Well, the poster is mostly linguistic prescriptivism (defining what words mean). That small caveat at the bottom that words can mean whatever you want them to can't really defeat the entire rest of the poster.
So it's conservative to refuse to ban tobacco? Do you agree with the general consensus that it's also conservative to ban marijuana? How do you square those two attitudes, if so?
Names are meaningless. The allies were fighting the "National Socialists", who weren't Socialists. Likewise, "Defund the Police" movement members need not actually support defunding the police - supporting lowering their funding without lowering it to zero still qualifies.
A person turning right on red fundamentally lacks right of way: when someone doing that gets in a collision, it was inherently an illegal right turn without the law changing. I don't see how changing the law from one kind of that turn being illegal to another would change the risks in any meaningful way.
Doing that doesn't teach children to share - it teaches them to avoid getting caught because both the abuser and the victim will be punished, so even as the victim it's best to keep your abuse private.
Absolutely everyone with an interest in a self-defense firearm would prefer a "high capacity" one. The only guns that aren't high capacity are single-shot and revolvers, both useless for self-defense in general.
High caliber is not relevant here; we are discussing all weapons Connecticut has defined as "assault", including low-caliber ones, not specifically e.g. .50s. For example, some AR platform rifles fire 22 caliber rounds, very famously a low caliber by anyone's definition.
2A) If it were relevant, you would be wrong, as low-caliber weapons are completely useless against bears and other large wildlife, as well as anyone in body armor. People don't buy self-defense firearms knowing what threat they will need to stop.
Same again for Rifle; the statutes in question label many non-Rifles as "assault".
3A) Rifles are significantly more accurate than handguns and hence are significantly more credible for home defense than handguns, whose only benefit is portability for self-defense on the go. Given the choice between a handgun or a rifle for home defense, only a fool would choose a handgun. Because home defense can include close-quarters combat and is never going to include very long distances, a relatively short-barreled rifle is your best bet - only a fool would choose a long rifle optimized for hunting long-distance targets.
For starters, let's be clear: Jacob Brown committed battery, a violation of Louisiana state law. This case is about an alleged violation of Federal law and simply isn't a battery case. That means it's not as cut and dry as "we have this guy on video committing battery with a flashlight, of course he's guilty".
So if you want to claim this case is open and shut or cut and dry, you need to point to some element of that law Jacob violated and then explain how it's so obvious he violated that element.
My first guess, and to be clear, I am speculating, is that they tried to prove Jacob battered Aaron because Aaron was black. That means proving beyond a reasonable doubt that Jacob doesn't simply beat everyone up, which is very difficult to prove, especially since so many cops genuinely do simply beat everyone up.
It's not about being correct, it's about how the mathematics of voting works. American Presidential elections are fundamentally designed to force you into a binary choice. This is fixable ans so of course Congress refuses to fix it, but the problem is real, not a delusion.
Absolute nonsense. Cities inherently suck in a way that can't be fixed and no rational person would ever choose to live in one if genuinely given the choice. Being that close to so many other people, which is the definition of city, is the optimal way to ensure suffering. No thank you.
Trademarks are a government-enforced (i.e. publicly-mandated) monopoly, which is fundamentally antithetical to capitalism.
Capitalism: "an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit."
For sure, there are many shades of grey to be had here, and the world has 0 purely capitalist societies (in fact, such a society is inherently impossible). But every time the public controls trade and industry, e.g. when enforcing trademark law, that isn't capitalism.
Well, the poster is mostly linguistic prescriptivism (defining what words mean). That small caveat at the bottom that words can mean whatever you want them to can't really defeat the entire rest of the poster.