GroundedGator @ GroundedGator @lemmy.world

Posts

3

Comments

326

Joined

2 yr. ago

I wasn't discounting anyone. I wasn't even offering a solution. Simply an anecdote.

Well said.

I grew up playing soccer on a coed team. At a certain age you could be picked or tryout for a more advanced league. Up until highschool we were devided by skill not gender and I have no problem admitting there were more than a few girls that were much more skilled than I was.

Isn't it that the trigger is squeezed once and the recoil causes the crock to bounce back which results in another trigger action? Even though there is only one action by the shooter, it would seem to be multiple trigger actions.

They don't need to ban specific parts, and in fact they shouldn't. They could ban anything designed to accelerate rate of fire.

That's exactly what they should do. But SCOTUS seems to think that the bump stock cannot be banned because there is no law about bump stocks specifically.

The ban on bump stocks was implemented using the Firearms' Owners Protection Act of 1986. Which was signed into law by Reagan (funny how a failed assassination will change things).

The text at issue is

SEC. 109. AMENDMENT OF NATIONAL FIREARMS ACT. (a) Section 58450)) of the National Firearms Act (26 U.S.C. 5845(b)) is amended by striking out "any combination of parts designed and intended for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun," and inserting in lieu thereof "any part designed and intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts designed and intended, for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun,"

IMO the majority in this decision is choosing to blatantly ignore the text of the act which was clearly chosen to future-proof for any advancement which would result in an effortless high rate of fire such as bump stock and super safety. Instead they are insisting that Congress must amend the law to include specific parts which of course is a losing battle as there will always be a new part that achieves an effortless high rate of fire.

Now where one could argue that this ruling is correct is the accepted definition of a machinegun requires a single trigger action.

26 U.S.C. § 5845(b)

Any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger

Personally I think the laws should be amended to define weapons and munitions by their result (high or continuous rate of fire) instead of their form or function. As it stands, someone could create a weapon that simply fires continuously but does not resemble a gun in any other way. Would such a weapon be a machinegun if it doesn't even have a trigger?

I think the dissenting opinion was more inline with the intent of FOPA.

I hate you.

While the cop is outside after hitting update on the app.

Good ole Chode

Not saying it's justified to bully anyone, but maybe the fruit has rotted with the tree.

A more hopeful part of me believes that she's been saddled with a toxic family and has suffered for it. And now she'll be able to escape and be free.

I'm in. I'll eat a whole case. A butter dipping sauce out maybe just some buttercream frosting would go nicely.

I will now learn to speak this word fluently and use it often to announce my farts.

Excuse me, I must retire to the veranda to tune my bumbulum.

Won't last.

That is a chill-inducing phrase.

They don't care if he did. I'd argue most of his supporters in the party (Mike Johnson for example) know that he is a horrible person but will support him because he has energized a dormant portion of the voting population that can help them to gain and hold power. Trump himself isn't even that bad, he's a useful idiot who gives immense power to far right organizations like the heritage foundation.

There is a difference between standard bleach and pinesol usage and using it as a way to conceal other smells or problems. Or even worse, not knowing how to use those chemicals to clean. You know how to use a weak bleach solution for cooking surfaces, does your bartender? I've seen front of house employees over use cleaning chemicals because isn't it better to use stronger chemicals to clean. My favorite was the hostess who didn't want to clean the bathroom so she would just fill the soap and and paper products and fill a spray bottle with Lysol that she would spray around to give the smell of a clean bathroom.

It's unlikely anyone will notice the smell of properly used cleaning products.

Back then, most people didn't understand the threat that was Trump. I sure didn't know all of the horrific things he did. This was pre Epstein. This was before Stormy.

I thought he was just a bombastic rich asshole with a shit political outlook.

Someone taking a job in that campaign had no reason to think it would be toxic. Most campaigns are not run by the candidate but by the party.

This woman has done so much work for many people who worked on the campaign. She has spent her own resources to get the NDAs that her and others signed declared non binding, or whatever the legal term is.

I'm not a fan of Trump supporters, but telling them to pound sand because they supported him at some point but have seen the errors in their ways will do us no favors.

Check out some of her work and her story

Her story

There are many people under the age of 25 who do not fully understand what happened on January 6. They are being inundated with news of genocide and how Biden is directly responsible. They do not fully understand what the first Trump presidency was. Only politics junkies seem to understand the threat of project 2025 and plan 47.

We have an entire generation who hate Biden and didn't see the threat of Trump.

I had an LG and a Kyocera back in the day that could do that. They had some small non-connected games. Of course I couldn't do much with the hotspot as this was on 3G.

And how much of that content was provided at a loss?

YouTube has always had ads. But less usage meant less cost. If 40% are using ad blockers, more ads will be shown to the 60%.

There is an unspoken agreement that if you consume you allow the ads. By using ad blockers, we've brought a lot of this on ourselves.

That being said, my views are very fantastical. Profit is the ultimate driver and very few (wiki who doesn't even use ads) are only hoping to cover costs.

There needs to be a balance.