You don't need to be a citizen, just have residence, ie a drivers licence.
I bought a gun when I stayed in Colorado in the 80s, and I'm a Swedish citizen.
Don't have to be a citizen, but have to be either a permanent resident (green card), have a hunting license valid in the residing state or be a foreign law enforcement rep of a friendly gov plus some unclear rules on visa waiver (maybe OK if you are from EU, Japan or Australia). Sweden qualifies with the waiver. https://www.quora.com/Can-a-visitor-to-the-USA-purchase-a-gun-and-own-it-legallyMight be different now, but all you needed in Co when i was there was a drivers license. And all you needed to get a drivers license was an address, get fingerprinted and passing the test. What actually happened was, I went in to the gun store and asked what was needed to buy a gun, the guy said I needed to be a Colorado resident, I asked how to prove that and he then said that a Colorado drivers license would qualify as proof. I then said, "great I have that, I'll take the Browning Hi Power with adjustable sight please", and he said "that will be 500 dollars and you need to fill out this form". I filled out the form where I promised that I was not a criminal and not mentally ill, and my race, and some other stuff. and some weeks later I came back and collected the gun (it had to be ordered). |
|
|
|
You don't need to be a citizen, just have residence, ie a drivers licence.
I bought a gun when I stayed in Colorado in the 80s, and I'm a Swedish citizen.
Don't have to be a citizen, but have to be either a permanent resident (green card), have a hunting license valid in the residing state or be a foreign law enforcement rep of a friendly gov plus some unclear rules on visa waiver (maybe OK if you are from EU, Japan or Australia). Sweden qualifies with the waiver. https://www.quora.com/Can-a-visitor-to-the-USA-purchase-a-gun-and-own-it-legallyMight be different now, but all you needed in Co when i was there was a drivers license. And all you needed to get a drivers license was an address, get fingerprinted and passing the test. |
|
|
|
A few older totally OT odds and ends. Part 1. It’s one of the things that living in the UK is shit for, not being able to carry a gun. WHEN bitcoin moon’s I’m moving to the US & will amass a huge Arsenal of weapons for shit’s & gigs.
I think you'd have to get citizenship then. Foreigners aren't allowed to do as they please with weapons. You don't need to be a citizen, just have residence, ie a drivers licence. I bought a gun when I stayed in Colorado in the 80s, and I'm a Swedish citizen. |
|
|
|
Good morning Bitcoinland. Still bouncing along in the $9k range I see... currently $9200USD/$11783CAD (Bitcoinaverage). Ho hum. How long did the withdrawal symptoms last, and how bad were they?
I was pretty angry and irritable for a solid 6-8 weeks before I started chilling out. I guess I'm lucky. I quit a 2-pack-a-day habit 33 years ago almost by accident. I caught such a nasty cold/flu/pneumonia I was in bed for 3 days barely getting up to re-hydrate myself and go to the can. When my fever broke and my mind cleared, I realized I hadn't had a smoke in 3 days. I didn't need to quit. I just needed to not start smoking again. Quitting is not an action. Smoking is. All you need to do to quit is to not do anything. To smoke you need to acquire tobacco and fire, light the cigarette and inhale. Unless you're actively smoking, you've already quit. Just don't start again. I suffered no withdrawal symptoms. Maybe I had them when I was in my feverish delirium and wasn't aware of them. I also didn't suck out like a whiny little crybaby and totally avoid tobacco smoke. I continued to mix a little tobacco in the occasional hash doob. I chose to sit in the smoking sections of smoking-segregated restaurants and in the smoking cars of trains. I found that non-smoking sections were full of anti-smoking fussbudgets and I find secondhand stress far more offensive than secondhand smoke. The smoking sections generally have a higher caliber of people. I also found that people take their annoying brats to the non-smoking areas. Quitting is easy. Just don't smoke. That's, exactly how I quit too, And I too find the people in the smoking section when it existed to be more interesting, however, for a long time I couldn't stand the smell of cigarette smoke. I was ok with pipe and cigar smoke though. Today I enjoy the occasional fine cigar without any problems or craving for more tobacco products. |
|
|
|
I have a conclusion that may be true: Due to there is a big drop in Bitcoin within this period. So I think the main reason for this crisis is that the capitalists ( who have a huge amount of Bitcoin) has sold a large proportion of their money, in order to decrease the value of BTC and the other currencies. And their goal is to buy again Bitcoin and some currencies ( like, Ripple, Ethereum..) also they want to improve their profit rate in a long term . What do you think guys?  Have you even read this thread? |
|
|
|
Awhile back I read a thread somewhere on here that some company did just that.
i.e ...actually engraved the priv key with a “sealed” hologram or some such thing and sold
the various bitcoin valued coins they fabricated.
And guess what ended up happening?
Not too hard to figure out...lol
You mean the Casascius coins? Lots of those still out there unswept, they are legit. There was a guy named Coinhoarder on this forum that did a litecoin "Casacius" in 2013, I bought three from him and then forgot about them until now. Just found them again. So yeahh I have three litecoins! Are they still on the address of the coin? I don't know, I haven't looked at them since 2013. I don't even know where to check a litecoin address. If you give me a link I will check later in the evening. search for a ltc blockexplorer, and please DON'T INPUT THE PRIVATE ADDRESS SEED, but ONLY a public address, look at the format of others public ltc address and be sure it is the same format  . edit: check with others before doing anything, because I never did that... just to be on the safe side . I know how to check an address, but thanks for your concern. I just don't know any site to do that and I'm not overly concerned about the coins either. I have't heard about anyone who bought from this guy losing there coins. |
|
|
|
Awhile back I read a thread somewhere on here that some company did just that.
i.e ...actually engraved the priv key with a “sealed” hologram or some such thing and sold
the various bitcoin valued coins they fabricated.
And guess what ended up happening?
Not too hard to figure out...lol
You mean the Casascius coins? Lots of those still out there unswept, they are legit. There was a guy named Coinhoarder on this forum that did a litecoin "Casacius" in 2013, I bought three from him and then forgot about them until now. Just found them again. So yeahh I have three litecoins! Are they still on the address of the coin? I don't know, I haven't looked at them since 2013. I don't even know where to check a litecoin address. If you give me a link I will check later in the evening. |
|
|
|
Awhile back I read a thread somewhere on here that some company did just that.
i.e ...actually engraved the priv key with a “sealed” hologram or some such thing and sold
the various bitcoin valued coins they fabricated.
And guess what ended up happening?
Not too hard to figure out...lol
You mean the Casascius coins? Lots of those still out there unswept, they are legit. There was a guy named Coinhoarder on this forum that did a litecoin "Casacius" in 2013, I bought three from him and then forgot about them until now. Just found them again. So yeahh I have three litecoins! |
|
|
|
I've kind of lost track of which forks and which airdrops have happened. Does anyone know of a definitive list of such? I've only ever claimed B-Cash to-date (and sold it) but I suppose I ought to get onto it with the others. Thanks
https://btcdiv.com it is probably worth holding Bitcoin gold for now. All the others you would want to dump I think. Also good to see Bcash still heading down. Personally, I'm going to keep my Bitcoin private, I think they will actually be used. The rest I will dump in the coming weeks. |
|
|
|
Well, if the rules are clear beforehand, and A knows that he won't get money for medicines even if that means dieing, then he has to die for not mowning the lawn (it is HIS decision). There can be some exceptions as if he is disabled and therefore can't do it or is incapable of understanding the rules due to some mental issues. Acting otherwise would be completely unfair.
P.S.: I think I have some "leftist" inclinations for making some exceptions in relation to protect the weak (not the lazy though).
What if the parents are very lazy and don’t mow the lawn, but the consequence is their children die? The examples does not give a shit. Just so we are perfectly clear, you are advocating killing children through neglect because their parents do not provide for them? I have yet to see an unmowed lawn kill anyone. If it did I would have died last summer. |
|
|
|
Well, if the rules are clear beforehand, and A knows that he won't get money for medicines even if that means dieing, then he has to die for not mowning the lawn (it is HIS decision). There can be some exceptions as if he is disabled and therefore can't do it or is incapable of understanding the rules due to some mental issues. Acting otherwise would be completely unfair.
P.S.: I think I have some "leftist" inclinations for making some exceptions in relation to protect the weak (not the lazy though).
What if the parents are very lazy and don’t mow the lawn, but the consequence is their children die? The examples does not give a shit. Just so we are perfectly clear, you are advocating killing children through neglect because their parents do not provide for them? I have yet to see an unmowed lawn kill anyone. |
|
|
|
Well, if the rules are clear beforehand, and A knows that he won't get money for medicines even if that means dieing, then he has to die for not mowning the lawn (it is HIS decision). There can be some exceptions as if he is disabled and therefore can't do it or is incapable of understanding the rules due to some mental issues. Acting otherwise would be completely unfair.
P.S.: I think I have some "leftist" inclinations for making some exceptions in relation to protect the weak (not the lazy though).
But what if we change the parameters a bit. Let us say that child A is actually the child of the mother and child B is just a stepchild. Child A always gets to play video games and enjoy cake and child B has to work to get some gruel once in a while. Is that fair? There is such a thing as the idle rich. The only thing they have going for them is a birthright. The historical figure Marie Antoinette comes to mind.  "The historical figure Marie Antoinette comes to mind" Good one. |
|
|
|
Well, if the rules are clear beforehand, and A knows that he won't get money for medicines even if that means dieing, then he has to die for not mowning the lawn (it is HIS decision). There can be some exceptions as if he is disabled and therefore can't do it or is incapable of understanding the rules due to some mental issues. Acting otherwise would be completely unfair.
P.S.: I think I have some "leftist" inclinations for making some exceptions in relation to protect the weak (not the lazy though).
What if the parents are very lazy and don’t mow the lawn, but the consequence is their children die? The examples does not give a shit. |
|
|
|
amendments are changes to the constitution
Aren't they ad ons to the constitution? I realize that they can change the meaning of the constitution, but can the actual wording of the constitution be altered? Yes and yes. An amendment can delete part of the Constitution in an additive way. For example, a Constitutional amendment could be added that repeals the federal Senate and all clauses of the Constitution in relation to the Senate. From that day forward, the Senate would be deleted. Technically you are adding another layer, but new layers can change old layers. The most extreme example would be a Constitutional amendment that repeals the Constitution itself, at which point the whole thing disappears in a puff of smoke. But wouldn't those amendments be unconstitutional and be repealed by the supreme court? |
|
|
|
Thought experiment. Two tribes, the northern herders and the southern herders. The northern herders, the collectivists, agree to live according to the common good, such that no man would starve in time of plenty. The southern herders, the individualists, agree to live according to individual rights. A man may go hungry in the south, but all community action is voluntary on principle. Is there any sensible way in which one tribe can be called more moral than the other? Is there some metamorality by which we can make sense of this?
Isn't that more fairness than moral. There is two "types" of fairness with fancy names that I don't remember right now. Examples: Mother asks children A and B to mow the lawn. A can't be bothered, he plays video games instead, B mows the lawn. At tea time only child B gets a piece of the pudding, A gets mad and says "that's not fair" mother replies that B mowed the lawn so it's only fair that he gets pudding and A do not. Mother asks children A and B to mow the lawn. A can't be bothered, he plays video games instead, B mows the lawn. At tea time both children get's an equal piece of the pudding, B gets mad and says "that's not fair, I mowed the lawn", mother replies that it's unfair not to give both her children the same amount of pudding. Both are valid examples of fairness, the right tend to lean towards the first example and the left towards the second. In that example, I don't think any sane person would think the second is reasonable, no matter if left or anything.... It would be somewhat arguable if instead of pudding we were talking that A needs some money for medicines but he doesn't get it because he didn't mow the lawn, and dies. Also, it would be good to know the rules beforehand, ie: No lawn mowning, no pudding or even no lawn mowning no medicines. Then, only not following the pre established rules would be unfair. It's just to exemplify the two types of fairness, We can ad that the rules are known beforehand if that is more to everybody's liking, it's not important. Well, if the rules are clear beforehand, and A knows that he won't get money for medicines even if that means dieing, then he has to die for not mowning the lawn (it is HIS decision). There can be some exceptions as if he is disabled and therefore can't do it or is incapable of understanding the rules due to some mental issues. Acting otherwise would be completely unfair. Whatever way you lean, as I said it's just to exemplify, not to discuss the actions of the participants in the example. |
|
|
|
I see the Republicans are trying to start a trade war with Europe. I guess the right doesn’t believe in free trade anymore. Free trade has always been more of a socialist thing.
They might shoot themselves in the foot there. Some Swedish companies with plants in the US that uses steel think that the steel price in the US will go up if the higher import duties for steel are imposed. In that case they are considering closing the plants because they will no longer be profitable. But our prime minister is on his way over with a trade delegation to explain basic economics to him. |
|
|
|
Thought experiment. Two tribes, the northern herders and the southern herders. The northern herders, the collectivists, agree to live according to the common good, such that no man would starve in time of plenty. The southern herders, the individualists, agree to live according to individual rights. A man may go hungry in the south, but all community action is voluntary on principle. Is there any sensible way in which one tribe can be called more moral than the other? Is there some metamorality by which we can make sense of this?
Isn't that more fairness than moral. There is two "types" of fairness with fancy names that I don't remember right now. Examples: Mother asks children A and B to mow the lawn. A can't be bothered, he plays video games instead, B mows the lawn. At tea time only child B gets a piece of the pudding, A gets mad and says "that's not fair" mother replies that B mowed the lawn so it's only fair that he gets pudding and A do not. Mother asks children A and B to mow the lawn. A can't be bothered, he plays video games instead, B mows the lawn. At tea time both children get's an equal piece of the pudding, B gets mad and says "that's not fair, I mowed the lawn", mother replies that it's unfair not to give both her children the same amount of pudding. Both are valid examples of fairness, the right tend to lean towards the first example and the left towards the second. In that example, I don't think any sane person would think the second is reasonable, no matter if left or anything.... It would be somewhat arguable if instead of pudding we were talking that A needs some money for medicines but he doesn't get it because he didn't mow the lawn, and dies. Also, it would be good to know the rules beforehand, ie: No lawn mowning, no pudding or even no lawn mowning no medicines. Then, only not following the pre established rules would be unfair. It's just to exemplify the two types of fairness, We can ad that the rules are known beforehand if that is more to everybody's liking, it's not important. |
|
|
|
Thought experiment. Two tribes, the northern herders and the southern herders. The northern herders, the collectivists, agree to live according to the common good, such that no man would starve in time of plenty. The southern herders, the individualists, agree to live according to individual rights. A man may go hungry in the south, but all community action is voluntary on principle. Is there any sensible way in which one tribe can be called more moral than the other? Is there some metamorality by which we can make sense of this?
Isn't that more fairness than moral. There is two "types" of fairness with fancy names that I don't remember right now. Examples: Mother asks children A and B to mow the lawn. A can't be bothered, he plays video games instead, B mows the lawn. At tea time only child B gets a piece of the pudding, A gets mad and says "that's not fair" mother replies that B mowed the lawn so it's only fair that he gets pudding and A do not. Mother asks children A and B to mow the lawn. A can't be bothered, he plays video games instead, B mows the lawn. At tea time both children get's an equal piece of the pudding, B gets mad and says "that's not fair, I mowed the lawn", mother replies that it's unfair not to give both her children the same amount of pudding. Both are valid examples of fairness, the right tend to lean towards the first example and the left towards the second. As a hard left socialist, Child B is not getting any cake. As a hard left socialist you would take the cake, set up a state agency who's job it is to split the cake fairly, give one piece of the cake to that agency, give some to the party, waste some in the process and then give back a tiny amount to the children after they have applied for a piece at said agency. |
|
|
|
amendments are changes to the constitution
Aren't they ad ons to the constitution? I realize that they can change the meaning of the constitution, but can the actual wording of the constitution be altered? |
|
|
|
The problem is adjudicating between different tribal moralities. Cooperation evolved like morality evolved, to solve in-group problems. There doesn't seem to be anything analogous in dealing with out-group problems. America is torn between northern herders and southern herders. What do?
That's the problem that the nation states solved in the 1800s The nation became the new tribe to witch all belonged. Now that the left is disassembling the nation states tribalism returns. Woman against men, different ethnicities against each other, different religions against each other, and so on. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
