Imagine picking a lawyer based on them backing the same insane insane conspiracy theories you do rather than their legal acumen and ability to get you out of trouble…

Honestly, I respect that stance more than I respect the folks with a dozen half-assed definitions and assorted conditions on what people should or should not own.

I disagree with it, but I respect it.

Lol

At what point in this conversation have I ever pissed and moaned about the M-16 being a classic American rifle or complained about magazine capacity? At what point did I ever deny or disparage the effectiveness of the 90’s Federal ban?

And you’ll get that court about the time you get rid of Citizen’s United. But why not at least encourage lawmakers to get rid of the low hanging fruit that gives them an easy excuse to strike new gun laws down and force the lobbyists to spend more of that money to defeat it?

Or you can blame people for pointing out obvious flaws in these policies and accuse those people of arguing for standpoints they’ve never held…

Take whatever approach you think is most effective.

I don’t care what you call it. The semantics don’t matter to me. We can do it in any terms you like.

But if you ban gun A because it’s weapon of war, but allow gun B to be sold because it’s a hunting tool, when both are semi-automaitc guns shooting the same bullet out of clips, then your ban accomplished nothing of substance and won’t be around long.

But all that matters is people don’t have that one specific kind of gun, right?

I’m not even arguing the usefulness of bans here, just that the people trying to enact them write them in a way that undermines their purpose and leads to a defeat in the courts. You want to ban assault rifles? Write better legislation.

As a thought experiment, if someone attacks me with lethal intent, and I grab what is by your definition an assault weapon and not a self defense tool, does that make my defense of self and family invalid? Do I now somehow become the aggressor in this scenario because I am weilding a weapon of war? Is it only ethical for me to defend myself with a pistol? Am I bound by eithics to ensure I don’t have an advantage in effective range over my attacker?

The Remington Model 700 was introduced in the 1960’s and adapted to become a sniper rifle by the US military in the late 1980’s. Many of the modifications made to the design for military use are the same that competitive sport shooters would make to improve long range accuracy. It was a hunting tool first, but became a highly effective weapon of war used with the intent to kill. Would it be prudent to ban this firearm as well, or does the 700 get a pass based on the origin of it’s design?

I ask, not because I cradle my rifle at night praying for a break in or because I’m not concerned about gun violence, but because campaigns to ban assault rifles so often focus on the origin of these designs rather than on the technical details and civilian uses of the firearm in question. This becomes important when, as is all but inevitable, that ban winds up in court. As gets mentioned so often the only fundamental difference between an AR-15 and any number of small caliber hunting rifles (which can often be found chambered in 5.56/.223 just like an AR-15) is that the AR-15 has a pistol grip. It’s an uneven application of the legal process even before you consider 2A rights.

Struggle Meals was exactly this.

this is an aircraft older than the typical US senator

Let’s not get too hasty, the B-52H variant was first produced in 1961, making it 65 years old. A 65 year old incumbent senator still has three, maybe four good decades left in office…

I hear you, it’s an alien mindset.

Terrifying to think that our economy and government are rules by the pathology of people like this.

If it hasn’t been made clear that you can essentially buy an election by now…

Not that his voters don’t bear some of the blame, but money helped put him in power and helped keep him there because he was profitable.

These days everything is about money, except money, which is about power.

What damn good is power if you spend your golden years grinding yourself into an undead shell?

I mean, yeah, I get that this is pathological on some level. But I’ll never understand why you wouldn’t have an exit strategy that allows you to enjoy the fruits of destroying a nation for at least a few years.

You know what I want to do when I’m 84? Nap. Look at pictures of my grandkids and shit. Not be in any form of legislature.

But, because this fucking ghoul can’t understand the appeal of properly enjoying the last years of your life, the rest of us will probably have to work ourselves to death so that he can die while still being in control of the country and make a bunch of other sociopathic asshats money.

Fuck you, Mitch. I hope it’s painful and slow.

As much as I want to say this isn’t true, I really can’t.

I can see it, I think if you filled the undercard with some of the more obnoxious MAGA influencers and manosphere dorks you’d have a bankable concept here.

I’m listening…

It would take forever though.

Neither has the stamina to choke the other out, and both would be wheezing after a few punches. After two minutes we’d be forced to sit through ages of them limply clawing at one another’s adams apples and throwing limp-wristed, weightless punches in the general direction of each other’s groin until random chance decides the winner via myocardial infarction.

I’m a cis man, so maybe take this with a grain of salt, but if I get encourement from a random person like this, I absolutely kick my effort up a notch and remember it for months-years.

I’d like think people might be able to tell the difference between “keep it up” or “you’re doing great” and a full on catcall, but I’ve never been catcalled so… ¯\(ツ)/¯

This is by design. May not have been in the original blueprint, but it was modified to be that way in one of the recent remodels.

This is a wild-ass guess, as I’m no religious scholar, but Paragone’s profile pic appears to be a statue of The Buddha, the emoji may represent the way Buddhists hold their hands together when bowing.

A four year degree, for the most part, proves you can hand in coursework and pass tests. It does not demonstrate the ability to apply any of that education in the real world, nor does it demonstrate any ability to acquire and apply new knowledge outside of a classroom setting.

When you look at careers where the application of knowledge and critical thinking are vital to the work, all of them tend to have some kind of post-graduate schooling or follow-on apprenticeship where one works under an experienced professional, and even people in those fields can be pretty fucking stupid when it comes to things outside of their specialty…

It’s like an expansion pack for flat earthers.