Yet. The problem is that the vast majority of proposed laws are incapable of actually having any notable impact on violence. So what happens when nothing changes? More laws. Eventually it reaches the point where large scale restrictions amounting to backdoor bans come into effect.
Most of the proposed laws have nothing to do with that, and in fact are only about assuaging the largely unwarranted fear of people that don't understand guns or crime.
Yep, feminists ignore the fact that there are real differences in psychology and biology that WILL cause unequal outcomes. Not everything has to be a perfect 50/50 split.
Yes, but that's a full power rifle round. The M16 and M4 use the 5.56, which is an intermediate round. It has considerably less energy to start with and probably loses energy at close to the same rate. If they're talking solely about using these on sniper rifles that would be different, but I'm willing to bet that sniper rifles aren't the problem anyway.
There's already a lot of anti-ammo pushes. IIRC California wants to ban online ammo sales, because you know, criminals who fire a dozen rounds a year are going to be affected while sport shooter who fire a thousand rounds a week can go fuck themselves.
Well you can if the starting pay is low enough, but if you're female you can sell your body, either explicitly or implicitly, to make up the difference with ease.
Sure. It's not NECESSARY for the prez to nominate a justice, but at the same time he IS the prez, and will be for nearly a year. This isn't a case of a justice dying in December when the elections already done and the current prez is packing his shit. There's still 11 months left before Obama leaves office. Hell, the Republicans shouldn't be blocking it because they might get Trump as their candidate and I'm pretty sure the establishment GOP doesn't want to deal with him either. Blocking the nomination is silly and petty, which of course means it's almost certain the GOP will do it.
Not really. I've seen plenty of cases all over the internet where something having fewer than 50% female was considered a problem, but 60% percent female? Obviously that's fine. I remember specifically a post on Imgur making the argument that we should be directly seeking a 50% female Congress. In the post they compared other countries, the ones that were closer to 50% were described as better than us, the ones far over 50%? Well they just got a "Great job!" not a "Hey maybe you should get more men in there."
Equality has a tendency in American discourse to be purely pro-female, with little to no interest in pro-male concerns. Just look at the reaction if you talk about MRAs.
Slashdot Mirror
No one is banning them
Yet. The problem is that the vast majority of proposed laws are incapable of actually having any notable impact on violence. So what happens when nothing changes? More laws. Eventually it reaches the point where large scale restrictions amounting to backdoor bans come into effect.
Most of the proposed laws have nothing to do with that, and in fact are only about assuaging the largely unwarranted fear of people that don't understand guns or crime.
Now now, how about brain implants that limit them to one orgasm? It's in the name of equality so they HAVE to support it!
A glacier forming an ice dam can fail and leave the dammed lake rushing out in one big go.
Yep, feminists ignore the fact that there are real differences in psychology and biology that WILL cause unequal outcomes. Not everything has to be a perfect 50/50 split.
Grizzlies on meth here.
True enough.
Yes, but that's a full power rifle round. The M16 and M4 use the 5.56, which is an intermediate round. It has considerably less energy to start with and probably loses energy at close to the same rate. If they're talking solely about using these on sniper rifles that would be different, but I'm willing to bet that sniper rifles aren't the problem anyway.
But at that range they've also already bled most of their energy.
Yep, but first impressions last. Lots of people still think they're jam-o-matics. Doesn't help that the occasional flawed test brings it back.
There's already a lot of anti-ammo pushes. IIRC California wants to ban online ammo sales, because you know, criminals who fire a dozen rounds a year are going to be affected while sport shooter who fire a thousand rounds a week can go fuck themselves.
Screw you! I'm using an M82A2 for my home defense and there's nothing you can do about it!
But at that range and beyond the lethality of the bullet is already significantly diminished by loss of energy anyway.
That was my thought too. I'd just load up on the longest range stuff offered and never touch the rest unless I had to.
Imagine accidentally grabbing some 50 meter stuff and then trying to shoot someone 100 meters away...
When they were first released they were sabotaged by the Army, issued without cleaning kits and with the wrong type of propellant in their ammo.
I don't think it actually explodes, though it does burn apparently.
Well you can if the starting pay is low enough, but if you're female you can sell your body, either explicitly or implicitly, to make up the difference with ease.
I love how Greece is on that list when they're the ones that can probably least afford to be.
I'm betting on the latter.
I'd love to have a Bernie vs. Hillary vs. Trump va. Bush 4-way fight for the White House.
Sure. It's not NECESSARY for the prez to nominate a justice, but at the same time he IS the prez, and will be for nearly a year. This isn't a case of a justice dying in December when the elections already done and the current prez is packing his shit. There's still 11 months left before Obama leaves office. Hell, the Republicans shouldn't be blocking it because they might get Trump as their candidate and I'm pretty sure the establishment GOP doesn't want to deal with him either. Blocking the nomination is silly and petty, which of course means it's almost certain the GOP will do it.
Not really. I've seen plenty of cases all over the internet where something having fewer than 50% female was considered a problem, but 60% percent female? Obviously that's fine. I remember specifically a post on Imgur making the argument that we should be directly seeking a 50% female Congress. In the post they compared other countries, the ones that were closer to 50% were described as better than us, the ones far over 50%? Well they just got a "Great job!" not a "Hey maybe you should get more men in there."
Equality has a tendency in American discourse to be purely pro-female, with little to no interest in pro-male concerns. Just look at the reaction if you talk about MRAs.
Nah, diversity is only important if women are under 50%. If they're over 50% well then that's just fine too.
Because the question only exists because of the mindset that there MUST be a 50/50 split or something's wrong?
You're conflating Socialism with Communism.
http://www.diffen.com/difference/Communism_vs_Socialism