Guns to protect against government tyranny -- Is it an out of date fantasy?
I'm in a strange position here. While I believe guns should be legal-I do not believe automatics should be for the reason you stated. However, neither do I believe any armament the citizenry can attain will match that of the government. I see handguns as an equalizer. An 80 year old woman can't beat a 20 year old man if he breaks into her house and tries to kill her. But she can easily shoot him. However, she won't be able to use an automatic weapon either, so guns seem to be the middle ground. If people hope to solve gun violence by outlawing guns they're sadly mistaken. Murder and violence existed prior to guns and even weapons being invented, so outlawing guns will only disarm law abiding citizens and make it that much harder to protect themselves against those who kept their guns. If a mugger holds a gun to your head and you've given him your wallet but he still holds it there-do you really think the police will make it there in time? So my theory is ban automatics because they're not only impractical (there's no actual use for them a citizen could possibly have) and because they're also far more dangerous than handguns. Should stricter laws be put into place for handguns? Of course they should! Only rifles and handguns in my opinion should be legal. --------------- Guerrilla warfare??? From my fellow Americans? You DO KNOW you have to have training in it first...right? It's not as easy as just hiding out and shooting. Besides, the vast majority of Americans would very quickly submit to an ACTUAL authoritarian structure. They've been psychologically primed for it for a long time now. Read up on Erich Fromm, Eric Hoffer, Phillip J. Zimbardo and Lt. Col. Dave Grossman to get an idea of what I'm talking about.
What prevents a company or government from using a patent to produce the invention without paying a licencing fee?
What prevents a company or government from using a patent to produce the invention without paying a licensing fee?The courts. But...It is up to the patent holder to initiate action. If the patent holder doesn't have any money, this could be really difficult.Case in point: An inventor invented something in one country and patented it in 5 or 6 countries, some of which used his invention to mass-produce the product without even informing the inventor they were doing so. There are several issues with the above:1) Were they aware of the patent? If not, of course they aren't going to inform you.2) Were they aware, but hoping not to be noticed? If so, of course they aren't going to inform you.The countries that were offered the patent include: Japan, Germany, U.S., Canada, Great Britain and Austria. A similar patent by the same inventor sold for $750,000 in 1940. God knows what it would have been worth in 2014.A similar patent sold for that much in 1940. Interesting. If the patent is similar it may not be valid, but that's a totally different issue.To defend a patent, you need money. A lot of it. Even worse, you may have to defend it in each country, and it may not be valid in each country because of the differences in national laws. Software patents are legal in some places, but not in others for example.My personal suggestion would be to take action in your own country first. This requires finding a reputable firm of lawyers, with experience in the field, which may be difficult. While there are lots of good firms out there, how do you, a non-lawyer, determine if they are reputable? It takes a lot of research, which may have to be done fairly quickly (before the patent times out, and in some jurisdictions there are other laws covering when you can and cannot file - which again need a lawyer to interpret).Then I'd suggest filing in the United States, since almost all companies do business there, and you may be able to turn a win in the USA into a ruling which will force the company to pay worldwide. Again, you need to talk to a lawyer about this, my knowledge of the rules is that of someone who worked for a technology company. I am not a lawyer.Time is a major issue. You need to move fast.Wayne
Why do people never look at the founding father's interpretations and commentaries on the second amendment?
It is very obvious and even stated that the founding fathers intended all people to have the freedom and even duty to be armed. It also is clear that these arms should be capable of fighting the government itself. Therefore, if you let the government tell you what arms you are allowed to have, you missed the point and have "sold yourself into slavery." They even scorned Europe as what they don't want to be.
If an American created an anti-gravity generator, could the U.S. government force him/her to share the invention with them?
Force. Yes. Anything can be taken, secretly. Don’t think the media can help you. That could end up as, sign over all the rights and then have a little ole car accident, type of force. No Doubt. Yet, it is not so simple. It would depend on who got their hands on you? Who found out? Who did you tell? etc. You didn’t YouTube your float shoes, I hope.But, much more likely, you will simply be placed on top secret clearance and put to work. You could end up like Oppenheimer, always an outsider, but has the keys to the science. You could see your idea weaponized. Or you could end up whisked away and shot.There is no way to overstate the power that would be brought to bear, to control such an invention.However, if you got to Elon Musk, he could protect your invention behind his walls of corporate privacy lawyers. You could end up like Bill Gates….rich. Or, have a little ole accident.So, those are the choices. But, you would have to be very careful of your personal safety. The kooks would come out of the woodwork to condemn and kill you as a false god, if you are not careful. I would not just go running around on an anti-grav skateboard, if I were you.Someone has to “protect” you from the sudden rush of new enemies and odd friends.Good luck.
What's more important: freedom of expression or political correctness?
Freedom of Speech is what I believe you are referring to. Political Correctness was invented by universities that obviously have a lot of time on their hands. Freedom of Speech is written into the Constitution of the United States and is and should be looked at with more forethought than what a bunch of busy bodies in and around a college campus thought was/is important.