OT not pro gun, but very smart about how laws are an invasion

Reading right-wing extremists/incels in the comments tear into each other arguing over whether America needs to get rid of all the Jews ^H^H^H^H excuse me the "Hollywood Elite", or needs to fight for them and support defend Israel unconditionally is definitely pretty amusing.

Kimmel and Miller are both hacks but having banged more starlet ass than the entire comments section put together could ever conceptualize, regardless, I think they're a bit jealous.

Anyway here's a link to my Patreon begging-account and apparel shop with slogans fat boomers who don't get laid will enjoy.

What do you do for fun when you're not busy hating?

Oh. Maybe no fun.

--

John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc 

lunatic fringe electronics

This doesn't seem very nice at all!

None of the merch is particularly amusing or clever. San FranFECES? woah, high-concept material. People aren't going to feel outraged if you wear that! They're just going to think you're a kind of sad person.

You think the right hates Jews, but it's at left-wing marches you see anti-Semitic signs.

KKK rallies also of course, but they number 0.1% of the members of Antifa.

"Tom Del Rosso" wrote in news:qsm8m5$so9$ snipped-for-privacy@dont-email.me:

My point was that he is right about gun laws being nothing more than the old "radical list" makers of the late sixties calling hippies "conspirators to overthrow the government of the United States" because they experimented with drugs that open one's mind to the crap that is going on.

ANY law they come up with require someone doing some finger pointing at others, and then we must decide what the finger pointing criteria is, etc. etc..

Fact is that the ONLY "right way" to do it is Gattaca style obsrvation of someone from before birth on up. And NOBODY is gonna go for that.

So ANY patch law they come up with between that full monitoring method and zero monitoring means that some lame f*ck decides who goes on the no-gun list.

IOW, we are all screwed.

Why do people need assault weapons?

Not to hunt game, I presume. I learned to hunt with my father using a single shot shotgun or a single shot rifle more than 70 years ago. If you need an assault weapon to bring down a squirrel, rabbit, bird, or deer, you can not call yourself a hunter.

Back then we hunted and fished for food. Those times were not the best for making a living. Yet they were the best times of my childhood.

Why do people need assault weapons?

I would approve a ban on them.

why do people need a circular saw in their home woodworking shop, a handsaw should be plenty...

what is your definition, "Black and Scary"?

So you use an assault weapon for hunting?

Or maybe a circular saw?

Are they weapons? Are they tools? I think the question as to what they "are" is answered by the manufacturers. All firearms can be used as hunting tools and for sporting competitions and for recreation, some are better than others for those purposes in a given situation.

The class of weapon you're talking about like e.g. the AR-15 is AFAIK generally not marketed as a generic tool, or for hunting, or how it's guaranteed to get you a better score at the shooting competition like a new set of golf clubs.

They tend to be marketed as weapons for shooting at people (presumably "bad people" I suppose.) What a thing "is" in this circumstance I think depends on how the manufacturer defines and markets it. And that's how they seem to define it.

That is to say the difference between being in sporting-goods sales or a weapons dealer if you're in the business of selling baseball bats all depends on the marketing.

Lots of people would be OK with having a sporting goods store in their neighborhood, a store that called itself "KILL-O-MATIC BASHING CLUBS INC." might be more questionable.

You don't have to ban them outright, just require that all "assault weapons" sold to civilians have to be painted a FABULOUS fuchsia/pink color and have cute kittens on one side and pretty hearts and daisies on the other. and it is illegal to deface the standard US Citizen Militia paint scheme.

The Constitution is safe, your right to bear arms has not been infringed. They still do the same thing and one would be free to purchase them and carry them after the appropriate background check.

For what purpose?

Word salad.

More word salad.

They wouldn't be "black and scary" anymore. Possibly a number of former fans of assault rifles would feel awkward owning or carrying them.

However the 2nd Amendment offers no provision for the protection of the emotional state of arms-bearers with respect to the coloration and decorative scheme of the arms which are available for purchase.

You do realize that an ordinary handgun is just as lethal, if not more so, than the so-called "assault weapon".

In fact, the deadliest school shooting in American history (Virginia Tech) involved the use of only two semi-automatic handguns. (32 killed, 17 wounded).

Don't be so quick to blame the big, scary, black gun. It just shows your ignorance (or dotary as the case may be).

Some people do not need a firearm, or for [insert reason] affirmatively choose not to own one. I'm totally fine with that. But you don't get to ban a Constitutional Right. The second amendment is not about hunting.

I will not debate this further. Experience tells me anti-gunners are too entrenched in their beliefs to waste any time trying to educate or enlighten them. They tend to believe the gun itself is the problem, and not the individual holding it.

Most places that have better gun control than the US use gun licenses to limit gun ownership to people who have established that they don't have a criminal record, nor current psychiatric problems.

That's paying attention to the individual holding the gun, rather than the gun itself.

Australia started taking this seriously after the Port Arthur massacre in 1996, and we haven't had a mass shooting since then (not that we'd had many before that).

We banned semi-automatic weapons at the same time, and a lot got turned in and junked, but the emphasis always was on keeping guns out of the hands of nutcases.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

limit gun ownership to people who have established that they don't have a c riminal record, nor current psychiatric problems.

e gun itself.

1996, and we haven't had a mass shooting since then (not that we'd had man y before that).

n and junked, but the emphasis always was on keeping guns out of the hands of nutcases.

Directionally, I agree with you. However, I'm not really convinced having, or not having, a criminal record is an effective means to weed-out those who should not have guns for at lea st the following reasons:

1) Such a system practically guarantees you will never weed-out the first time felon. 2) Here in the US, a felony record is one of the primary determining facto rs in denying the purchase or possession of a gun. However, I feel that so me felonies, particularly those involving non-violent property crimes, tend to be poor indicators of whether someone would actually assault someone. For example, in some jurisdictions, bouncing a $300 check at the bank is a felony. Does that really indicate that person is likely to kill someone wi th a gun?

I'm not sure what the "better system" is, but I think it is somewhere betwe en an outright ban on all guns (or even certain types of guns, since all gu ns are LETHAL), and a bright line test based on a prior felony conviction, or even prior mental health (while acknowledging that ownership prohibition is warranted in cases of violence-based felonies, and also for certain typ es of mental health issues).

And of course, politics are at play, so any solution is doomed to be sub-op timal and ripe for continued abuse, etc..., etc...