Ok, I'll buy the legal minefield stuff. As to the mechanical, not so much - it's not hard to configure a blank firing adapter to retain the correct amount of gas propellant, while at the same time making it impossible to fire a real bullet (or at least bloody painful to the firer). I've fired tens of thousands of blanks rounds through M-16s and various machine guns. You get a real muzzle flash, real ejected brass and yes, lots of fouling, but nothing that a well maintained gun can't handle. I admit I've never come across sub-caliber blanks - can't see why one would bother.
Of course if there "fake" guns are so perfect, all they would need to no longer be fake would be a strengthened barrel and chamber.
I don't get it. Why manufacture a bank-firing replica Glock, when you could just buy the real thing and then weld some sort of bank firing adapter into the barrel?
Seems like a really expensive way to reinvent the wheel.
Too True.
It looks like it's an A3 type removable handle, so even dumber.
Zombies are NOT fictional enemies.
I'd agree with everything else you said.
I am pretty sure that the kind of people who advocate shooting abortion doctors would agree with your comment. I mean, it's for the [unborn] children!
They don't represent the government. They represent some poorly-paid government employees, among others.
What do you mean by that? Do you mean that their document management system, email server and billing records are on fully isolated machines with no physical connection to a web-connected computer? If not, aren't they essentially online? Especially with VPNs and virtualized computing access, everything is at least sort of online, though in theory protected by some pretty strong encryption.
Serious question - can't we just make more Helium? Natural gas production is at an all-time high in the US, no?
The US military JAG system has a hell of a lot more money than an enlisted Marine.
So this firm was representing Marines accused of war crimes, and also accused terrorists. Sounds like a bunch of professional defense attorneys, not any wild-eyed ideological warriors. Would someone please explain how you can have a functioning justice system without defense attorneys and a system of attorney-client privilege that lets them do their job?
Must be nice to be as smart and wise as you, to sit in judgment like Solomon, deciding what should be made public and not. Perhaps you might recognize that this is the inevitable result of trying to achieve "justice" via the criminals know as "Anonymous", and that that attorney-client privilege is actually important?
Or you could just make some dick jokes.
So it is just to compromise the ability of an American citizen to retain counsel? There is a reason for attorney-client confidentiality you know.
I agree - Brooks will vote for Obama.
I just wish that Brooks would quite pretending to be a conservative.
Only the ones who were. And I'm sure there were plenty who didn't like me much. Didn't matter, they were still entitled to the best defense I could give them.
But I'm glad I don't have to do that sort of work any more.
Obama was elected to the Board of Editors (which has 40+ members), which then elected him President. Presumably his grades were decent to get him in the running, but it was not a merit-selected position.
Obama's party controlled Congress for the first two years of his Admin - he chose to structure his "stimulus" as a massive payoff to liberal/Democratic interest groups, like unions, and a minimal infrastructure investment. He then chose to blow all the rest of his political capital on Obamacare. He was not focused on employment and economic growth, and now we and he have to live with it.
But you're right, in 2008 we learned that the majority of voting Americans can be so very, very stupid.
Or because they are stuck in a home with a massively underwater mortgage?
It sucks, but it happens. Kinda restricts your job mobility.
He was the PRESIDENT of the Law Review - an elected (a/k/a popularity) position. Not the Editor.
And the only President in recent history not to contribute at least one article or note.
And no, he's not stupid - I'm sure his IQ is at least over 120 - but he was never really vetted as a candidate and came to the office totally lacking in executive and real-world experience.
Nevertheless, I will take the man at his word.
Then maybe they want to avoid the purges?
[dailycaller.com] guess it is easy to achieve a consensus if you eliminate everyone who disagrees.
Yeah, the article seems reasonably balanced - basically laments the fact that a few bad applies (false accusers) muck of the system for real victims, and also can ruin the lives of the falsely accused.
The headlines was *ss.
Huffpo and Newsmax?
You could do better at both ends of the spectrum, IMHO. At any rate I'd dump Newsmax for National Review Online or The Weekly Standard.
