All Activity

While I agree with the concept of debating the content and not the source, the only realistic way to do anything useful is to filter out sources that do not meet a certain standard. Being correct sometimes is not a high enough standard. As an example, it is unrealistic to expect someone to spend time disproving the many insane things Alex Jones says regularly. Even though he's right sometimes, and even though he's right sometimes when everyone else is burying the story. It's just the peril of dealing with unlimited information. As an intermediate solution, you can ignore a source with an obvious bias. A sort of "recusal" for media. I'm this case, it's rational to discard Russian-government-controlled media when discussing a war Russia is waging. Yeah, they'll be right sometimes. Too bad so sad. There's not enough time in the day to vet sources with a huge bias when other sources exist. I wouldn't trust the Ukrainian press releases either, nor waste time with them.

What is this, a half dozen or so exchanges we've now had? Each time, I ask what is the specific information you're disputing. Each time, you dodge the question and choose the ad-hominem tactic. You're just keep repeating a fallacious argument. Let's look at the information in a vacuum and evaluate the thing you're upset about. So what's it like on the inside of an actual vault? Do you get to see who killed JFK? Is there a top secret file on the Duran that enlightens you to something you can only allude to, but not actually say. I wouldn't know, but I'm mystified and super impressed. Where did you get this screen shot? What was in the video? What did he say that was wrong? The best defense against bad information is good information, not no information. As should be apparent, I thoroughly... thoroughly... enjoy challenging an opposing viewpoint. A lot. I wouldn't be pursuing this if I didn't know for a fact your position was weak. I know it is because you won't go anywhere near the crux of the issue. You're trying way too hard to dismiss any threatening information wholesale before it's heard, even by you, by attacking the source. I'll even concede to you it's possible that the vast majority of info coming from these sources completely fabricated, but it's impossible that all of it is. I'll wade through a ton of BS to find an ounce of truth, even yours. What is the Russian propaganda being peddled here that you have a problem with? You've made it abundantly clear where that information is being broadcast from, I just want to know what the information is that you don't like. Let's dispense with your haughty condescending ego performance around RT and get down to brass tacks. So, let me repeat the question: What is the Russian propaganda being peddled here that you have a problem with?

the same "privately owned" US news outlets who have CIA officers on the payroll?

No kidding, and your lack of access would be why those of us finding your repeated defense of state sponsored propaganda so eye rolling. Why would we mention clear state funded propaganda like RT when discussing a podcast as radioactive as Duran Gee I wonder. Its owner writes for Russia News Now. Their chief operators all have ties to Russian media having either hosted or worked in those circles before. It has guests on like Scott Ritter to tell you how bad things from Ukraine is, or Cyrus’s Jannessen to provide you in depth analysis on China. If you believe that kind of discourse from sources as bad as that isn’t somehow tainted you’re part of the problem in circumventing Russia and China in their active influence campaigns. You don’t need to go listen to a disgraced spy/convicted pedo who repeatedly bad mouths his country to applause by the Russians to know what he is attempting to package. Duran isnt bringing you some informed perspective because they buck the norm, they are a tool of information warfare. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Wow. Nice. Finally getting rid of USAA totally

I am not a military officer.

Saying RT is the same as privately-owned US news outlets working with the government at times is laughable. Especially from a fellow military officer. This is exactly the point of view Russia would like you to have! So well done there. Reminds me of the video below. While Trump is not technically wrong from a very cynical POV, the worldview is wrong IMHO in that in puts the U.S. government on the same morally equivalent ground as the Russian government, and again, as a mil officer I sincerely hope you don’t actually believe that!

Funny enough that’s a BO.net specialty! 🤣

Yep. I've been buying SPRXX every pay day and had various auto transactions set up. No more need for those extra brain cells in a few weeks!

The words "well regulated" are interesting to think about given that words change meaning over time. Just take the term "decimated". Nearly everyone uses that word to indicated something along the lines of 'nearly annihilated', but that's not even close to what it originally meant. Used to mean killed 10% (notice the 'deci' in it). Similarly, 99.9999% of Americans would think "well regulated" means it is ruled by a lot of laws. But there are many reputable people that point to 1780's contemporary uses of the word regulated much more like the clock example stated earlier, meaning 'it works well'. That would entirely change the implications of gun laws today. https://www.americanrevolutioninstitute.org/video/a-well-regulated-militia-history-of-the-second-amendment/ On the topic, it would be interesting to know how many crimes are solved with the serial number being a significant aid to the investigation. My guess would be near zero. Think about the scenario that it would actually help in; you'd have to have a murder scene where someone threw the gun away at the scene. And that person would have had to have bought the gun legally in order for the serial number to be associated with them. Seems unlikely. Finally, as technology continues to evolve, the manufacture of ghost guns will only get easier and nearly impossible to manage. Go buy a few thousand dollars worth of equipment and you can print or mill guns. In just the last 10 years, 3D printed guns have gone from curiosity pet projects that fail after shooting a couple rounds to being able to last hundreds of rounds. More than enough for a criminal. That's just the 3D printing, you get a mill that cuts out receivers from aluminum blocks (a set up you could easily do in your garage) and you could make guns better quality than many gun manufacturers. Technology will continue to evolve faster than 80 year old legislators and 85 year old presidents can keep up with.

Awesome, thanks. This will simplify my life It's a shame USAA is "just another back" now.

Better yet consider putting what you have in a trust. My .69

I first saw it in the official Fidelity reddit from their customer service people. It's also on your March CMA statement in the Additional Information and Endnotes:

Related to Ron J.? ...Yikes

Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio was hot!!!

Going through this now with my in-laws. For the love of all that is holy, write out your will in excruciating detail and remove any family member from executing it.

Got a link to the jun 15 change on the sweep? Thanks for the heads up, I'm going to get this set up

Definitely a poet first... his songs all sound poorly produced and his voice is trash. But the lyrics are always amazing. I always had this one in my head when we'd all drunkedly stumble back to the base in UPT.

They really missed an opportunity to say "Britain's Greatest Penis," I think that would have been better 🍆

That was my thought too. 3 1/2 hours is a long way to go to randomly break into a house.

While I agree in principal, recidivism is a real problem with crime and we simply don't have the resources (or will power) to keep that many people locked up forever. I don't have a great answer, obviously, but a background check is relatively painless and there are definitely people you don't want having guns. For example, a murderer/rapist/gang banger awaiting trial out on bail. Abolishing the entire bail system isn't realistic. More controversially, I am open to limited waiting periods. Far more than background checks. No more than 7 days, but maybe an even lower limit. Crimes of passion are real and demonstrated, and cooler heads often prevail with time. I can think of no constitutional scenario where a gun needs to be purchased *now* as opposed to next week. You aren't forming a functional anti-tyrannical-governmental force in 24 hours. Concerns about self-defense (which are arguably not what 2A addresses) might require a gun sooner, but I think you can allow police the option to waive a waiting period and you wouldn't have a worse outcome than we have now. I think state-funded gun safety courses would be a brilliant move for the cause. Conservatives are so against spending money, but if you really wanted to change the narrative and get more people comfortable with the 2A, this would be a low cost way to make gun owners safer, make more people gun-friendly, and take away many liberal arguments against gun ownership.

This is a concept that was recently brought up in court regarding an illegal immigrant having a gun. The judge ruled in his favor. Do the rights protected by the Bill of Rights extend to all people, as they are "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights" or is the Declaration referring to other rights? Saying that the Amendments don't stand individually poses the same problem as many of the proposed gun laws... where do you draw the line? Who gets to decide how much "responsibility" one must display to be worthy of the Rights? Obviously there is a limit somewhere, as we restrict the ability of felons to vote and own weapons, but even that is a contested idea, one I struggle with. As to the serial numbers, first you have to demonstrate that serial numbers are reducing gun crime. Not just helping track the gun to wherever it came from. Are criminals avoiding serialized guns? Are they getting caught because of the serial number? So many laws are some nerd's idea that might do this or might do that, without any evidence before or after that it actually does anything at all. Yet the law rarely has a sunset clause like the assault weapons ban of 1993 had. Serial numbers do absolutely help the government track guns. That's bad. So the associated good needs to be clear and supported. I don't see evidence of that right now. With "ghost guns" the problem would be if someone starts making a bunch of guns and funneling them to gangs/cartels. Is this already illegal? If so, do we need another law making it illegal? Is this (meaningfully) increasing the number of guns in criminals' hands? I think the argument for banning ghost guns is that the serial number allows the maker to be tracked down easily. Obviously someone making guns for the cartel isn't going to follow that law anyways, so instead this becomes a law that you can use to theoretically "get" the cartel suppliers for making unserialized guns without actually proving they were selling guns to bad guys. Like how Al Capone was nabbed for tax evasion instead of all the actual murdering and booze-running. But that was a bullshit tactic in the first place, not a victory of law-enforcement. Forensics have advanced to the point we don't need to play games like that anymore to catch crooks. But this is also so niche I just don't care much. I would much rather have the NFA restrictions on suppressors and short barrels addressed.

From the AP I'm gonna withhold judgement on this one. For now, at least, until more info comes out. It sounds like this is a case of family members battling after a death. If you've ever witnessed it, you know. Reasonable people do unreasonable things when a death happens in the family. Even more so if a step parent is involved.

Yeah. About that. Pretty sure I'd take a coalitions' financial and operationally-ready weapons support to the tune of $278B as of Jan 24'....especially American and German tech, they seem historically kick-ass and dominant in lethality and effectiveness. https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/articles/these-countries-have-committed-the-most-aid-to-ukraine#:~:text=The majority of committed support,billion in aid to Ukraine.