Slashdot Mirror
Man Starts 'Gunbook' Social Media Site After His Gun-Loving Friends Were Kicked Off Facebook (buzzfeed.com)
CaptainDork shares a report from BuzzFeed: A British gun enthusiast whose friends were banned from Facebook for posting pictures of firearms has started his own version of the site for gun lovers. Called Gunbook, it was set up by David Scott, a 57-year-old shooting instructor who lives in Kilsyth, 20 miles from Dunblane. It went live three weeks ago and he says it already has more than 1,000 members, around 60 of whom are from the U.S. Scott admitted that part of the attraction of the site for members was that they could post about their love of deadly weapons without being judged by family and friends. "Quite a lot want to talk about guns and shooting and target shooting and their families can see and often people comment. Gunbook is the place where people can talk about guns without their families seeing because a lot of people have got anti-shooting and anti-hunting friends on these sites."
Many of the profile pictures on the site show people standing in striking poses with guns -- or are simply a picture of their arsenal. And just like any other social media platform, much of the content that has quickly populated the Facebook clone ends up being videos and memes. In contrast, his site is loosely controlled and encourages a community around gun ownership. It has two admins but reassures users in a Q&A on the site that "they will generally just leave you all to get on with things." It adds later that "they will never interfere [in a group] unless a post gets reported and even then only racist and really dodgy ones will get looked at if reported. Please do NOT upload porn videos to our servers though ;0."
Many of the profile pictures on the site show people standing in striking poses with guns -- or are simply a picture of their arsenal. And just like any other social media platform, much of the content that has quickly populated the Facebook clone ends up being videos and memes. In contrast, his site is loosely controlled and encourages a community around gun ownership. It has two admins but reassures users in a Q&A on the site that "they will generally just leave you all to get on with things." It adds later that "they will never interfere [in a group] unless a post gets reported and even then only racist and really dodgy ones will get looked at if reported. Please do NOT upload porn videos to our servers though ;0."
1) Post a geo-cached photo of where you keep your guns. 2) There is no step 2.
Now! with this Gunbook all those people who must be put down ruthlessly to make sure our Liberalism, Globalism and the Third World Order go unchallenged will be self identified! Our task has been made so much simpler.
Thank you Gunbook. Wait!
It is from the UK, the bastion of obedience and cradle to grave welfare state where we vote ourselves benefits paid for by taxing the idle rich. Is it possible this Gunbook was actually created by my comrade in arms? Is it a Flase Flag operation? Have I blabbered too much and gave the game away? OMG! What have I done!
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
As they find out that guns aren't in fact banned in the UK.
YouTube has been shuttering or demonetizing channels that feature firearm content. Seems like your channel can get suspended on one single complaint from a rabid anti-gunner, even if you haven't violated any rules. And then you have to fight to get it back up again.
And reddit just recently included firearms along with drugs, stolen goods, sexual services in a list of things that can't be bought, sold or traded. One of those things is perfectly legal.
Many firearms video channels have moved to Full30.com, a new site set up just for that purpose. And many shuttered sub-reddits have reopened on MeWe.com.
Idiocracy is not a how-to video.
I understand where he is comiing from, but what is dodgy? With 1000 people ot is easy. With 1000000 a bit less obvious.
I wish him all the luck. For me guns are as interesting as hammers, but to each their own.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
Gun nuts are funny people. They think their peashooters are going to protect them from a "rogue Federal government". Tell me guys, when are you going to start doing that? I would love to hear the plan for your well regulated militia you are going to form (soon).
Citi just announced a bunch of gun related restrictions on credit card processing.
I think it's just a matter of time until the NRA and NSSF start a bank to step into that void.
The last civil was was over slavery and money, the next one will be over guns.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
No one wants their uncle to constantly pop up in the comment section telling that any handgun whose caliber doesn't start with "4" belongs in their wife's purse.
tactical advantage of having a gun is lost as soon as someone is aware that you do in fact have a gun.
Do you mean running out of bullets? You do know that guns have other functions besides looking pretty.
Youtube is demonitizing them because advertisers don't want to be associated with it.
...would probably have been perfect for this, as it's a sort of decentralised Facebook.
http://joinmastodon.org/
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
The whole thing is a russian job, clearly.
The risk here that people who support gun-rights should fear most is exactly what is happening with their extreme stance on guns: public support will evaporate, and they WILL be taken away. Once taken away, it's gone forever, we all know that. I have no problems with gun or gun ownership for mentally stable adults with no criminal record, who have been trained on how to handle and care for guns, and who are willing to take responsibility for them and own the consequences. I share their distrust of government, and particularly the people who buy our government and set its laws and policies. We absolutely should be armed. But not all of us.
The complete abdication of responsibility in favor of total devotion to the second amendment is going to result in them being removed, one way or another. It doesn't seem like it right now, the NRA is still strong and the currently installed government is favorable, but what may not be seen clearly is how tenuous that position is, that much of this government was installed with the bare minimum of popular support, and that on this particular issue, one of many, may not actually be that popular even amongst their own.
The NRA is failing everyone right now, and Facebook is one of a multitude of examples of that. The NRA should be acting as a steward, being the voice of reason that champions gun rights by making sure they're well and properly used. That the people most likely to misuse and abuse their rights are restricted from gun ownership. They ought to be researching and offering solutions to help ensure that gun owners are going to be the best and safest examples of what an armed populace could be. Taking a hard-line, extreme, no tolerance stance on gun control is ultimately going to be self-defeating. And we are watching it happen in slow motion.
Please do NOT upload porn videos to our servers though
When a group who are armed to the teeth ask you politely, who would possibly argue with them.
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
US freedoms allow other great sites to open.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
In my country the last free men that fought the communists/NKVD were the armed ones. And they lasted for years in the forrests. Some of us look up to them and would do the same, and some of us are little spineless dogfemales that have no problem living in chains and should tilt their eyes down when the adults are talking.
As opposed to you US cunts who can't figure out how you voted an orangutan to the presidency !!!
or Otaku. I know several gun nuts and it's a social circle for them that accepts them without preconditions. Shared passions are like that. Religion, MMOs, D&D, etc all fall into the same boat. A lot of times they've got various personality defects or are just plain bad at socializing. This isn't a knock on them, that's just what it means to be a nerd. But it means they're intensely defensive of their right to own and shoot guns. Try and take them away and you're cutting them off from their social circle.
I don't care much for Bill Clinton. His right wing economics got us into the mess we're in now, all so he could win the presidency with an alliance of social liberals and economic right wingers. But he was smart enough to leave the gun nuts alone. You can't win with them. They've got too much at stake. They're instant single issue voters who show up at the polls.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Meanwhile, one of our local TV network stations is selling half hour 'paid programming' slots to a US gun manufacturer. There are plenty of 2A friendly advertising dollars out there. Target shooting, hunting and collecting guns are wealthy peoples hobbies. Pandering to neurotic hippies' fears just doesn't pay as well.
Have gnu, will travel.
Basically everyone.
"Old man yells at systemd"
I share their distrust of government, and particularly the people who buy our government and set its laws and policies.
I've yet to see anyone make a decent case of how guns would be a useful and/or effective means of remedying that. If poop hits the wall, it's not the guns that tear the state down, it's the millions of people storming the gates, guns or no guns. A far more plausible scenario for the states, *if* a large enough group of armed citizens took over the government would be an equally shitty junta - and if they couldn't take over but were sizable enough, I doubt they'd be any less shitty than the dozens of other 'people's army' rebel groups that mar the history books and countries of today.
Your best weapon against a shitty government is education, birth control, and a well informed and intentioned populace.
"Old man yells at systemd"
We didn't lose it. Empires rise and fall. We just decided to grant most of the colonies independence once a few started causing trouble (usually aided by the French).
This is more or less correct. A company looks at which way the wind is blowing, makes their determination, and then takes their chances financially. Youtube just decided that the benefit of making the anti-gun side happy was more likely going to outweigh the push-back they would get from the pro-gun side. I am in fact pro-gun but I never understand why people (on either side) take it personally. It's not personal at all. It's a calculated move by a business entity trying to do what they think is in their best interests. Look at Dick's Sporting Goods for example. To much fanfare they took AR15's off their shelves. Does anyone remember when they did this once before after Sandy Hook? They made a big deal out of it and had their corporate "Think of the Children" announcement and got lots of positive press. Then they quietly put the guns and all the other stuff back into the stores where those things made up a significant amount of their business. Now they're getting rid of them again. They're just trying to make money and keep off as many peoples shit lists as possible. Can't blame them for it at all.
Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
Oh, almost forgot. Capitalism hasn't had any effect on arming teachers in Texas. There are already over 150 school districts where this is allowed and no insurance companies have bothered to intervene in this at all. There a bunch of reasons for that but basically it comes down to CHL holders being safer and more law abiding than even police officers.
Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
Makes sense. That's pretty much how people learn things now. Go online, become an instant expert on any topic you choose. If it can show me the fastest way to change an alternator on a 2003 VW Passat then it can show someone how to put together an AR15 just as easily. Actually building the AR15 is a lot less trouble than the alternator.
Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
Actually, it is. Think of the implication: As Facebook (and other social media sites) are "banning" certain topics, these topics will migrate to other platforms or, like in this example, a new platform for this topic will emerge.
The established social media platforms will have to decide between losing customers to "special interest" platforms, and in turn lose influence and money, or they will have to stop caving in every time someone whines about a huwt widdle feeling because someone was allowed to talk about something.
Capitalism dictates how they'll have to decide. This could become quite interesting quite soon.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
AFAIK calling it Gunbook while it's a social media site in direct competition with Facebook is just begging for a trademark violation lawsuit. I suppose this partially depends on the font and color choices, but it seems unwise.
I suggest instead GunSite. Not only is it a great pun, and far less likely to cause legal troubles, you can make the 't' into crosshairs!
Next question?
put a rock through their car window while they are in the grocery store
It's in my holster, with me inside the grocery store. And if I spot you doing that to another car, I'll see your rock and raise you a .357 Magnum round.
Have gnu, will travel.
So using a YouTube adblocker is now the American thing to do?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I know just enough to know that one should use the right caliber for the right job and that the tactical advantage of having a gun is lost as soon as someone is aware that you do in fact have a gun.
Right, because the only way to utilize a gun is as a deterrent; it's not as if they shoot real bullets or anything.
Got any other meaningless ramblings you'd care to discharge?
I'll go build my own Facebook, with blackjack... and hookers!
#DeleteFacebook
there are lots of advertisers that do want to be associated with it. Half the youtube gun videos are associated with a bigname gun, ammo, or supply related company, and many of them are outright branding. However, if Youtube is going to discriminate against them, I am happy to watch gun videos elsewhere, and take my paying "user" eyes to enrich one of their competitors.
I think it's hilarious that certain people think that the voters voted for Trump rather than against Hillary. If the DNC establishment hadn't rigged the primary in favor of her, or run an even borderline competent campaign, we probably wouldn't have a President Trump.
Instead, they chose to disenfranchise a huge number of Democrats, chose a shitty right wing Democrat as a running mate, made absolutely no effort whatsoever to win over the Sanders wing of the party, promised absolutely nothing to the voters and couldn't be bothered to campaign in certain states that shockingly enough weren't enthusiastic enough about her to show up to vote.
The real amazing thing here is that there are people who still can't figure out why she lost. I personally think the only mystery is how she managed to win the popular vote despite being the most corrupt and hated candidate of all time.
Who thought this was newsworthy?
Buzzfeed, apparently. I love how they have to stick this dig in: "part of the attraction of the site for members was that they could post about their love of deadly weapons ". Niice. They can't write a single article without interjecting their snark or bias into it.
Lots of things are "deadly". Far more people have been killed in car accidents, and yet there are millions of car enthusiasts. The argument is always, "because we need cars and their main purpose isn't to kill but to transport", but I'd counter, the main purpose of a gun, technically, isn't to kill, but to eject a projectile out at high velocity. How one chooses to use that tool is up to them. (Military guns are meant to wound, not kill, anyway). Technically, a Hilti gun is a gun (.22 caliber), I own one and have used that to nail the sole plates and studs to the concrete while framing out a room in my basement.
I'd prefer not to aim and fire any gun at a living being, (I'm not even sure I could personally shoot Bambi's mom for food, to be perfectly honest) but shooting targets as pure sport is pretty fun and a good challenge of coordination.
Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
Two ruinous world wars followed by a number of rebellions.
There's plenty of porn on the internet. Can't throw a dead link over your shoulder without hitting a porn site.
Guns on the other hand are hard to get through those damn DSL pipes.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I live in rural mid-west, guns are very common. They are mostly used to for hunting and to keep predators away from farm animals. Locked gun cabinets and safes are also very common. With the exception of a few nut bags most of the people aren't gun toting anti-government conspiracy theorists. Gun suicides, fatal drug overdoses, and the flu each more than double the number of homicides including gun homicides in my state.
the liberal anti-gun nuts, despite ever decreasing amounts of crime, always rant and rave about taking our guns away. They don't focus on recent failures where crazies got guns illegally, or, the system failed. Or a coward police officer sat in safety while innocent children died. No, they talk about encroaching on our freedoms when we are legal, mentally acute, law abiding citizens & veterans. And deadly accurate I might add.
Good luck taking our guns away!
No one stormed the white house or rose up in rebellion using their second amendment right provided guns
It just proves most gun owners are in severe need of viagara and they are using guns as a poor substitute. All that talk of being the last stop against tyranny is just self delusion.
But they do show up in elections, and vote, and enable unlimited and unfettered access to guns for every deranged mass murdering psychopath. That is the situation.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
This is *EXACTLY* how the internet we all want should work.
Don't like the commercial forum? Quit whining and set up your own with likeminded people. .... Wow, check it out, I'm a continental Eurohippster actually siding with a working-class gun-enthusiast on this one. ... *mindflash*
This guys actually deserves some credit for not whining around but actually doing something.
This is what was so cool about the iNet back in 2001 and why we all love slashdot.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
You left out the most important weapon -- the vote.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
put a rock through their car window while they are in the grocery store
It's in my holster, with me inside the grocery store. And if I spot you doing that to another car, I'll see your rock and raise you a .357 Magnum round.
Could you tell me where you live where it's legal to murder someone because you see them carrying out a minor crime?
So I can avoid it like the plague.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
... (see what I did there).
Analyzing the site, it opened with Adsense and other goop hanging off it.
The developer is taking advantage of an opportunity.
Pretty smart on his part.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
Actually that covers every crime done with a gun, and you bet it's what those who want more restrictions focus on.
The entire idea is to reduce the number in circulation, so it's harder for crazies to get hold of guns to begin with, rather than rely on the current "system" which is, you have to admit, completely dumb and moronic. A 19 year old with anger issues? Sure, give him a rifle with awesome killing power. A 30 year old husband who beats his wife but has always had the charges drop, but is nonetheless currently the focus of a restraining order? Sure, what could possibly go wrong?! Martha Stewart? Now, now, hold on a moment, she's a felon...
Nothing wrong or illogical about believing the key to reducing gun violence is to reduce the number of firearms in circulation. It's what every other country has done that had a problem with gun violence, and guess what, it works, despite the bullshit propaganda put out by the NRA.
While I am not a big democrat, I think many of us wanted to see Bernie vs Trump.
It was clear that Bernie had the energy, the youth support, and that he was much closer to the heart and soul of the modern Democrat party. I can respect that, and his complete support for a certain type of system. While I might not agree with it, at least he is completely honest about where he stands and what he represents. Crazy Uncle Bernie should have been given a chance.
Bernie vs Trump would have been a grand battle royale of dueling narratives. A socialist, neo-communist vice the slick hyper-capitalist.
We, the American people lost out when this battle of ideas was not waged in the public, for our mindshare. Instead, we were left with a Democrat insider with a catalog of health issues, hardly able to defend Democrat positions.
Given above, is it any suprise that many people chose to vote against Hillary?
More guns in the hands of people = bigger number of guns overall in the country = much more likely that criminals will be able to get their hands on guns by stealing them.
More guns = more gun violence.
Eat the rich.
I would think gun magazine would be better.
the tactical advantage of having a gun is lost as soon as someone is aware that you do in fact have a gun.
Riiiiiiight. You do realize that guns can fire real bullets, yes?
Texas. You can kill people in Texas to protect your property. I don't believe you can protect someone else's property though. And you will end up in court to prove the shooting was legit.
Viagara? Is that for erecting a large waterfall?
Car are made for transportation , knife mostly to cut material invented and perfected as a hunting tool before even being for hunting warfare. Gun were invented for a sole reason : killing. Your technicality "he main purpose of a gun, technically, isn't to kill, but to eject a projectile out at high velocity" is the most stupid thing I heard. There may be a *limited* sport & hunting usage we have now, but the majority of the usage , gun birth & evolution, and cartridge evolution was to maim and kill, why do you think 5.56 nato was made ? Or semi automatic/full auto ? or even the first guns ? Hint : it was not sport or fun. It was all warfare.
As for the stupid NRA "pool and car also kill" yes they kill and in absolute number car even kill more, but that is ignoring how pervasive car are in cities, street and how much part of our life they take - and we increase security and lower the number of death per year. Gun by comparison are not so pervasive, take little part of our life and yet kill nearly as many people as car, and murder take a significant slice of it. And gun are perfected every year to be better more reliant killing machine. The comparison is so stupid to many level, you are either from the NRA, or a "useful idiot" to them. You may as well compare orange and jug of methanol (not even orange to apple). When I worked in research we had a name for such comparison : "it isn't right, but it ain't even wrong - it is just plain stupid".
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
The NRA is doing the same thing that more successful unions, and to a lesser extent industry lobbyists, do, and that's to take an extreme position in order to hold off any change or reduce the likelihood of incremental changes that water down the "rights" it fights for.
And, you know, I don't like it, but that's their job. They're not trying to be popular, they're trying to be scary. Thus far it's been successful not merely at holding off comprehensive reform, but actually driving reform in the other direction, preventing, for example, Florida's cities from imposing restrictions on firearms in children's play parks, to name one example.
Want to beat it? Well, that's the thing isn't it. It'll require a more powerful group to run in the opposite direction, a group prepared to make itself unpopular that drives for an extreme anti-gun position.
And that's my major concern, not that the NRA will eventually be thwarted and reasonable but strong restrictions will be imposed, but that the monster that is the ARN (that's NRA spelt backwards) will end up preventing what's passed from being reasonable.
It's up to us, not the NRA, to prevent that from happening.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
You're conflating the media with US citizens - most of them are actually dual citizens distributing propaganda for foreign nations. We elected Trump in spite of their propaganda and election rigging because we like what he offered and continue to like what he's doing to MAGA. Don't trust anything the media says and you'll find it easier to understand.
"The NRA should be acting as a steward, being the voice of reason that champions gun rights by making sure they're well and properly used."
They are. You should see what the NRA actually stands for instead of parroting the looney left talking points.
Do you have ESP?
The NRA is failing everyone right now
Why, because they call for exactly what you're talking about? They are the first ones to scream for actual enforcement of actual laws. The vast majority of murders involving guns are at the hands of criminals already blocked from owning and possessing firearms, most of whom have already been busted doing so in the past. And yet they walk around free to keep doing the same.
They ought to be researching and offering solutions to help ensure that gun owners are going to be the best and safest examples of what an armed populace could be.
Which is exactly what they do. But they have ALSO had to mobilize to fight back against the Democrats' increasingly overt message that nobody should be allowed to own guns. These are not mutually exclusive tasks.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Idiocracy is not a how-to video.
The Brits don't need a how-to video, they're so incompetent they still don't understand why they lost their empire.
As opposed to the incompetent Americans that don't understand why they can't have one.
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
Someone's "minor crime" is another person's last penny. But that's okay, when criminals have more rights than their victims. And the typical passivist mentality of victimhood is empowering those criminals.
I cringe every time I see a mother crying over a dead son, whose only crime is pulling a gun on a cop. "they could have tazed him, they didn't have to kill him".
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
but they're not the ones that drive polls. Universal background checks have a 97% approval rating in this country yet we don't have them. That's because those sensible law enforcement officers don't show up to the polls to vote for background checks. They've got a dozen other issues (education, healthcare, their pensions, etc, etc).
The way our elections work getting 1-3% extra votes makes or breaks most elections. That gives single issue voters a disproportionate amount of power. That means a small group of highly motivated voters can and will swing elections.
And when the heck did I use ad hominem? Everything I wrote was carefully reasoned. I left this part out, but what I'd actually like to see happen is that we address those voter's core issue, which is a lack of community. I'm a nerd too. I'd like to live in a world without nerds. e.g. without a class of people that get shit on their whole lives. I find the root cause of nerddom is often poverty and a lack of medical care. Weak kids with few opportunities to socialize when they're young. Better schools and parents that have more time to be parents would solve a lot of that. But it costs money.
Still, just like seeing a Doctor it's better to treat causes than symptoms.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
That site looks a whole lot like Facebook... is there a framework available that looks and functions that similar to FB? I'm actually interested in checking it out.
a minor crime
You are holding a weapon (a rock). Game over.
Have gnu, will travel.
Here, here!
640k ought to be enough for anyone.
How many users can the site have? At the moment its 10,000 but only 150 at the same time. We might be able to change that but as it's only shooters on here it's unlikely we will have that many on at exactly the same time. If we ever reach near our limit of users we will try to get a database upgrade https://www.airgunbook.com/rea...
My white cousin was killed by police sitting in a car in his driveway.
But the subtleties of individual actions baffles liberals.
Not victim blaming here, but when interacting with police, don't put your hands in your pockets.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Someone's "minor crime" is another person's last penny.
Wow that's just shy of think of the ....
I cringe every time I see a mother crying over a dead son
Oh for fucks sake!
You're right, we should have the death penalty for everything.
Just imagine how surprised and disappointed that guy will be when he comes into his shiny new social-media site, by and for gun owners, to find it full of neo-nazi, white supremacist, racist, bigoted, and sexist conversations -- especially when he realizes that now he'll be inextricably linked to all the above, 'guilty by association'.
You built and paid for YouTube, Mr. AC? I SERIOUSLY doubt that.
Is it OK if I shoot you for jaywalking (this includes stepping on a road on flashing red sign)? It's a serious crime, really.
Or do you feel that you're entitled to break laws? Are you a crybaby?
I share their distrust of government, and particularly the people who buy our government and set its laws and policies.
I've yet to see anyone make a decent case of how guns would be a useful and/or effective means of remedying that.
Really? Here's one: A government...any government...would much rather face an unarmed populace than an armed one. I may be no match for a government drone but I can guarantee you that no army, no matter how powerful, wants to go up against 100 million armed citizens. The government would basically have to destroy the entire country to beat 100 million people with guns.
and gave him time to comply...
They gave him time to pull a cell phone. What the hell was he thinking?
Have gnu, will travel.
Just imagine what will happen when they find out guns aren't necessary for self defence here in the UK because we haven't armed criminals to the teeth.
Sounds like you may want to re-think your plan of an unarmed and vulnerable populace.
Criminals are in fact armed in the UK. You've just chosen to make sure they have a wider victim pool to choose from to spread out your risk.
Think about this - London is now more dangerous than NYC.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
That's easy.
First of all, the media reported prior to the primaries that the USA had a VERY strong anti-establishment sentiment heading into the election. Who were the two big anti-establishment politicians? Trump and Bernie.
Second, in the Republican primaries, they were split between several so-so politicians. The one with the most personality was Trump.
Third, no one took Trump seriously and thought he needed to be seriously opposed. People forget easily, but a number of Democrats said they WANTED a Trump vs Hillary match up because there was no possible way Hillary could lose because Trump is so bad. Additionally some Democrats claimed (no idea if it's true or not or how many) that they even voted in the Republican primary for Trump, because they wanted this match up so bad.
Basically, the problem with the 2016 election is that "no one" took it seriously, so it ended up with Trump.
And in the aftermath, people still aren't taking it seriously. Democrats look to everyone else to blame but themselves. And I say that as someone who is strongly anti-Trump.
Let's face it... The Democrats had the data. They knew what they were supposed to do every step of the way and they were so stuck up and arrogant they just couldn't be bothered to do it. So now we have Trump. And let's be clear, 2020 isn't that far away, they better learn how to act like actual adults quickly and stop screwing around.
Prop 47 has made petty crime practically legal in California. The police don't even respond any more. File a police report online. They don't even bother trying any more. Meanwhile crime is up 50% year over year in my city.
All because people like yourself can't fathom the idea crime should be stopped.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
yeah, after he ran there from 6 police units and a freaking helicopter chasing him.
this was the end of a chase.. if you are being chased by the police, and suddenly decide.. you know what, I made it home, I'm going to give up now, you don't turn around to face them and whip out your phone. you lie down and spread your arms out and do your best to prove to them that you are not looking to fight or run anymore.
you can't casually stroll up to a person that has been chasing you for an hour, whose job it is to apprehend you, and say, "sup"? And if you are chasing a person who has broken the law, and ran.. do you assume, "oh hey, they are just standing there, i think they're done." no you assume they are cornered and ready to go unless they are indicating otherwise. now, the officers absolutely should have followed up the shots with medical aid MUCH faster, and that should certainly be investigated especially since I seem to remember sacramento having an issue with that in the past.
it sucks that a person is dead over something so stupid, but THEY started that stupid train, and rather than stop it, tried to jump off.
People aren't divided, city dwellers and rural people are divided. City dwellers don't have Humanity in them so they don't matter.
I know just enough to know that one should use the right caliber for the right job and that the tactical advantage of having a gun is lost as soon as someone is aware that you do in fact have a gun.
Right, because the only way to utilize a gun is as a deterrent; it's not as if they shoot real bullets or anything.
Actually, the value of a gun as a deterrent is dependent upon the potential aggressor knowing that you have it. If they don't know about it, it can't be a deterrent, right? (Unless enough people carry concealed that it becomes a general deterrent).
The flip side is that if a potential aggressor knows about your gun, and is determined to attack anyway, then they can try to plan to somehow neutralize you or your gun before you can bring it into play. If the aggressor has a gun, their obvious solution is to shoot you first, assuming they're willing to take the big step up in legal risk of actually using deadly force. If they're an active shooter they'll have no problem with that. If they're a mugger... probably not.
This is a commonly-cited reason for preferring open carry over concealed carry. The fact is that most potential assailants really don't want to tangle with someone with a gun and if they see that their potential target is armed, they'll choose a different target. An obvious exception is those whose goal is to steal the gun, but that's an easily-countered problem.
So, open carry is a strategic advantage, but possibly a tactical disadvantage. I say "possibly" because the lawful carrier is almost always in a reactive mode. The aggressor initiates, and if that means presenting a gun or a knife someone who is carrying concealed probably finds themselves in a position where they can't draw without being shot or stabbed unless they can first create a distraction, or unless they can draw as part of an action expected by the assailant. For example, if a mugger asks for your wallet and you can retrieve a pocket gun instead. A wallet can also make a good distraction. Drop it or toss it and take a step back.
(Though, honestly, if the mugger will be happy with the wallet give them the damned wallet. Whatever is in it is not worth a life and even if you're the sort of asshole who doesn't care about that, whatever is in it is less than what it will cost you in time, inconvenience and probably cash to deal with the fallout of having shot and possibly killed someone.)
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
what's next they'll discover dial up BBS and IRC...
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
Hmm. Interesting. Can you cite some case law where the term "protect" was successfully applied to shooting someone for throwing rocks at a car window?
Here's the law: http://codes.findlaw.com/tx/pe...
And, no, it wouldn't cover this case, unless it was clear that the intent of the rock-throwing was to steal the vehicle. The law allows use of deadly force when necessary to prevent "arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft". Note that this only applies during the nighttime, and there are some other caveats as well.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
What about people advertising guns? Gun manufacturers don't buy advertising now?
Their business model is built around targeted marketing. They can't slap a "gun" tag on these videos and let advertisers pick and choose who they target? I'd be fine with Google simply stepping back and letting the free market drive the price and payout for various tags. Of course, that would mean more transparency for what happens money-wise behind the curtain.
Here, here!
Where, where?
hint: "hear"
https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
No, Prop 13 is the root cause. Remove all gov't funding, and oh gosh, you remove all gov't services.
https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
a minor crime
You are holding a weapon (a rock). Game over.
And you're holding a weapon (a gun). So does that mean that when you draw yours to shoot the rock-thrower, I'm justified in drawing mine to shoot you? (And, note that while mine is an itty bitty .380, or sometimes a 9mm, not a .357 Magnum, it'll do the job.)
Intent matters here, a lot. Someone throwing a rock at an unoccupied car is not threatening anyone with serious injury or death. Someone throwing the same rock at a person probably is. In no state in the US is deadly force legally justified for preventing vandalism. In only one state (Texas) is it justified even for preventing theft, and then only if there's no other option, the property would not be recoverable and if it's nighttime (and that Texas law is a travesty and should be repealed).
Dude, people like you give responsible gun owners a bad name. Please stop it.
Oh, and by the way, I should point out that in the situation described I absolutely would be legally justified in putting a bullet into your head to stop you from shooting the rock thrower. Deadly force is justified in every state in the union if it's necessary to prevent the unlawful use of deadly force against another. Think about that. Hard.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
the Vietcong were North Vietnam's military. And they didn't win so much as we didn't have the stomach to wipe them out. As bad as the atrocities were in 'Nam they were nowhere near what was possible. Heck, media coverage of those atrocities were a big part of what got us out of Nam, and the Military Industrial Complex learned from that mistake and made sure nobody got to cover the crap we did in Iraq or are currently doing in Yemen.
The Taliban and Isis both lost. Every now and then they blow up somebody who doesn't matter. But the closest they came to killing somebody in charge was a low level general who was slumming it.
TL;DR. You don't stand a chance against a modern mechanized army with supply lines. Best case you'll get to kill a few dirt poor kids who joined the army for a job. But you'll never touch anyone who really matters. They don't get anywhere near a warzone.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
I've yet to see anyone make a decent case of how guns would be a useful and/or effective means of remedying that.
see: Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam. The US military is really damn good at blowing stuff up but terrible at policing a nation that doesn't want them there. They've gotten better, for sure, but a bunch of pissed hicks with rifles ---That they are not allowed to indiscriminately exterminate wholesale--- have been able to sustain a conflict with the most powerful military in the world for a decade+. No, the idiots aren't going to storm the gates guns blazing. Well.... successfully anyway.
We are WAY WAY WAY far away from revolution. Too many people are well fed and content for that to be a serious concern. But if it comes to it, I wouldn't discount a sustained distributed sniper campaign. But personally, I think strong encryption should be protected under the 2nd amendment.
The best weapon against a whole lot of things is well informed populace. Education is THE long-term solution for nearly every problem. That includes things like war. If we could have just informed the populace of Germany and Russia about the truth of the matter, I doubt they would have been so hawkish. But there are unknowns in the world and people with fucked up beliefs. So as a safeguard against idiots, we have a military. In a similar vein, we have the 2nd amendment.
"If someone is so fearful that they are going to start using their weapons to protect their rights, it makes me very nervous that these people have weapons at all."
-- Representative Henry A. Waxman (Democrat California)
He is correct. Anyone that would use violence to protect their rights needs to have their rights taken away because they have proven they don't deserve rights. The NRA's claim that their members deserve the right to own guns is proven a paradox by that logic.
Its not that we can't have one, it is we don't want one.
I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
but I don't see any evidence that you won. I'm guessing you're either in Russia or one of the old Soviet Bloc countries. All of which are more or less run by dictators. I'm not saying my country, America, is any better. What I'm saying is violence won't work. At best you're going to trade one Junta for another. You won't win against a modern military. If you start to get in the way of the Mega corps I'm sad to say my country will send bombs and (if needed) troops to bring you in line. Like the GP said, the solution is education & birth control. You need people too smart and too few to oppress.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
...the modern Democrat party.
It's the Democratic party.
The political circles one runs in are exposed by the usage of that pejorative term.
I don't always use unix-like operating systems; but when I do, I prefer FreeBSD.
even with mountains of training cops accidentally shoot people all the time. Throw somebody with little or no training outside of weekly target practice in an active shooter situation and they're probably going to screw up. I remember when Gabriel Giffords got shot. There was a 'good guy with a gun' on site but he didn't draw. When asked why he said he couldn't figure out who the shooter was and was afraid he'd shoot the wrong person or get shot himself by another "good guy with a gun".
One of the late night comedy hosts did a skit once (Colbert or Oliver, can't remember which) where they staged an active shooter scenario with regular people and pain bullets. The people in question knew what was going to happen and they still couldn't stop the shooter.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
I don't know about a car window, but some dude got away with murdering burglars at his neighbor's house in Texas. That was just months after the law had been changed. The dude even quoted the law, then stated his intent to kill. You could tell from the 911 transcript he was just looking for an excuse to shoot brown people. Officers were on the scene less than two minutes after the gunshots.
Or maybe some people don't think lethal force is an ethical way to prevent property crime.
Looks like the slashdot-effect shot it up. Not responding.
Table-ized A.I.
They claimed Obama was a tyrant. No one stormed the white house or rose up in rebellion using their second amendment right provided guns. It just proves most gun owners are in severe need of viagara and they are using guns as a poor substitute.
So because a few people said Obama was a tyrant, the gun owning citizens of America were supposed to storm the freaking White House? And because they didn't it PROVES they have male-part issues? Damn, you gun grabbers get dumber by the minute. The only thing your little mental exercise actually proves is that 99.999% of gun owners are normal, perfectly sane people who wouldn't ever do something like that unless maybe a real tyrant was running the country. It also proves you have no reasoning skills whatsoever, or are so blinded by hatred of gun owners that you're unable to think properly.
I can't count how many times I've heard liberals claim that Trump is "literally Hitler." Should the gun owners storm the White House to fix this problem too, you stupid chode?
A government that needs an excuse to shoot protesters -- which is most all of them, even Assad needed some protester violence to justify his crackdown -- would rather face an armed populace. For most countries (possible exceptions: North Korea, China), fighting a Gandhi is a lot more difficult than fighting armed terrorists.
This space intentionally left blank
As long as you never attack me or my family, you have nothing to fear from my guns.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
The government would basically have to destroy the entire country to beat 100 million people with guns.
This is patently absurd and assumes that 100 million people, almost a third of the country (including children), would take up arms and gladly give their lives for...what, exactly? Most people will never find even the most dystopian scenarios worthy of dying for. What you are describing is fantastical, fetishistic hogwash.
You all seem to think that the military and National Guard is just going to side with the government. Most will not. In fact they've asked them and 80% said they would side with the citizens, so yeah 100 million people with guns is about right.
One side has 300 million guns and the other side is confused about which lavatory to use and cries over pronouns "because words hurt" but don't think that incrementalism won't work. Every inch we allow them to move their agenda forward is just one step closer to the civilian disarmament that they really want but few will admit.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
It's a paradox based on the logic of an idiot...you.
All because people like yourself can't fathom the idea crime should be stopped.
Oh no. By all means shoot people for petty theft and littering. America could use some senseless population control.
Maybe there's a middle ground too but I'm just not seeing it. Just kill everyone. Best idea eva!
you can't casually stroll up to a person that has been chasing you for an hour, whose job it is to apprehend you, and say, "sup"?
You sure about that? I think that's exactly what we want to happen.
Cheap storage VM.
How long would it have taken for officers to get there without the gunshots.
You think its Human to have an empire built on colonial lines by killing people to subdue them? Weird...
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
The state has been run into the ground by tax and spend liberals, who have raised taxes on those that can least afford them? The state that cares more for illegal aliens than its own people? That state? And you blame Prop 13? Excellent denial my friend.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
This is the state where if you're an illegal alien with a criminal record, you can murder someone and actually get away with it. There is no middle ground.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Well police tend to be short fat bald high school loosers so...
People think that watching "Die Hard 1..n" and _maybe_ shooting on a range somehow makes them competent to identify and kill an active shooter who's most likely expecting to die and take with him (it's all men, isn't it?) as many people as possible.
I'd love to see a representative survey of parents whose job it is to identify and take out active shooters in public situations.
The question would be "Do you think your kid is safer at school if the teachers are armed?".
If the answer is "yes" I'm curious to see it implemented in law with the CDC or other proper institutions following and studying it closely.
Disclaimer: I am and will be very far away from the US in a country with strict gun laws and a homicide rate that is 1/6 of the US. :)
And I have no kids
On the other hand, it's probably a place with very low minor crime rate. What is the downside again?
sure give him a cookie i would have it baked with a nice mix of Canibis , Hemlock, and Belladonna
not entirely sure how a 3 year old military ROE document falls into the discussion, but hey, I'll bite.
Yes, that is what we'd like to have happen, but it's sort of superseded by the evading arrest portion that happened before the split second of video that is getting shown.
it also maintains in that document that the protection of the unit as a whole is objective #1.. a suspect you have been pursuing across multiple back yards stopping in the shadows and pulling something out of their pocket is not useful towards that goal. could you wait and see if someone on your side of the engagement gets hurt, sure. you'd have a much better case defending your use of force to the public.
it really sucks that this guy decided he needed to put himself and others into the situation that caused this outcome.
it should have gone like this in a perfect world
officer: hey we heard someone is breaking into cars out here, you seen anyone doing that?
guy: well that's me, I just really like breaking windows
officer: well, we're gonna have to take you in, others don't like you doing that
guy: aw, that sucks.. ok, well let's get this handled so i can go about my business
officer: not breaking into cars i hope
both: hahahahaha
I mean it's California, he MIGHT have spent a night in jail at most. Maybe he had to get to work early and thought getting arrested might have caused him to be late?
The Second Amendment is pretty unequivocal on the matter. "Shall not be infringed" leaves very little wiggle room. Unless somebody is convicted of a crime and temporarily has their rights stripped from them as punishment (serving a criminal sentence in prison), the Second Amendment is supposed to ensure that EV
ERYONE is able to "keep and bear arms."
The list of ways in which the first amendment alone has been mitigated and re-interpreted for the betterment of everyone is very long. I personally think the plain language of the first amendment leaves no wiggle room, but we have wisely chosen to put some limits on it. How that was justified requires a constitutional lawyer, or perhaps it's justified because nobody challenged it. Quite a few of the other amendments have been curtailed over the years, some i think are nearly ignored (see also: amendment 4).
There's room. The question is do you want to do it the reasonable way, with cool heads, or do you want to do it the hard way, at the hands of an extremist opposition:
Short of a constitutional amendment to revoke that (which would probably cause a civil war in and of itself), I don't see how the NRA can take a compromising stance on "shall not be infringed."
My point is that you really do not want this to happen. Support for this amendment has been waning for decades. Abstracted from the safety of a carefully marketed political party, who is drawing a diverse set of people who do not share every belief but who agree to vote a certain way, you are putting this single issue to popular vote. I would not take bets on the outcome. I know a lot of card carrying republicans who are against gun ownership or in favor of gun control who would gladly support an amendment enabling the government to start imposing such limitations. A lot of them from law enforcement. The amendment would seem benign, it wouldn't be a ban, but it would ultimately undermine the 2nd amendment nearly as completely.
The media will continue to vilify guns and gun owners, continue to showcase every mass murder and school shooting, continue to parade every half-wit inbred retard who can lift a shotgun on TV as an example of what gun owners are, what exactly do you think the result will be? How long until we get to the tipping point? On the present course, we're headed towards the worst case scenario.
California?
Sacramento police shoot man holding cellphone in his own backyard
I desperately wanted this. I did not want to see the two candidates battle it out as much as I wanted to see both parties realize that the candidates they wanted to put forth were unwanted by a huge swath of their bases. In my grand dream, I was hoping that they would realize they cannot put forth status quo candidates anymore and start to stretch their narrow focus. I doubt it would have worked but it was my dream.
You mean the "tax the rich because they've been making a killing of taking advantage of our institutions for decades and redistribute that money to people and infrastructure" army?
Sounds good to me.
Please do NOT upload porn videos to our servers though
What if I upload a porn video where the pornstar is holding a gun?
Oh, almost forgot. Capitalism hasn't had any effect on arming teachers in Texas. There are already over 150 school districts where this is allowed and no insurance companies have bothered to intervene in this at all. There a bunch of reasons for that but basically it comes down to CHL holders being safer and more law abiding than even police officers.
My girlfriend teaches at a college on the Texas Gulf Coast. There has been a significant material cost in the required establishment of a police department for a small campus that never needed one, as a direct result of the legislature's actions. Not surprisingly, many of the students and a significant amountof faculty are also angry and upset that guns are allowed to be carried on their campus. But whatever, it is cool because it allows you who knows nothing of school administration to make sanctimonious and uninformed posts so that your little feels>reals game with your security blanket can be fully realized.
I have no idea what the NRA actually "stands for." I do get their promotional brochures tho and I don't see anything close to the voice of reason. They are trying to sell guns using fear.
The NRA doesn't sell guns. I have no idea what "promotional brochures" you're actually receiving.
Do you have ESP?
I suppose itâ(TM)s better than being a liberal cuck or beta mommas boy. Itâ(TM)s a stupid idea but the guns thing-well, we know who and why they are afraid of them. The man boobs and tranny vaginas are on the other side. Lol.
It's Human to have free thinking individuals who disagree with the norm, every culture that has ever existed has killed and enslaved people.
just wait for guntube.com
Idiocracy is not a how-to video.
The Brits don't need a how-to video, they're so incompetent they still don't understand why they lost their empire.
As opposed to the incompetent Americans that don't understand why they can't have one.
The US currently has military bases in over 70 countries...right now, after we closed down a bunch of them to save money. What can't we have again? The better question is 'what is the right mix of projection of military power vs use of soft power'. Treating the world 'empire' like a binary state is silly, governments project power over geographic regions and some project farther than others.
"Those that start by burning books, will end by burning men."
All of which are more or less run by dictators.
This is plain false, we romanians are not run by a dictator (not since 1989), the poles are not run by a dictator, the czechs, the slovaks, the bulgarians none are run by a dictator. Not even Orban who is a nasty piece of work, not even him is a dictator, far from it.
You know who *is* a dictator ? The Tzar, that's who.
I'm not saying my country, America, is any better.
This is what you are not getting, you so so should be. I am. America is a whole lot better. 10x better. Heaven on earth kind of better. Tell me how bad it is when you don't have food in the supermarket, any supermarket. Or when you get picked up in the middle of the night never to return home for wrongspeak. Then we can talk.
You won't win against a modern military.
Don't have to win in the classical sense. See Vietnam, Afganistan, Corea, perhaps even the American Colonies though they were not in modern times.
At the moment your country AMERICA is keeping us free from the emperor, and I thank her for her soldiers camped here.
Who rules our country now ? I won't say the people. But whoever rules our country does not mass kill civilians, like before. Does not keep us malnurished, like before. Does not cut off electricity and heat in winter, like before. Allows us to own our homes, not like before. Allows us to go out of the country, not like before. Mmmmyeah I would say these new overlords are better than the old overlords... just maybe....
law abiding citizens aren't allowed to have guns in the UK
Hmm. So I am proving you wrong by being a law abiding citizen that owns a firearm or am I proving you right be owning a firearm and thus being a bad guy?
I'm confused.
If the Republicans hadn't flocked to Trump in the nomination process, he wouldn't be President today. There were lots of other candidates, some of which were actually halfway good. Republican voters did vote for Trump.
The DNC didn't disenfranchise lots of Democrats. Primaries are run by states, not the DNC. Caucuses are run by the party, but Sanders did better in caucus states than primary states. Clinton had most of the superdelegates, but the superdelegates were a known part of the process (like the Electoral College) even if people didn't like it, and Clinton got more regular delegates. Sanders lost, because more people voted for Clinton. That happens in politics.
The campaign was not well run, but I'm not impressed with Trump's campaign. Clinton was far less charismatic.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
let's say you win a battle by wounding everyone. Guess what, you now have thousands of prisoners that you need to care for
Kill an enemy soldier, you piss off his mates and they come for you.
Wound an enemy soldier, two of his mates carry him off to get treatment. You've just reduced the enemy fighting force by far more than just killing someone. They're also now looking at their mate that's lost a leg, or an arm, or his testicles, and is screaming in agony, and they're thinking, "Shit, hope I get hit clean in the head and go quickly"
Not to mention that winning a battle tends to leave you with a lot of prisoners anyway, and if many of them are wounded it doesn't make that much difference.
Wounded enemy are still capable of being plenty lethal
At an individual level, absolutely. At the level of a battle? Nah. At the level of a campaign? Fuck no. Wound half the opposition and they'll have full trains heading back home for treatment and recuperation; really fucking dangerous to you, that.
5.56 was designed to put a number of high-velocity, low-recoils shots on target with decent accuracy and is plenty capable of killing you
Well, the SAS disagree with you - not least because the assumptions underpinning 'wound the enemy' were false with a specific enemy:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...
I'll trust the SAS on military matters ahead of you, sorry.
There's a difference in senses of entitlement between living off the public and not being shot. If you're going to shoot somebody for petty vandalism, you're willing to apply the death penalty to a lot of minor crimes.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Actually, the people I see talking about taking guns away are primarily gun nuts. Most leftists don't like having so many guns around, and would like to see more restrictions, but I rarely see talk about confiscating them. One might think that certain gun-related organizations like whipping up gun nuts into a frenzy of fear that we're coming for their guns.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Leftists are not confused over which bathroom to use. The people who are concerned about that are right-wing.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Your narrative doesn't match actual history.
She won the primaries by nearly 4 million votes and the only candidate to ever receive more votes in the general election was Obama. The primaries weren't rigged (Sanders got most of his delegates in caucus states, where the turnout was exceedingly low).
As to corruption, Republicans spent about a billion dollars investigating her and couldn't find anything worthy of an indictment. Sounds like she's perhaps the least corrupt politician ever.
Could you provide a reference to this mythical poll that says 80% of the military and National Guard are potential criminals?
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
If you're going to shoot somebody for petty vandalism
Price a car window some time. That's far beyond petty.
willing to apply the death penalty to a lot of minor crimes.
If you actually do manage to acquire a weapon from a parked car (and that's what this thread was about) the cops will drop you on the spot. And they won't bat an eye if an armed bystander does it for them.
There's a difference in senses of entitlement between living off the public and not being shot.
In who's opinion?
Have gnu, will travel.
With a bit of luck, these specialty sites will embrace protocols that enable them to communicate with each other. It might, possibly, be the beginning of what social media should have been (and started out as). Namely, independent sites, with content aggregators rather than a monoculture.
What about ad defense? Against all sizes of groups of people ...
I implied nothing: nonetheless, it's common parlance to refer to them as Hilti guns even if Hilti doesn't. Though actually, having checked mine, they use .27 calibre for the medium power cartridges, not .22. Maybe that's their low power.
They are blanks until you put a nail in them. So were muskets, cannons, and flintlocks. If I loaded one and held it up to your head, I think you might agree it's quite deadly, as much so as a regular gun, except without the range due to the benefit of a barrel.
My point is, it essentially does what a gun does; uses a black powder explosion to forcefully eject a projectile, at its most basic description. So by that description, it is essentially a gun, and there are multiple uses for ejecting a projectile via a black powder propellent. Injuring or killing is one of them yes, but not the only.
Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
I don't run in political circles at all, so perhaps that's why I've never heard anyone talk about the "Republicans and Democratics" or "Republicans vs Democratics", but around the time of elections it's pretty much impossible to avoid hearing mention of "Republicans and Democrats".
Are you saying that there are "political circles" where a member of congress would be referred to as "a Democratic from California"?
Because if a member of congress is a Democrat then I have very little sympathy if they get butt hurt over having their party referred to as the Democrat party.
I often vote for a Democrat, but also often vote for a Republican or an independent, and if you asked me which party I vote for I would say, "sometimes Democrat, sometimes Republican, sometimes neither".
So if you think it is pejorative when I vote for a Democrat rather than a Democratic, well, I'm sorry ... I guess ... but not really very sorry ... actually I don't care much if I hurt your feelings ... maybe try being less sensitive about very common word usage.
Just Capitalism at work. YouTube sees a threat to its income as other companies don't want their brands associated with that kind of content so they pull their ads, and therefore their dollars.
I might believe that if YouTube (and Google) only had one option but that was not the case; like Bloomberg and other gun prohibition advocates who are taking a page from the Australian handbook of preparing ahead of time and never letting a crisis go to waste, they had an agenda and waited political cover to implement it. In return, they sacrificed rational discourse and made enemies of 10s of millions of Americans. That never hurt a company or a politician running for office.
This is furthered by steering the discussion through the phrase "arming teachers" to exclude discussion of the alternatives. A popular movement based on false assumptions always comes to a good end.
Just like how Capitalism will kill the moronic idea of arming teachers. Liability Insurance companies already killed that one before it got off the ground by either jacking the rates up or by simply saying "You arm, we cancel"
Just like how capitalism killed arming law enforcement officers who shoot bystanders when they had qualified immunity available. I had not noticed the rash of armed school employees and bystanders in states which allow it increasing collateral damage but if you say so, it must be so.
"CHL holders being safer and more law abiding"
except for those that have dischanged guns in schools accedentally or on purpose....
keep yer blinkers on, and believe the shit your shovelled.
Most of those have been law enforcement officers and at least the insane CHL holder you are thinking of did not actually injure anybody.
You left out the most important weapon -- the vote.
Is this the same vote which disenfranchised Bernie supporters and installed Trump?
The vote is irrelevant when the candidates are chosen for you.
Tell that to the mountains of dead continental Europeans of the 40's. Guns were confiscated, then they were put in the trains...
This is perhaps the most hilarious argument of all. Several countries' professional and well-equipped armies couldn't stop the Nazis, and a tiny, unorganised fraction of the population with small arms were supposed to?
Do you think they would have been as unorganized if they had a historical example to foretell the future?
Most of the countries you refer to directed their own citizens and army to surrender. But why didn't Switzerland? How was it that Finland survived? There is no way a bunch of colonists could defeat the British military.
Is there any single discussion where the analytically challenged or terminally envious don't immediately start calling into question their opponents sexual prowess or capability?? I have tried debating the point with these ppl, they honestly believe it's scientifically proven:
OMG they have a nice ( Insert name of nice property they worked hard for ), "he has a small Penis", or "you know she's fucking for it".
~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
The problem is the liberal logic that thinks it's good enough to want something, rather than prove something, and then they ignore anything contrary to their desire.
The same is applied to the accusation is evidence crowd. When they make a claim they believe that has made the claim true, bereft of the need for evidence.
~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
Umm.. for a country that doesn't want an empire, the Americans are doing their durned best to obtain one.. OK they don't have military occupation in , er, Canada.. (nobody wants us) China or Russia (they'd take offence at being invaded by the US), and a few other countries, but pretty well everywhere else? Yeah I'd call that an empire, of sorts..
i abandoned and stopped using my Facebook page shortly after i'd first opened it to download the photos my sister wanted to give me. Facebook has never closed it, even though i haven't logged in to it even once since. That was over three years ago! Farcebook wants to keep as many pages "open" so to appear to their investors (mere advertisers) that they have THAT many viewers/users. That's how they keep profits up... https://tech.slashdot.org/stor...
Would postings of actual shootings be allowed?
Or, bodies?
Self-importance and self-indulgence is the root of ALL evil.
Knife/blunt object violence is a hell of a lot less deadly than gun violence.
Eat the rich.
Irony overload. Shut down and restart.
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
I'm just pointing out that we used to hold 18 year old draftees to a higher standard then our "professional" police force. The police want to be militaristic, they should follow basic ROE.
Cheap storage VM.
Their business model is built around targeted marketing. They can't slap a "gun" tag on these videos and let advertisers pick and choose who they target? I'd be fine with Google simply stepping back and letting the free market drive the price and payout for various tags. Of course, that would mean more transparency for what happens money-wise behind the curtain.
The part that you're overlooking - even gun manufacturers probably don't want to be associated with a random YouTube channel in case the channel talks about unsafe gun use or goes on a shooting spree.
Having a military base that the government of that country agreed to is not the same thing as a military occupation of that country.
Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
If it's legal, it's not murder.
Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
They still don't need one but feel they must add one because of the snowflake students and staff (You know, your friends most likely) who are "angry and upset" because a bunch of people who routinely carry guns around them everywhere else and are almost never responsible for any of the bad shit that happens with guns are now allowed to bring them into their safe space. My post was filled with nothing but facts and allowing those CHL holders to continue carrying on campus has made them nothing but safer. You don't see that because like the pussies you're describing and apparently dating you want your imaginary gun-free zone to continue not protecting you. No number of your own sanctimonious and uninformed posts will make that a reality. Wouldn't you feel safer and more at home in California? Take her with you.
Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.