When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
1. No military-style weapons
2. No high-capacity magazines
#3-4 are theoretically implementable, as they specify discrete ends. #1 and 2 are the arguments I more commonly see put-forth, and they fall apart. #5 I hadn't heard before, but it also lacks definition.
What is a "military style" weapon? The Colt 1911 pistol? The Beretta M9 pistol? The Colt 1873 "Peacemaker" single-action revolver? The Ka-Bar knife? The single-ended hand axe?
What is a "high capacity" magazine? 10 rounds? That's what the Soviet-era SKS held. 8 rounds? That's what the US M1 Garand, which took back France from the *****, held. Both were effective tools of war in the mid to late 20th century. (Both also have non-detachable magazines, and so are legal in California to the best of my knowledge.)
What is an "arsenal?" When I was a kid, my father probably had 100+ handguns. They were all kept in neatly-organized rows on shelves in the spare bedroom. Maybe 5 or so of them were "modern" weapons that routinely went to the range. The rest were antiques or weapons which more some specific historical significance, and were merely cherished, observed, wiped with a oily rag from time to time, etc. Was that an arsenal, or was it an art collection?
Hmm, I wonder what they would have to say about the .223 remington round? Now that sounds like a hunting round!
sounds like a military style assault rifle to me.
“WE NEED VAN CONTROL”...
Editorial by Kevin Ryan
“We need van control!” was the top snarky comment on social media after a van mowed down people in Toronto this afternoon. “We need [whatever] control!” is usually the first (and most prevalent) comment by pro-Second Amendment people when a high profile crime is committed with something other than a firearm. These sarcastic jabs against gun control advocates are obnoxious, annoying, obvious, repetitive, and incredibly insensi...tive. Frankly, we need “we need joke” control.
That said, these commenters do have a point: It’s absurd to blame an inanimate object for a crime. When gun control advocates make their knee-jerk “We need gun control!” proclamations after every shooting, they are just as misguided in their search for a solution as someone would be if they thought banning vans would reduce crime.
That’s because a van IS NOT A MOTIVE. Nor is a knife, gun, club, hammer, bomb, or book of matches.
Or a machete. The 1994 genocide in Rwanda was committed largely with machetes... yet nobody blames that horrible crime on machetes. That’s because machetes were not the motive for the Rwandan genocide. Instead, a political conflict between competing ethnic populations was to blame. Ask yourself what a better strategy would have been for preventing that tragedy: machete control, or peaceful negotiations to settle the differences?
Likewise, the motivation for today’s van attack in Toronto was not the van. It was mental illness, or a vendetta, or some sick ideology, etc. You could have banned every rental van in Canada, and the crime would most likely still have occurred, just using a different weapon.
And for those who still think gun control is the answer to violence, ask yourself the following questions:
Shouldn’t countries with more firearms have higher murder and crime rates? Instead, there is a NEGATIVE correlation between firearm ownership and murder rates. And the same holds true on a state and local level.
Shouldn’t murder rates have been essentially zero before the invention of firearms? Instead, murder rates were 100 times higher before guns even existed.
And for those who say “Well, obviously, the reason crime was higher in those time periods (or in those countries, or states, or cities) is because there was greater poverty, or cultural differences, or demographic or educational variations: You are making the point that firearms are NOT the reason crime takes place...
...anymore than the existence of Ryder truck rental outlets is the reason today’s crime took place in Canada.
although MSNBC would have you disagree:
“What is your message, I guess I want to ask, to those who say, ‘Don’t touch my guns no matter what’?,” Stephanie Ruhle fretted to Bret Stephens.
Stephens proclaimed: “Well, that’s exactly it. The problem that we have is that we have not just a legal regime, but a culture in which the way in which guns are treated as sort of ordinary household implements is precisely what leads to the deaths of the sort we just saw in Waffle House.”
...
But we don’t want to do that, what we want to say is that there was an AR-15, a weapon of mass destruction, in a Waffle House….the real criminal here is that AR-15.”
There was some talk of "arsenal" limits many years ago. It was based on ammo. The problem with that is, if you are a shooter, you need to buy in bulk to make it less expensive. So, having 20,000 rounds of whatever caliber sounds excessive, in reality it is the way smart people purchase ammo. Bulk is naturally cheaper.
BTW, at one time I had over 50,000 rounds of ammo in various calibers. Back when you could get SKS ammo for less than 5 cents a round, I'd buy multiple cases (1250 rounds) at a time. Same with 9mm, .22 rimfire, etc.
I think "reasonable gun control" means that we should prevent private citizens from owning nuclear weapons.
I also think that 2A doesn't limit us to guns. It carries over to all arms. A wealthy person or any private group of people with a lot of money ought to be able to buy a B-2 Bomber complete with current tech, fully arm it with conventional smart weapons, and be free to fly it just as any other aircraft. That was, after all, the original intent of 2A, was it not?
Edit: I would argue of course that said owner would be expected to complete the prerequisite background checks, to include some significant form of a Single Scope Background Investigation, as well as properly permit the owned destructive devices.
I think "reasonable gun control" means that we should prevent private citizens from owning nuclear weapons.
I also think that 2A doesn't limit us to guns. It carries over to all arms. A wealthy person or any private group of people with a lot of money ought to be able to buy a B-2 Bomber complete with current tech, fully arm it with conventional smart weapons, and be free to fly it just as any other aircraft. That was, after all, the original intent of 2A, was it not?
Actually, while the 2A doesn't specifically define the term "arms", it would be tough to extend "shall not be infringed" to more than what a typical member of "the militia" might be expected to personally own and operate.
"That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, "
"provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty ***** suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack. "
NO ****, that's how "The Militia" is defined. Why don't you ever hear about this on CNN when talking heads claim that the militia is just the National Guard? While I think that the whole "white male citizen" is a bit outdated, it's pretty clear that if we wrote a modern version of who the militia is and what weapons they should personally own, it would look something like this:
"Every adult citizen or legal resident of the United States or it's territories, shall be a member of the militia. Each person shall be responsible for providing themselves with a modern fighting firearm in a commonly used military caliber and 300 rounds of ammunition."
I'd pony up for a SCAR Heavy and Para 1911 double-stack.
I'm in Switzerland this week. More guns per capita than TX. Local townspeople were out practicing at the village range today. Darn good shots. When you are next to Germany and are neutral, a militia is still required. And the men here have the service rifles that they were discharged with from mandatory military service. Full auto -- provided by the government.
The developer of one of the highest profile leftist and progressive-driven games of the year has revealed his project to be a complete flop, despite positive reviews.
The invisible hand of the free market gave this “high art” product a knockout punch.
In a recent post-mortem of the game, Where the Water Tastes Like Wine, its designer and programmer Johnnemann Nordhagen, complained that the game’s $140,000 budget has resulted in a loss for his company, Dim Bulb Games.
Nordhagen, a former Gone Home developer, says that his title sold fewer than 4,000 copies since its release a few weeks ago despite receiving a positive response from game journalists, who drove the game’s hype prior to its release slightly over a month ago.
As detailed by One Angry Gamer, the game’s sales actually peaked at 6,200 but almost half of its owners requested refunds for the title after playing it for less than two hours, bringing the figure down to around 3,800.
...
even with help from your agenda drivers:
Other contributors to Where The Water Tastes Like Wine include Kotaku writer Gita Jackson, ZAM editor Laura Michet, and former game journalist Leigh Alexander, whose 2014 article on Gamasutra kicked off GamerGate.
“Gamers don’t have to be your audience,” she claimed. “Gamers are over.”
Were that so, Where The Water Tastes Like Wine wouldn’t have been a commercial failure.
Nordhagen bragged about the game’s positive reception from the Washington Post, whose writer Harold Goldberg called it a “giant leap forward for video game storytelling.”
A further dissection of the game from Nordhagen reveals the game’s underlying issues—namely that despite all the hype, the game just isn’t very good. Numerous bugs stemmed from a lack of playtesting, a lack of expertise in actually developing and programming the game, as well as “forgetting that the PC uses a mouse and keyboard”—an issue that caused no shortage of user interface issues for players—contributed to the game’s overall mediocrity.
It’s worth noting that while gamers who bought the title had few good things to say about it, the media, which hyped the title, failed to identify these issues. Reviews of the game were generally favorable. Several publications, including the Washington Post, PC Powerplay, Game Informer, and Hardcore Gamer gave the title near-perfect scores.
So, apparently touching food is too icky for young folks.
Supermarket Releases Special Packaging for Millennials Who Hate Touching Raw Meat One focus group participant admitted spraying an antibacterial disinfectant on a plate of chicken before she prepared it.
Jelisa Castrodale
APR 17 2018, 12:07PM
Being under 30 is rough. You have to sit by while old people (over 40s) loudly unwrap their Werther’s Originals and make sweeping generalizations about your avocado obsession and your participation trophies. You have to worry about your overwhelming student loan payments, about our dwindling natural resources, and whether or not you should be OK with the yodeling Walmart kid showing up at Coachella. And on top of that, you occasionally have to handle raw meat.
But one of Britain’s biggest supermarket chains wants to eliminate the “Y THO”-levels of stress from meat-touching, and is launching touch-free packages of meat just for its squeamish Millennial customers. Sainsbury’s says that its new chicken packaging will allow dry-heaving home cooks to slide the meat directly from the plastic pouch into the pan, and will not require them to place a single finger on a piece of glistening poultry flesh. Sainsbury’s says, “You’re welcome.”
According to The Sunday Times, the chain decided to change its packaging after a marketing research survey revealed that 37 percent of Millennials said they “preferred not to handle raw meat” while they cooked their meals. “Customers, particularly younger ones, are quite scared of touching raw meat,” Katherine Hall, product development manager for meat, fish and poultry at Sainsbury’s, told the outlet. “These bags allow people, especially those who are time-poor, to just ‘rip and tip’ the meat straight into the frying pan without touching it.”
Hall said that some of Sainsbury’s twentysomething customers are freaked out because of a “lack of education” about food safety or because they’re so used to eating out, that they’d just “prefer someone else” to cook for them. Still others are worried about the potential for getting food poisoning from raw poultry. (Hall said one focus group participant admitted spraying an antibacterial disinfectant on a plate of chicken before she prepared it, a seasoning technique that hopefully she never repeated. Or served to anyone. Or ate).
Although some customers might breathe legit sighs of relief, a lot of others are either dismissively rolling their eyes or clenching their own jaws in irritation. “So they are adding MORE plastic packaging when other retailers are trying to reduce? Crazy @sainsburys! If you can't bear to touch raw meat you shouldn't be eating it” one critic tweeted, a sentiment that was frequently repeated in the supermarket’s mentions. And one Welsh paper covered Sainsbury’s announcement with an entire paragraph explaining why Millennials deserved that overused precipitation-based epithet. “So-called Millennials—those born after 1980—have been dubbed the “snowflake” generation by their elders,” the Daily Post harrumphed. “This is largely down to their generally sensitive and liberal approach to politics and heightened self awareness—although often stereotyped as sheltered and entitled.”
Sainsbury’s says that the new chicken packages will be available in its stores on May 3. Here’s hoping everyone can get by until then.
An unrepentant artist from the California town of Chula Vista incited massive outrage last weekend after she exploited a scholarship fundraising event to paint a disturbing mural that depicted the decapitated head of President Donald Trump.
During the Battlegroundz fundraiser at the MAAC Community Charter School, students and artists from around the country were invited to paint urban art murals in an alleyway reportedly behind the school.
Artist Sasha Andrade used the opportunity to express her disturbing views regarding the president of the United States of America.
After her mural went viral on social media, outrage quickly followed, spurring the school to first cover up the mural with black plastic and later upgrade the cover to plywood.
04-24-2018, 08:25 AM
0
