That is what the left is coming to these days. And as someone who's somewhat left-leaning it's kinda terrifying. The right-wing are mostly lunatics and the left are chasing them down the rabbit hole.
Yep. I can barely even watch the news when there's an new outrage going on. Because the news distorts or outright lies to make things seem more outrageous so that people get angrier and watch more news.
Well I assume that it was also seen as the president's job to select people worthy of the position. If he does that then there's not much reason to block them, generally speaking. So I would expect that not many would be blocked even over long periods of time.
Depends on your goal. For networking purposes absolutely, provided you don't get snubbed for being last. However if you're LAST, then you're probably failing out, and if you fail out of a top-tier school then that's a LOT of money down the drain. If you're last in the graduating class then you probably still failed some classes, which is, again, a lot of money down the drain. Going to a second-tier school may save you a lot of cash both on failed classes and on not failing them to begin with.
No, it's because there's literally no reason to wait for nearly a year to appoint a replacement. Literally none. IF a Justice died after the election when the president is already on their way out I can see an argument for waiting for a few months, but it's nearly a year until the new prez gets sworn in. Why should a position be held empty for almost a year?
Yeah, I find it harder and harder to be liberal these days with the sort of people that means supporting, but I don't identify with the jackasses on the right either.
Nah, the righties will think it's great that they're willing to block essential functions of the government to prevent a dirty, filthy commie from being made a Justice.
My grandma doesn't even keep her cell phone on. It's entirely possible her friend waited for abit, then called a cab or something. That being said "Old person gets confused, drives for 2 days in the wrong direction" makes plenty of sense to me.
We don't actually have a right to drive cars. Unless I missed an amendment to the Constitution or unless your state's one mentions it.
I wouldn't, in principle, be opposed to the idea of gun licenses as long as they were on a "shall issue" basis with actual USEFUL training and disqualifiers. The problem is that anti-gun people aren't interested in those things, and even if they were they've proven they can't be trusted. So giving a law that can be twisted is extraordinarily dangerous.
If, for example, an "assault weapons" ban was passed then manufacturing and possibly possessing one would be illegal, so printing a lower for one would be breaking the law.
There was a spike in 2015, but before that we were at the lowest murder rate since the late 60s. I'd hazard a guess that most people in the US literally don't know a single person that's been murdered, I sure don't, though admittedly I'm not very social. I know one person that committed suicide and another that almost certainly did the same, no one that was murdered. The reality is that we are safer than we've been in decades, but since we've got 350+ million people there's still enough going on to fill the news, and since fear sells that what they put on.
Correction: Assault RIFLE is a legitimate term, Assault WEAPON is not. Assault Rifle comes from the SturmGewehr rifle from WW2 and has a specific definition that includes "selective-fire" which semi-auto guns are not.
Semi-auto weapons are the BEST for each of the things you listed. Self defense practically requires semi-auto as manually operated weapons can leave you in a much worse place if your first shot doesn't work. Semi-auto weapons are ideal for hunting because they allow rapid follow-up shots in case the first shot doesn't work as well. For sport they're far and beyond the best for anything short of ultra-long range shooting because it's a lot more fun to shoot semi-auto. Though to be fair there IS something to be said for working the action of a bolt or lever gun too.
Can you explain why semi-auto WOULDN'T be the best choice for any of those things?
Handgun control is obviously the best way to reduce crime and, if I had the option to set the gun laws, would be the primary focus. The fact that it is rarely brought up should make you wonder about the motivations of those pushing the laws.
My basic suspicion is that the hoplophobic politicians know exactly what's going on. They're aware that an "assault weapons" ban will do literally nothing to reduce crime, but that's not the point. The goal is disarmament, but that can't be achieved as long as there's a large group of shooting enthusiasts that are willing and able to politically and physically resist confiscation. So the goal isn't to implement laws that will actually reduce crime, it's to introduce crime that will make gun ownership more difficult and less appealing, long-term result being the reduction of gun owners as a voting bloc to a size that they can ignore and implement any laws they wish.
That being said Hanlon's Razor certainly COULD apply, but it seems like it's been going on too long to be simple stupidity.
.357 magnum is the most lethal of the handgun calibers
U wot m8?.357 isn't in the top 10. Even if you restrict yourself to commercially successful calibers there's still a bunch of more powerful rounds available.
Legally it does, since every part can be sold to anyone with no restrictions. Therefore a law that, for instance, bans "assault weapons" can be circumvented by 3D printing your lower and buying the rest of the parts.
Slashdot Mirror
That is what the left is coming to these days. And as someone who's somewhat left-leaning it's kinda terrifying. The right-wing are mostly lunatics and the left are chasing them down the rabbit hole.
Yep. I can barely even watch the news when there's an new outrage going on. Because the news distorts or outright lies to make things seem more outrageous so that people get angrier and watch more news.
Yep. As more time passes I find fewer and fewer people I can stand on either side.
Well I assume that it was also seen as the president's job to select people worthy of the position. If he does that then there's not much reason to block them, generally speaking. So I would expect that not many would be blocked even over long periods of time.
Depends on your goal. For networking purposes absolutely, provided you don't get snubbed for being last. However if you're LAST, then you're probably failing out, and if you fail out of a top-tier school then that's a LOT of money down the drain. If you're last in the graduating class then you probably still failed some classes, which is, again, a lot of money down the drain. Going to a second-tier school may save you a lot of cash both on failed classes and on not failing them to begin with.
No, it's because there's literally no reason to wait for nearly a year to appoint a replacement. Literally none. IF a Justice died after the election when the president is already on their way out I can see an argument for waiting for a few months, but it's nearly a year until the new prez gets sworn in. Why should a position be held empty for almost a year?
Yeah, I find it harder and harder to be liberal these days with the sort of people that means supporting, but I don't identify with the jackasses on the right either.
Nah, he'll want his daughter to be the Justice.
Nah, the righties will think it's great that they're willing to block essential functions of the government to prevent a dirty, filthy commie from being made a Justice.
No, but she might if it came with her car.
She probably would, yes.
My grandma doesn't even keep her cell phone on. It's entirely possible her friend waited for abit, then called a cab or something. That being said "Old person gets confused, drives for 2 days in the wrong direction" makes plenty of sense to me.
Yep, it's 3 or more people shot when it's the US, then when it's somewhere else it's "Did it hit international news?"
I've had that thought as well. Additionally the ability to take out your violent or sexual impulses in controlled environments likely helps too.
I see you too have read Freakonomics. Good book, though I've heard counterarguments.
Same thing happened with homicide from what I saw. Guns dropped immediately, overall numbers stayed level for at least 5 years.
We don't actually have a right to drive cars. Unless I missed an amendment to the Constitution or unless your state's one mentions it.
I wouldn't, in principle, be opposed to the idea of gun licenses as long as they were on a "shall issue" basis with actual USEFUL training and disqualifiers. The problem is that anti-gun people aren't interested in those things, and even if they were they've proven they can't be trusted. So giving a law that can be twisted is extraordinarily dangerous.
If, for example, an "assault weapons" ban was passed then manufacturing and possibly possessing one would be illegal, so printing a lower for one would be breaking the law.
There was a spike in 2015, but before that we were at the lowest murder rate since the late 60s. I'd hazard a guess that most people in the US literally don't know a single person that's been murdered, I sure don't, though admittedly I'm not very social. I know one person that committed suicide and another that almost certainly did the same, no one that was murdered. The reality is that we are safer than we've been in decades, but since we've got 350+ million people there's still enough going on to fill the news, and since fear sells that what they put on.
They already blocked the Liberator's files, not that it removed them from the internet.
As a point of order both of the civilian uses there were pre-NFA, since the NFA automatic weapons haven't been popular with criminals.
Correction: Assault RIFLE is a legitimate term, Assault WEAPON is not. Assault Rifle comes from the SturmGewehr rifle from WW2 and has a specific definition that includes "selective-fire" which semi-auto guns are not.
Semi-auto weapons are the BEST for each of the things you listed. Self defense practically requires semi-auto as manually operated weapons can leave you in a much worse place if your first shot doesn't work. Semi-auto weapons are ideal for hunting because they allow rapid follow-up shots in case the first shot doesn't work as well. For sport they're far and beyond the best for anything short of ultra-long range shooting because it's a lot more fun to shoot semi-auto. Though to be fair there IS something to be said for working the action of a bolt or lever gun too.
Can you explain why semi-auto WOULDN'T be the best choice for any of those things?
Handgun control is obviously the best way to reduce crime and, if I had the option to set the gun laws, would be the primary focus. The fact that it is rarely brought up should make you wonder about the motivations of those pushing the laws.
My basic suspicion is that the hoplophobic politicians know exactly what's going on. They're aware that an "assault weapons" ban will do literally nothing to reduce crime, but that's not the point. The goal is disarmament, but that can't be achieved as long as there's a large group of shooting enthusiasts that are willing and able to politically and physically resist confiscation. So the goal isn't to implement laws that will actually reduce crime, it's to introduce crime that will make gun ownership more difficult and less appealing, long-term result being the reduction of gun owners as a voting bloc to a size that they can ignore and implement any laws they wish.
That being said Hanlon's Razor certainly COULD apply, but it seems like it's been going on too long to be simple stupidity.
.357 magnum is the most lethal of the handgun calibers
U wot m8? .357 isn't in the top 10. Even if you restrict yourself to commercially successful calibers there's still a bunch of more powerful rounds available.
Legally it does, since every part can be sold to anyone with no restrictions. Therefore a law that, for instance, bans "assault weapons" can be circumvented by 3D printing your lower and buying the rest of the parts.