for over 25 years.  Screw Shield for Mega/Due/Uno,  Bobuino with ATMega1284P, & other '328P & '1284P creations & offerings at  my website.

jroorda

Without interjecting too many of my own views, as few people really care about those, I think this whole discussion shows one thing.  The issue of weapons is far to deep, broad, and complex to be adequately dealt with by a simple ban or any other concise and enforceable policy.  The best and only reasonable solution is to continue to do exactly what we as a community have been.  That is to use common sense when posting, follow the existing rules, and exercise the utmost respect for everyone here and life in general.

Sorry to interrupt the flow of the latest debate... please continue.

GoForSmoke


The first ten amendments were put in because several groups felt that they had reason to NOT TRUST the government. Those amendments were NOT considered to be a grant of rights, for they believed those rights were inherent to all men,(all men are endowed by there creator with certain inalienable rights...)


This is from the Declaration of Independence:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

It doesn't appear anywhere in the Constitution however much some people would like to have it along with a ton of made-up road-apples about Founding Fathers, laws and God. It all gets mashed up in their view to make a new view justification for cracked political action.
Imagine Hollywood making pre-1960 type "Winning of the West" movies complete with "holy music" and "we're always right and always were right, our destiny is manifest and just because we are PURE" themes before 1700. That is the kind of propaganda being whipped up since 2008 if not 1980.

The 2nd amendment is also about repelling invaders which happened 1812-1815.


Nick Gammon on multitasking Arduinos:
1) http://gammon.com.au/blink
2) http://gammon.com.au/serial
3) http://gammon.com.au/interrupts

Grumpy_Mike

This is the sort of thing that happens when you allow morns to have guns. They kill and get away with it. The land of the free so long as you are not black:-

Quote
Open season on black boys after a verdict like this

Posted:Sun, 14 Jul 2013 07:25:00 GMTPosted:2013-07-14T08:07:42Z

Calls for calm after George Zimmerman was acquitted of murdering Trayvon Martin are empty words for black families

Let it be noted that on this day, Saturday 13 July 2013, it was still deemed legal in the US to chase and then shoot dead an unarmed young black man on his way home from the store because you didn't like the look of him.

The killing of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin last year was tragic. But in the age of Obama the acquittal of George Zimmerman offers at least that clarity. For the salient facts in this case were not in dispute. On 26 February 2012 Martin was on his way home, minding his own business armed only with a can of iced tea and a bag of Skittles. Zimmerman pursued him, armed with a 9mm handgun, believing him to be a criminal. Martin resisted. They fought. Zimmerman shot him dead.

Who screamed. Who was stronger. Who called whom what and when and why are all details to warm the heart of a cable news producer with 24 hours to fill. Strip them all away and the truth remains that Martin's heart would still be beating if Zimmerman had not chased him down and shot him.

There is no doubt about who the aggressor was here. The only reason the two interacted at all, physically or otherwise, is that Zimmerman believed it was his civic duty to apprehend an innocent teenager who caused suspicion by his existence alone.

Appeals for calm in the wake of such a verdict raise the question of what calm there can possibly be in a place where such a verdict is possible. Parents of black boys are not likely to feel calm. Partners of black men are not likely to feel calm. Children with black fathers are not likely to feel calm. Those who now fear violent social disorder must ask themselves whose interests are served by a violent social order in which young black men can be thus slain and discarded.

But while the acquittal was shameful it was not a shock. It took more than six weeks after Martin's death for Zimmerman to be arrested and only then after massive pressure both nationally and locally. Those who dismissed this as a political trial (a peculiar accusation in the summer of Bradley Manning and Edward Snowden) should bear in mind that it was politics that made this case controversial.

Charging Zimmerman should have been a no-brainer. He was not initially charged because Florida has a "stand your ground" law whereby deadly force is permitted if the person "reasonably believes" it is necessary to protect their own life, the life of another or to prevent a forcible felony.

Since it was Zimmerman who stalked Martin, the question remains: what ground is a young black man entitled to and on what grounds may he defend himself? What version of events is there for that night in which Martin gets away with his life? Or is it open season on black boys after dark?

Zimmerman's not guilty verdict will be contested for years to come. But he passed judgement on Trayvon that night summarily.

"Fucking punks," Zimmerman told the police dispatcher that night. "These assholes. They always get away."

So true it's painful. And so predictable it hurts.

robtillaart

Rob Tillaart

Nederlandse sectie - http://arduino.cc/forum/index.php/board,77.0.html -
(Please do not PM for private consultancy)

Osgeld

and if the shoe was on the other foot it wouldn't have been more than a 5 second mention on the local news, two thugs get in a fight one is dead who cares, there's thousands of those stories every year, but now we got the race card and its international outpouring.

the moral of the story seems to be, if you are not black and being attacked by a black man, just let him kill you.
http://arduino.cc/forum/index.php?action=unread;boards=2,3,4,5,67,6,7,8,9,10,11,66,12,13,15,14,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,86,87,89,1;ALL

Grumpy_Mike

Quote
the moral of the story seems to be, if you are not black and being attacked by a black man, just let him kill you.

I fail to see how you reach that conclusion from those facts. In fact I am astonished that any rational being could.

If the colours were exchanged with the same results do you really think it would pass as nothing. If so I am very glad I don't live in your country.

Quote
quoted from?

An article in the Guardian Newspaper.

Go Up