The NRA specifically notes in it's charter that it is a gun rights organization. VERY single focus for the simple reason that allowing the focus to widen decreases efficacy. Thus, while they will note other abuses, they will not lobby against them. That's the specific purview of organizations like the EFF and FIRE. Also state level ACLU orgs. The national level org can go fuck itself.
Were the metaphors in question, not enough(read none) multi-megaton nuclear weapons were not emplaced to target the eldritch horrors as a last ditch defense in case the entire elaborate system of sacrifices came crashing down? Cause that was all I really got from the ending.
Not really, they tried to get that fanfare. Since it's much easier with that amount of money to merely CNC a score of 1911s out of solid steel and have much better guns, they were ignored.
The stupid is strong in this one. The last 10 years with continuously dropping murder rates and the massive gun boom in the US created by Obama shows that you don't know jack shit about the topic at hand. Not to mention that the accidental death rates from guns in the US is the lowest it's been at since they pretty much started keeping remotely accurate statistics.
As the etymology of the word bad most probably derives from the old english word baeddel meaning hermaphrodite/effeminate man, I seriously doubt that gay being used as a euphemism for stupid/crappy will stop anytime soon.
The AC above me was implying that the 2nd only applied to the militia. Clearly he never learned the terms prefatory or justification clause in his Grammar courses.
If they won't properly choose their researchers and always use biased morons who can't even massage the data out of a wet paper bag, why the fuck should someone keep giving them money so they can keep fucking that particular chicken?
Ah, libtard idiocy. The rulings said that being composed of people, they had some of the same rights. For that matter, I don't think I've heard of any laws limiting corporation security forces to weapons any crappier than most civilians. In fact, in most jurisdictions, especially bastions of libtard idiocy, they have more rights to weapons than the average civilian.
Well, no, it's because the only studies done by the CDC were shoddier than a shed built by a cross-eyed one-armed carpenter without measuring tools. The reason for this is because the CDC has a prior anti-gun bias and so kept hiring that dickcheese Kellerman to perform the studies. Kellerman sucks at even performing studies that at least have the surface appearance of being unbiased and is always immediately ripped apart as soon as his methodology becomes known.
Actually, negative rights work just fine to protect those things by fining and jailing the shit out of those who produce waste which lead to health effects off their lands. Of course that requires a healthy court system(we don't have one) and a populace with a basic understanding of said system and the nature of negative rights which requires a non-corrupt education system(we don't have one) and a series of basic civics classes.
Sorry, but between 1934 and 1986 there were no mass killings with full-auto weapons by civilians. Several by people in law enforcement, but no civilians. To get one you merely needed a background check ensuring your lack of felonious nature and a tax stamp. The only reason full-auto weapons are currently banned is because Charles Rangel(D) is a corrupt son of a bitch and SCOTUS are a bunch of fucking hypocrites to allow the bootstrapping of the ban to continue.
Hmmm, perhaps people should be forced to pass a Fundamentals of English Grammar course before being allowed to post on Slashdot on topics concerning English writings, especially ACs.
Except all the statistically reliable and valid studies on the subject cannot find any medium correlation between gun availability and suicide rate. The vast majority don't even find a weak correlation.
Assuming you are within 7 yards and remotely have a handle on using a knife, bringing a knife to a gunfight isn't the completely losing situation you make it out to be. It's certainly not optimal, but it is feasible.
Um, no, they went from full-auto to burst because the gas impingement system at the time was crap and fouled very very easily. Also as a cost saving measure with ammo. From a tactical standpoint, having everybody with the ability to properly lay down suppressive fire would have been more useful than not but the political and mechanical limitations at the time ruled that out.
Slashdot Mirror
Because there are so many right-wing politicos in LA, New York, Detroit, and Chicago pushing for police militarization.
The NRA specifically notes in it's charter that it is a gun rights organization. VERY single focus for the simple reason that allowing the focus to widen decreases efficacy. Thus, while they will note other abuses, they will not lobby against them. That's the specific purview of organizations like the EFF and FIRE. Also state level ACLU orgs. The national level org can go fuck itself.
10% per capita gun numbers meant the guns were in the hands of maybe 5-7% of the population. Common my ass.
If Lilyhammer has taught me anything, it's that the russians have no problem 'importing' alcohol into Scandinavia.
Well, for the purposes of this study, how about in the category of people who actually still pay federal income tax once all their refunds come back.
Were the metaphors in question, not enough(read none) multi-megaton nuclear weapons were not emplaced to target the eldritch horrors as a last ditch defense in case the entire elaborate system of sacrifices came crashing down? Cause that was all I really got from the ending.
Not really, they tried to get that fanfare. Since it's much easier with that amount of money to merely CNC a score of 1911s out of solid steel and have much better guns, they were ignored.
The stupid is strong in this one. The last 10 years with continuously dropping murder rates and the massive gun boom in the US created by Obama shows that you don't know jack shit about the topic at hand. Not to mention that the accidental death rates from guns in the US is the lowest it's been at since they pretty much started keeping remotely accurate statistics.
If by add a good chunk of the cost you mean from several hundred to several thousand percent depending on the device, you are correct.
Unless a Reston style variant decides to transfer to humans. Then we're pretty fucked.
As the etymology of the word bad most probably derives from the old english word baeddel meaning hermaphrodite/effeminate man, I seriously doubt that gay being used as a euphemism for stupid/crappy will stop anytime soon.
The AC above me was implying that the 2nd only applied to the militia. Clearly he never learned the terms prefatory or justification clause in his Grammar courses.
When you cannot get the result you want, you present the data in such a way that the results are inconclusive. Govt grant research procurement 101.
If they won't properly choose their researchers and always use biased morons who can't even massage the data out of a wet paper bag, why the fuck should someone keep giving them money so they can keep fucking that particular chicken?
Ah, libtard idiocy. The rulings said that being composed of people, they had some of the same rights. For that matter, I don't think I've heard of any laws limiting corporation security forces to weapons any crappier than most civilians. In fact, in most jurisdictions, especially bastions of libtard idiocy, they have more rights to weapons than the average civilian.
The third study that comes up on google scholar is one by Kellerman. KELLERMAN. The man should have been hounded out of the field years ago.
Well, no, it's because the only studies done by the CDC were shoddier than a shed built by a cross-eyed one-armed carpenter without measuring tools. The reason for this is because the CDC has a prior anti-gun bias and so kept hiring that dickcheese Kellerman to perform the studies. Kellerman sucks at even performing studies that at least have the surface appearance of being unbiased and is always immediately ripped apart as soon as his methodology becomes known.
It seems to you, thus proving that you need to retake that 5th grade math class.
Actually, negative rights work just fine to protect those things by fining and jailing the shit out of those who produce waste which lead to health effects off their lands. Of course that requires a healthy court system(we don't have one) and a populace with a basic understanding of said system and the nature of negative rights which requires a non-corrupt education system(we don't have one) and a series of basic civics classes.
Sorry, but between 1934 and 1986 there were no mass killings with full-auto weapons by civilians. Several by people in law enforcement, but no civilians. To get one you merely needed a background check ensuring your lack of felonious nature and a tax stamp. The only reason full-auto weapons are currently banned is because Charles Rangel(D) is a corrupt son of a bitch and SCOTUS are a bunch of fucking hypocrites to allow the bootstrapping of the ban to continue.
Hmmm, perhaps people should be forced to pass a Fundamentals of English Grammar course before being allowed to post on Slashdot on topics concerning English writings, especially ACs.
Except all the statistically reliable and valid studies on the subject cannot find any medium correlation between gun availability and suicide rate. The vast majority don't even find a weak correlation.
Eh, he's a Packers fan, almost certainly from Milwaukee or Madison. His opinions can safely be ignored.
Assuming you are within 7 yards and remotely have a handle on using a knife, bringing a knife to a gunfight isn't the completely losing situation you make it out to be. It's certainly not optimal, but it is feasible.
Um, no, they went from full-auto to burst because the gas impingement system at the time was crap and fouled very very easily. Also as a cost saving measure with ammo. From a tactical standpoint, having everybody with the ability to properly lay down suppressive fire would have been more useful than not but the political and mechanical limitations at the time ruled that out.