Apparently my current shtick is that I talk about knives at great length. Also motorcycles.
- 0 Posts
- 362 Comments
And even the KJV edits did not manage to paper over the fact that there are in fact 18 if you count Sky Daddy’s recitation/rant in Exodus after the whole golden calf incident.
He probably could, but he can’t buy a gun to put on it so what he’s got is a funny shaped ineffective club.
The nomenclature I always hear is, “Experiencing a higher than expected call volume,” and since no one can prove how low their expectations actually are there is no crack in which to insert the prybar of legal complaint.
America.
Retailers are allowed to disclaim the merchantability and fitness for any particular purpose of the items they sell and most do. The customer is free to refuse, of course, via the simple expedient of going away and buying it somewhere else.
This is partially a blame-shifting exercise to reduce costs, yes, but it’s also a shield against the ceaseless horde of dipshits we have in this country who will willfully misuse a product and then immediately try to sue the retailer they bought it from when it doesn’t work or they hurt themselves with it via their own stupidity. It is much easier from a legal perspective to make a blanket “we don’t imply this product is applicable for any purpose” statement vs. having to explicitly predict whatever cockamamie thing someone might try it on and have to say “no, moron, that chainsaw is not suitable for cutting bricks,” etc.
Read all that fine print on the back of your receipt some day. You will be enlightened and, most likely, also infuriated.
I ain’t bringing logic into it, I’m just pointing out how the law has been interpreted.
Attaching things to guns that enable fully automatic fire as it is defined by the law, i.e. more than one shot per activation of the trigger, do count, though. This includes things such as full auto sear or those fucking “Glock switches” that are so popular these days.
With a crank trigger you have to keep cranking it to keep firing, like an old wild west Gatling gun. You can’t just hold it down and the gun dumps the magazine on its own. A bump stock aids the user in rapidly pressing the trigger over and over again. You can bump fire a rifle even without a bump stock if you are sufficiently practiced or skilled.
The problem now is that in the modern global age we have plenty of enemies who have massive standing armies. China and Russia leap to mind. That sort of thing may have worked when America was physically isolated from outside forces by a several months long boat ride. Not the case anymore.
Abolishing everybody’s massive standing armies would be a pretty good idea, but I don’t foresee that happening any time soon.
mechanically activating a trigger rapidly with a motor activated with a single button press would be legal.
I believe it is. So are crank triggers, which clamp on to your trigger guard and click the trigger for you 2/3/4 times per revolution.
Diaper Don, the “Take away their guns and worry about the due process later” guy? That Donald Trump, right?
Are we going to tackle the dumbass pistol brace fiasco next?
It would be elementary to make bump stocks illegal, because bump stocks are not firearms. Making bump stocks illegal wouldn’t cross the Second Amendment.
Correct. The issue was that the ATF tried to do an end-run around the legal process. Somebody in there did not watch that Schoolhouse Rock song about how bills become law… All that has to happen (federally, anyway) is that Congress must pass a law prohibiting them and the president has to sign it. But that’s not what happened. The ATF – under Trump’s direction, mind you – tried unilaterally to redefine an item that is not a firearm as a regulated firearm. What is and is not a firearm (and what is and is not a “machine gun” also) is already codified into law.
You can argue for or against unelected agencies having the ability to create new regulations with the force of law behind them without involving the usual system of checks-and-balances, but specifically in the case of the ATF they have repeatedly demonstrated that they are not able to use such a privilege in good faith. They would be (and are) exceedingly likely to use it as a cudgel to play these “legal yesterday, felony today” types of games with people so give themselves excuses to kick in doors and shoot people’s dogs.
Various state laws already prohibit bump stocks. My state is one of them.
For the classic 1950’s atomic war scenario, probably more for flying glass and so forth.
Obviously it’s not going to save you from a direct hit. You need to get in a fridge to be protected from that sort of thing…
Do it. Do it and use them to troll the fuck out of all the MAGA-hat snowflakes who aren’t up on their news.
Oh, and be sure to post their inevitable unhinged responses everywhere for yuks as well.
It’s not the recycling icon. It is a “resin identifier code,” and the symbol is meant to resemble the recycling icon in a deliberately deceptive manner while remaining technically different.
traffic stop
Never break more than one law at a time…
You forgot the part about where the individual in question goes to jail when caught. That part is important.
That was always the goal.
China (and probably Russia still) have satellites that can read the headlines on your newspaper from orbit. The notion that they’d need or use noisy, unreliable, and easily noticed commercial hobbyist drones for this purpose is laughably absurd. Even if they are planning on secretly snooping on the feeds of privately owned fliers, which is probably not actually feasible at scale anyway. How is the data supposed to be transmitted back to China? Magic? Through the cloud via the user’s cell phone data, with no one noticing? Gigabytes and gigabytes of it per flight? I’m not buying it.
The real reason the US government is so scared of drones is because it will allow the citizenry (i.e., us) to document abuses and authoritarianism in a manner that’s pretty tough to stop with the usual billy clubs/guns/tear gas/water cannons method. Think BLM, Occupy, future climate protests, and all of those sorts of things. Unchecked aerial photography and video that contradicts the Official Narrative from whatever today’s incident happens to be making it out to the internet and going viral would be highly inconvenient, wouldn’t it? Someone can be capturing video of the police shooting protestors or whatever and easily be half a mile away from where the drone itself is located.
It speaks volumes about the pathology and mindset of American legislators and law enforcement that they inherently see drones as a “spy” technology. That’s because this is exactly what they plan to use them for, and are terrified that someone else might do the same thing to them.
Well, tough fucking titty.