You’re really out there sometimes!
This has absolutely nothing to do with Trump being tossed from any platform.
This Is a matter of a court saying, no exceptions, a person can’t block someone else based on political opinion.
Wonder what your opinion will be when a few sheet heads decide to follow some far left anti-white racist.
Apparently unlike you, my opinions do not stop at a partisan door.
This sets a precedent that comes with very real dangers.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I'm disagreeing on this
Those are very different things, though.
No. Not in the context that this was BEFORE covid.
People were trying to sell diapers and TP to China etc for beyond reasonable prices. Both eBay and Amazon stepped in to end this.
eBay has done plenty of crappy things in the last year: but I will applaud their good decisions.
Like killing “excessive” shipping/handling fees.
‘Logical’ price limits. Etc.
And Amazon is making efforts to stop both gouging and fraud.
Any market left totally free will do what naturally happens in life.
Success until only one is on top. Unfortunately the one on top often ends up the only one left.
You say act, but the correct term is speak. And that’s generally the point.
Protection of speech starts with the worst, not the best. The most popular speech needs not protection. It will be heard regardless.
And that is a major concern. As soon as you put regulations on actual speech you slide into censorship quickly.
And as soon as you open up to censorship someone behind you will abuse it.
The fact that politicians are using social media for official business is a joke and needs to stop. That is not the proper place to communicate with your population.
But I also have a serious problem with courts saying they can’t block people on a social service because of opinion. It opens it up to trolling and stalking and all sorts of crimes and should-be-crimes. And o have to suffer rather than block.
Something about that premise is dangerous and scary!
where I break from other liberal gun rights supporters is I want massive control up front. They want stricter tracking. I want outright monitoring.
Most republicans, in polls, want easier access and more criminal penalties.
I think that totally misses the boat. The boat, the skies, the lake… !!!
And the dems as a whole are running around chasing rifles and ignoring small arms that are responsible for a landslide majority of illegal weapons crimes.
Everyone in politics has a bad plan.
Sure, I use some right wing statements. But ones that in rational conversation actually are factually true.
Because the claim of the left that “guns kill people” is asinine without context.
Guns “kill” lots of things when used for that reason. People, animals, car engines, computers, aim small miss small dead.
We have a record number of intentional automotive assaults this year. Nobody calls for a ban on cars.
For all the stabbings nobody wants to ban cutlery.
I use it because it’s that stupid, but in reality when someone decides to stand up and say “ban guns, and sporks” is the day you actually have my attention.
You’re still an idiot but at least you put some thought into it.
Prohibition doesn’t work.
We need strong laws on access.
Strong laws on distribution.
And strong laws on personal responsibility.
Guess how many other topics such a logical approach would work for?
I actually do feel sorry for you. Somewhere buried in the dick-joke-insecurity and the off-your-rocker limited focus on a single statement of ‘I can understand…” is a very sad individual in dire need of help with whatever it is they are going through.
I hope you find the help you need. But I won’t continue to battle with someone who’s only interest is the fight itself.
And mind again that though I say, and mean, I don’t want European style socialism; I Vern much do want a social safety. One far higher and more pre-funded than most (if not all) socialist nations.
I firmly believe in a socialised capitalism. A complete and fair social base for all. And the ability to grow to whatever height you can reach.
Such a system is proven in history to work on a small scale and I see no reason it won’t work at the National level.
Look at the tech history. Apple, Atari, etc.
Consider them micro nations. A completely solid base to ‘do what thy wilt’!
And what they accomplished in that framework. A good example of it IS Apple.
Look what happened when the free-base changed to a top down system with the ouster of Jobs.
To the point where they literally faced death and dragged themselves to bow before him and beg for his help.
A secure base and unlimited ability for growth encourages exploration and trial. It pushes people to follow their ideas without fear of failure.
An employment of will is far more productive than employment of mandate.
And before some righty says what about…!
There isn’t a job out there someone doesn’t want to do.
Plenty of people work in retail by choice. Garbage haulers who enjoy their jobs. Etc.
And that social base guarantees the person who wants to do something can go and do it.
To get there we must first kill off the misinform and stereotypes.
Republicans fight socialism by looking at South America, Africa, Far Eastern Europe. Broken countries who say they are socialist and practice communism!
And communism will never work because humans are hardwired to exceed the base.
In American politics though the Reps have a point. The Dem elite are not looking for socialism: they (or most) seek communism.
A small tightly-controlled control of all monitory policy managed via committee that can’t be dissolved.
And that’s a separate discussion from firearms.
Because I use the phrase to do just what SDM suggests. Not only to argue against it he ban everything people but to also counter the idiots who want no restrictions at all!
You start with education. This is a gun. How it works…what it does.
With image and video of consequences. The man who blows his jaw off with a loaded 9mm.
The kid who breaks two fingers off firing a 40cal revolver. The child who kills his mother playing with a short barrel shotgun. Crushing their ribs as well.
Real, uncensored, fact.
We do mental checks and background checks.
We require serial numbers and record them nationally.
We track and trace every single one!
“Illegal” weapons need to be destroyed, not sold to unreliable dealers.
And though I fully support the inheritance of a weapon it should come with all the same requirements.
And the rules must be enforced at all levels. Be it a store, a trade show in person, or a trade site online!
The problem isn’t that you can ‘make a phone call and buy a gun’!!! The problem is we don’t track the buyer and the seller.
And we enforce that aspect by making possession of a firearm that is not ours and not in the immediate realm of the legal owner a class 1 felony. A federal felony.
And again, any new local restrictions must have a grace period for owners.
If you decide to build a school next to a gun owner you don’t march into their house the day you break ground and take their weapons.
When a city bans handguns the owners need time to move if they wish.
We need logical laws but also require logical enforcement!
However: my “guns don’t kill people” premise fits well within my well documented (here and elsewhere) beliefs in strengthening personal responsibility law.
A gun doesn’t wake up at 2PM after a drug and vodka fuelled bender, hop into a car, and shoot a rival.
What we need is much stricter regulations going into ownership and much stricter laws for misuse.
I think that’s what I was getting at. This is more of an issue of throwing belts through a squad chain gun than missing.
I didn’t read the article and don’t really have to. A claim that bombastic is very much headline fluff.
I also won’t deny targeting is less a focus these days. But that’s two separate things.
250k isn’t that much in warfare.
You run 20k in suppressing fire through a 240 and swap the barrel.
50 thousands rounds from mounted saws is average for clearing passes.
250k could be as minimal as one chopper firing 2 cannons. If the target is an enemy motor pool or munitions etc that would make sense on a single operation alone with few or no casualties.
A predator strafing a mountain side? There’s 20k rounds in one tool.
There’s something to be said for our military’s training failures.
Clearly.
While I say such a picture is missing much of the generic facts. Cover fire. Indirect fire. Intentionally not killing people.
It misses the point of running 1500 round chains at a narrow mountain pass before driving through. But it’s still not a number to be proud of.
But yes, there is a sad, maybe pathetic, lack of aim from our combat soldiers.
I may side with the Republicans on the right to keep … arms.
But I make most pro-gun-Dems look absolutely far right Q in what I would call for in restrictions.
Mandatory training BEFORE ownership.
Annual training.
An outright ban on small calibre hand guns.
A total and complete ban on any “long barrel” weapon, rifle or not, shorter than 14”.
And using the same free, federally issued photo of I suggest for driving and voting and vax status to tie gun ownership to a federal database.
Ownership needs to be tied to access to federal records. You buy a gun you waive an aspect of HIPPA.
you need to totally change the approach to how you can get a weapon and how you track them.
You need to make sure what is available actually requires more training than Point and shoot.
You’re not going to get a 15yro doing a drive by with a 40cal handgun. Hand out the window spray and pay.
But that same person could safely train under a parent or guardian to properly use and respect that device for use in actual defence.
We need to stop the revolving door of confiscated weapons being resold.
Fully autos end ip with licensed dealers who use the laws loopholes to dump those same weapons back out into shows and they eventually wind up back on the street.
You don’t hunt, or protect, with an uzi. Confiscation should end with recycling. Tracked and traced distraction.
Because the same cops that get the guns off the streets are the ones that wind up putting them back out there.
We have too many loop holes. Sites like ArmsList provide a valuable service. One that needs more regulation. Sellers and buyers both should be required to provide licenses and photo ID. And store that shite for 7 years.
Same thing with shows. Keep records. Show records.
I shouldn’t be able to buy a revolver at a garage sale!
You don’t reach that by making threats at a podium: you do it by making ownership responsible. Something to be trained for and when you achieve the requirements to reach your right, something to be proud of.
Something easily forfeited.
Looks like I confused you there. Sorry on that.
We carry a Cimarron 45 (the Calvary) for large predator protection in bear country.
But rock salt will, and has, drive off wolves. With what would generally be non lethal shot.
Family and friends have multiple variations of the m16. And my personal preference is 5.50 in a sheath with a custom two shot manual pull load magazine. Which fits most of the variants.
I have no problem with going back to manual bolt action either. As I’m obviously already doing that in a modern semi-auto.
Must I’m not quite ready to force that. I’d rather drastically tighten ownership and purchase laws. And mandatory training.
I also thing schools need to go back to shock and awe gonzo videos for education. Not just for firearms but all aspects of education.
I’m just old enough to have still gotten some of those video lessons.
Jack’s gun. (Exploitive) gun accidents
Little Suzy has a bump (child porn) sex ed, pregnancy and birthing
Midnight run (exploitative) drag racing
The streets (exploitive) car accidents
Many such films are still on the internet archive.
There was a time we actually showed kids what the results of choices were.
And I partly attribute gun violence today to the lack of such education when combined with Hollywood and Batman and other bang bang bad guy gets up tv.
I agree Hollywood has made it near impossible to impress upon kids that a person with a gun can be deadly.
And now we have those same KIDS walking around with a 9 or a 20 in their waist band thinking they’re all kool for it.
And then we have News making it out that guns jump up and chase you down the street and kill you.
And we have so little factual education and training in between!
And that more than anything should be the most deeply saddening aspect of this country.
How in 40 years we went from education to failure.
But the goal should be getting the hand guns from the 12yr old kids.
The semi-autos out of the hands of abused teens.
And all weapons from people who are too unstable to use them.
Train how to use it AND train on the end results.
That’s just it though. They are. Every change, every advance, it’s still a single barrel single round weapon.
The system used advances. The rate of fire increases. But it’s still a rifled barrel single round long gun.
Much the way a Tesla is a descendant of the hand crank auto-wagon.
Both the modern rifle and the shotgun are descendants of the long gun rifle. A descendent of the smooth bore long gun. Itself a long age descendant of the shoulder-braced bamboo cannon.
Much like the handgun today descends from the coach gun which is derived from the short barrel musket which comes from the southern Asian arrow charge. Which was a hand held short spear gun.
I wasn’t implying they were next of kin. As much as new variations on an existing design. All modern US fielded long barrel rifles descend from hunting designs. Modified to hunt people in close quarters combat.
But those changes do nothing to lessen the ability of use for hunting.
I’m not, and don’t support, sport and trophy hunting. A smaller round to the brain will end most animals quickly. Like in the military, in hunting a skilled rifleman abides by one shot one kill.
Though with the 500s range for larger game it’s usually 2. One to “drop” an animal from a distance and a second to quickly kill it humanly.
But even the smallest game can be taken with a 5.56.
Large rabbit. Duck. Etc. And still have valuable meat undamaged.
On the post: Rep. Thomas Massie Seems To Have Skipped Over The 1st Amendment In His Rush To 'Defend' The 2nd
Re: Re: Re: Re: Two problems
You’re really out there sometimes!
This has absolutely nothing to do with Trump being tossed from any platform.
This Is a matter of a court saying, no exceptions, a person can’t block someone else based on political opinion.
Wonder what your opinion will be when a few sheet heads decide to follow some far left anti-white racist.
Apparently unlike you, my opinions do not stop at a partisan door.
This sets a precedent that comes with very real dangers.
On the post: Surveillance Company CEO Threatens To Sue Reporter For Writing About His Company
Re: Re: No excuse for poor spelling.
Lol, it continues
“ Populous is an global architectural and design practice specializing …”
~Wikipedia
Is an global?
On the post: Silly, Pandering Politicians Introduce Silly, Pandering 'Cyber Grinch' Law That Would Ban Buying Bots
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I'm disagreeing on this
No. Not in the context that this was BEFORE covid.
People were trying to sell diapers and TP to China etc for beyond reasonable prices. Both eBay and Amazon stepped in to end this.
eBay has done plenty of crappy things in the last year: but I will applaud their good decisions.
Like killing “excessive” shipping/handling fees.
‘Logical’ price limits. Etc.
And Amazon is making efforts to stop both gouging and fraud.
Any market left totally free will do what naturally happens in life.
Success until only one is on top. Unfortunately the one on top often ends up the only one left.
On the post: New York Times Lies About City's Murder Rate, NYPD's Clearance Rate To Sell Fear To Its Readers
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You say act, but the correct term is speak. And that’s generally the point.
Protection of speech starts with the worst, not the best. The most popular speech needs not protection. It will be heard regardless.
On the post: New York Times Lies About City's Murder Rate, NYPD's Clearance Rate To Sell Fear To Its Readers
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
“Punish this kind of speech”?
And that is a major concern. As soon as you put regulations on actual speech you slide into censorship quickly.
And as soon as you open up to censorship someone behind you will abuse it.
On the post: Yet Another Study Shows Mainstream Media Is A Key Vector In Spreading Misinformation
Re: Utterly Flawed
When every national cable news company became commentary and stopped being pure news?
On the post: Rep. Thomas Massie Seems To Have Skipped Over The 1st Amendment In His Rush To 'Defend' The 2nd
Re: Re: Two problems
WTH are you talking about.
The idea that you must allow someone to follow you is dangerous!
Doesn’t matter who the users are.
On the post: New York Times Lies About City's Murder Rate, NYPD's Clearance Rate To Sell Fear To Its Readers
Still better than some:
The one thing I have always said for the NYT is they have a strong track record of fixing mistakes. Quickly.
This headline is something I’d expect from WaPo.
NYT did change the headline.
WaPo would simply add an anonymous source tag to it.
On the post: Rep. Thomas Massie Seems To Have Skipped Over The 1st Amendment In His Rush To 'Defend' The 2nd
Two problems
The fact that politicians are using social media for official business is a joke and needs to stop. That is not the proper place to communicate with your population.
But I also have a serious problem with courts saying they can’t block people on a social service because of opinion. It opens it up to trolling and stalking and all sorts of crimes and should-be-crimes. And o have to suffer rather than block.
Something about that premise is dangerous and scary!
On the post: Sidney Powell's Michigan Election Fraud LOLsuit Just Cost Her And Her Buddies $175,000 In Legal Fees
One question
“ “For example, Plaintiffs’ attorney L. Lin Wood had posted a video from the hearing on social media in violation of the Court’s local rules, ”
Why are courts so intent on keeping cases from public review? Especially topics of public interest where both parties are known?!?
On the post: Federal Court Dismisses Another Negligence Suit Against Online Gun Marketplace Armslist But Says Section 230 Doesn't Protect It
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Totally without merit
I’m with you on regulation.
where I break from other liberal gun rights supporters is I want massive control up front. They want stricter tracking. I want outright monitoring.
Most republicans, in polls, want easier access and more criminal penalties.
I think that totally misses the boat. The boat, the skies, the lake… !!!
And the dems as a whole are running around chasing rifles and ignoring small arms that are responsible for a landslide majority of illegal weapons crimes.
Everyone in politics has a bad plan.
Sure, I use some right wing statements. But ones that in rational conversation actually are factually true.
Because the claim of the left that “guns kill people” is asinine without context.
Guns “kill” lots of things when used for that reason. People, animals, car engines, computers, aim small miss small dead.
We have a record number of intentional automotive assaults this year. Nobody calls for a ban on cars.
For all the stabbings nobody wants to ban cutlery.
I use it because it’s that stupid, but in reality when someone decides to stand up and say “ban guns, and sporks” is the day you actually have my attention.
You’re still an idiot but at least you put some thought into it.
Prohibition doesn’t work.
We need strong laws on access.
Strong laws on distribution.
And strong laws on personal responsibility.
Guess how many other topics such a logical approach would work for?
On the post: Federal Court Dismisses Another Negligence Suit Against Online Gun Marketplace Armslist But Says Section 230 Doesn't Protect It
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Totally without merit
I actually do feel sorry for you. Somewhere buried in the dick-joke-insecurity and the off-your-rocker limited focus on a single statement of ‘I can understand…” is a very sad individual in dire need of help with whatever it is they are going through.
I hope you find the help you need. But I won’t continue to battle with someone who’s only interest is the fight itself.
On the post: Federal Court Dismisses Another Negligence Suit Against Online Gun Marketplace Armslist But Says Section 230 Doesn't Protect It
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Totally without merit
You make many great points: as you always do.
And mind again that though I say, and mean, I don’t want European style socialism; I Vern much do want a social safety. One far higher and more pre-funded than most (if not all) socialist nations.
I firmly believe in a socialised capitalism. A complete and fair social base for all. And the ability to grow to whatever height you can reach.
Such a system is proven in history to work on a small scale and I see no reason it won’t work at the National level.
Look at the tech history. Apple, Atari, etc.
Consider them micro nations. A completely solid base to ‘do what thy wilt’!
And what they accomplished in that framework. A good example of it IS Apple.
Look what happened when the free-base changed to a top down system with the ouster of Jobs.
To the point where they literally faced death and dragged themselves to bow before him and beg for his help.
A secure base and unlimited ability for growth encourages exploration and trial. It pushes people to follow their ideas without fear of failure.
An employment of will is far more productive than employment of mandate.
And before some righty says what about…!
There isn’t a job out there someone doesn’t want to do.
Plenty of people work in retail by choice. Garbage haulers who enjoy their jobs. Etc.
And that social base guarantees the person who wants to do something can go and do it.
To get there we must first kill off the misinform and stereotypes.
Republicans fight socialism by looking at South America, Africa, Far Eastern Europe. Broken countries who say they are socialist and practice communism!
And communism will never work because humans are hardwired to exceed the base.
In American politics though the Reps have a point. The Dem elite are not looking for socialism: they (or most) seek communism.
A small tightly-controlled control of all monitory policy managed via committee that can’t be dissolved.
And that’s a separate discussion from firearms.
Because I use the phrase to do just what SDM suggests. Not only to argue against it he ban everything people but to also counter the idiots who want no restrictions at all!
You start with education. This is a gun. How it works…what it does.
With image and video of consequences. The man who blows his jaw off with a loaded 9mm.
The kid who breaks two fingers off firing a 40cal revolver. The child who kills his mother playing with a short barrel shotgun. Crushing their ribs as well.
Real, uncensored, fact.
We do mental checks and background checks.
We require serial numbers and record them nationally.
We track and trace every single one!
“Illegal” weapons need to be destroyed, not sold to unreliable dealers.
And though I fully support the inheritance of a weapon it should come with all the same requirements.
And the rules must be enforced at all levels. Be it a store, a trade show in person, or a trade site online!
The problem isn’t that you can ‘make a phone call and buy a gun’!!! The problem is we don’t track the buyer and the seller.
And we enforce that aspect by making possession of a firearm that is not ours and not in the immediate realm of the legal owner a class 1 felony. A federal felony.
And again, any new local restrictions must have a grace period for owners.
If you decide to build a school next to a gun owner you don’t march into their house the day you break ground and take their weapons.
When a city bans handguns the owners need time to move if they wish.
We need logical laws but also require logical enforcement!
On the post: Federal Court Dismisses Another Negligence Suit Against Online Gun Marketplace Armslist But Says Section 230 Doesn't Protect It
Re: Re: Re: Re: Totally without merit
However: my “guns don’t kill people” premise fits well within my well documented (here and elsewhere) beliefs in strengthening personal responsibility law.
A gun doesn’t wake up at 2PM after a drug and vodka fuelled bender, hop into a car, and shoot a rival.
What we need is much stricter regulations going into ownership and much stricter laws for misuse.
On the post: Federal Court Dismisses Another Negligence Suit Against Online Gun Marketplace Armslist But Says Section 230 Doesn't Protect It
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Totally
I think that’s what I was getting at. This is more of an issue of throwing belts through a squad chain gun than missing.
I didn’t read the article and don’t really have to. A claim that bombastic is very much headline fluff.
I also won’t deny targeting is less a focus these days. But that’s two separate things.
250k isn’t that much in warfare.
You run 20k in suppressing fire through a 240 and swap the barrel.
50 thousands rounds from mounted saws is average for clearing passes.
250k could be as minimal as one chopper firing 2 cannons. If the target is an enemy motor pool or munitions etc that would make sense on a single operation alone with few or no casualties.
A predator strafing a mountain side? There’s 20k rounds in one tool.
On the post: Federal Court Dismisses Another Negligence Suit Against Online Gun Marketplace Armslist But Says Section 230 Doesn't Protect It
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Totally without
🤦♂️
There’s something to be said for our military’s training failures.
Clearly.
While I say such a picture is missing much of the generic facts. Cover fire. Indirect fire. Intentionally not killing people.
It misses the point of running 1500 round chains at a narrow mountain pass before driving through. But it’s still not a number to be proud of.
But yes, there is a sad, maybe pathetic, lack of aim from our combat soldiers.
On the post: Federal Court Dismisses Another Negligence Suit Against Online Gun Marketplace Armslist But Says Section 230 Doesn't Protect It
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I may side with the Republicans on the right to keep … arms.
But I make most pro-gun-Dems look absolutely far right Q in what I would call for in restrictions.
Mandatory training BEFORE ownership.
Annual training.
An outright ban on small calibre hand guns.
A total and complete ban on any “long barrel” weapon, rifle or not, shorter than 14”.
And using the same free, federally issued photo of I suggest for driving and voting and vax status to tie gun ownership to a federal database.
Ownership needs to be tied to access to federal records. You buy a gun you waive an aspect of HIPPA.
you need to totally change the approach to how you can get a weapon and how you track them.
You need to make sure what is available actually requires more training than Point and shoot.
You’re not going to get a 15yro doing a drive by with a 40cal handgun. Hand out the window spray and pay.
But that same person could safely train under a parent or guardian to properly use and respect that device for use in actual defence.
We need to stop the revolving door of confiscated weapons being resold.
Fully autos end ip with licensed dealers who use the laws loopholes to dump those same weapons back out into shows and they eventually wind up back on the street.
You don’t hunt, or protect, with an uzi. Confiscation should end with recycling. Tracked and traced distraction.
Because the same cops that get the guns off the streets are the ones that wind up putting them back out there.
We have too many loop holes. Sites like ArmsList provide a valuable service. One that needs more regulation. Sellers and buyers both should be required to provide licenses and photo ID. And store that shite for 7 years.
Same thing with shows. Keep records. Show records.
I shouldn’t be able to buy a revolver at a garage sale!
You don’t reach that by making threats at a podium: you do it by making ownership responsible. Something to be trained for and when you achieve the requirements to reach your right, something to be proud of.
Something easily forfeited.
On the post: Federal Court Dismisses Another Negligence Suit Against Online Gun Marketplace Armslist But Says Section 230 Doesn't Protect It
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Totally without merit
Looks like I confused you there. Sorry on that.
We carry a Cimarron 45 (the Calvary) for large predator protection in bear country.
But rock salt will, and has, drive off wolves. With what would generally be non lethal shot.
Family and friends have multiple variations of the m16. And my personal preference is 5.50 in a sheath with a custom two shot manual pull load magazine. Which fits most of the variants.
I have no problem with going back to manual bolt action either. As I’m obviously already doing that in a modern semi-auto.
Must I’m not quite ready to force that. I’d rather drastically tighten ownership and purchase laws. And mandatory training.
I also thing schools need to go back to shock and awe gonzo videos for education. Not just for firearms but all aspects of education.
I’m just old enough to have still gotten some of those video lessons.
Jack’s gun. (Exploitive) gun accidents
Little Suzy has a bump (child porn) sex ed, pregnancy and birthing
Midnight run (exploitative) drag racing
The streets (exploitive) car accidents
Many such films are still on the internet archive.
There was a time we actually showed kids what the results of choices were.
And I partly attribute gun violence today to the lack of such education when combined with Hollywood and Batman and other bang bang bad guy gets up tv.
I agree Hollywood has made it near impossible to impress upon kids that a person with a gun can be deadly.
And now we have those same KIDS walking around with a 9 or a 20 in their waist band thinking they’re all kool for it.
And then we have News making it out that guns jump up and chase you down the street and kill you.
And we have so little factual education and training in between!
And that more than anything should be the most deeply saddening aspect of this country.
How in 40 years we went from education to failure.
But the goal should be getting the hand guns from the 12yr old kids.
The semi-autos out of the hands of abused teens.
And all weapons from people who are too unstable to use them.
Train how to use it AND train on the end results.
On the post: Federal Court Dismisses Another Negligence Suit Against Online Gun Marketplace Armslist But Says Section 230 Doesn't Protect It
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Totally without merit
That’s just it though. They are. Every change, every advance, it’s still a single barrel single round weapon.
The system used advances. The rate of fire increases. But it’s still a rifled barrel single round long gun.
Much the way a Tesla is a descendant of the hand crank auto-wagon.
Both the modern rifle and the shotgun are descendants of the long gun rifle. A descendent of the smooth bore long gun. Itself a long age descendant of the shoulder-braced bamboo cannon.
Much like the handgun today descends from the coach gun which is derived from the short barrel musket which comes from the southern Asian arrow charge. Which was a hand held short spear gun.
I wasn’t implying they were next of kin. As much as new variations on an existing design. All modern US fielded long barrel rifles descend from hunting designs. Modified to hunt people in close quarters combat.
But those changes do nothing to lessen the ability of use for hunting.
I’m not, and don’t support, sport and trophy hunting. A smaller round to the brain will end most animals quickly. Like in the military, in hunting a skilled rifleman abides by one shot one kill.
Though with the 500s range for larger game it’s usually 2. One to “drop” an animal from a distance and a second to quickly kill it humanly.
But even the smallest game can be taken with a 5.56.
Large rabbit. Duck. Etc. And still have valuable meat undamaged.
On the post: Federal Court Dismisses Another Negligence Suit Against Online Gun Marketplace Armslist But Says Section 230 Doesn't Protect It
Re: Re: Totally without merit
So do swords and knives.
And planes, and cars, golf clubs, chain saws. Any my favourite, the spork.
Nor are my examples. Which one are you against?
Where in all my postings about the need for restrictions and tighter laws did I ever say anything remotely close to that.
Next >>