All Activity

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.

If that were truly the case, then I would have no issue with it; but far too many times we have seen violent offenders released only to commit more crimes. That said, there are cases where the right to bear arms has no bearing on the matter at hand (i.e., non-violent crimes), and should not be a factor.

That's from the Democratic/Liberal viewpoint...

I've been making my way through this page. Fascinating debates by our founding fathers about their concerns when writing the Constitution. https://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/debcont.asp I found this passage pertaining to John Madison's speech to be particularly relevant today. It's from June 29th. "His great fear was that their Governments would then have too much energy, that these might not only be formidable in the large to the small States, but fatal to the internal liberty of all. The same causes which have rendered the old world the Theatre of incessant wars, & have banished liberty from the face of it, would soon produce the same effects here. The weakness & jealousy of the small States would quickly introduce some regular military force against sudden danger from their powerful neighbours. The example would be followed by others, and would soon become universal. In time of actual war, great discretionary powers are constantly given to the Executive Magistrate. Constant apprehension of war, has the same tendency to render the head too large for the body. A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defence against foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people. It is perhaps questionable, whether the best concerted system of absolute power in Europe could maintain itself, in a situation, where no alarms of external danger could tame the people to the domestic yoke. The insular situation of G. Britain was the principal cause of her being an exception to the general fate of Europe. It has rendered less defence necessary, and admitted a kind of defence which could not be used for the purpose of oppression. -These consequences he conceived ought to be apprehended whether the States should run into a total separation from each other, or shd. enter into partial confederacies. Either event wd. be truly deplorable; & those who might be accessary to either, could never be forgiven by their Country, nor by themselves."

The only person who has mentioned or linked to RT is you. Am I wrong? Quote the post. The best you can do is... stil... a random unsourced screenshot of an unknown person claiming the podcast is linked, but by multiple layers of separation. This is called the "straw man argument" and you can add it to your growing list of dubious debate tactics. It would be so cool if you would just acknowledge, address, and debate the actual specific pieces of information you disagree with. You'll also find it's much easier than using your repertoire of tactics to do anything but. Yes, RT is an outlet for state propaganda. This is not new information and I thought it was so obvious that I didn't need to make a confession to you. We in the US, also have dozens of media outlets coordinating with government officials to censor dissenting information and distribute approved information. That shouldn't be new information, either. Do you not know this? It's just a fact of life that both sides carry water for both governments. Objectively, usable information can still be gleaned. There is virtually no unbiased information floating around out there. All of it has to be taken with a grain of salt, deconstructed, and it's parts evaluated. Not only do you refuse to do any of this, but admit that you don't even know who has deemed that info as false. And then you wave it around to everyone shouting "PROOF!" It's mind-bending. I'm not here just to be contrarian. My motivations are not a problem for me or anyone else. I'm not being creative here. Lying takes effort and this is effortless. These things are as apparent to me as going inside, pointing up and saying "Hey, the sky is blue" and being met with a chorus of angry people saying "Why did you go outside? WTF? Putin also thinks the sky is blue you Russian shill! It's not always blue, sometimes it's gray, liar! Whatabout the clouds? They're white, moron!" I only want people to consider than they're being manipulated. What is the alternative to Bashi or me or anyone else posting here with a different perspective? Would you rather have a little circle jerk with only the people who wear the same blinders you do? That's what it seems like. You're actually arguing that you don't have first hand knowledge or critical thinking skills. You just let other strange people on the internet tell you what info you should and should not look at. I find it fascinating anyone operates like that.

I had to “convince” my Wing commander to sign the waiver using my network. I didn’t know him, he didn’t know me so others (sq/cc, chief pilot, his execs) had to vouch for me. I haven’t heard one way or the other about others getting denied. The point of the waiver is to screen those that really shouldn’t serve anymore due to whatever (hard to work with, lazy, poor piloting skills, etc). The scroll and waiver are 2 independent processes.

The Hurricane Hunters strike again.