The whole "school shooting" phenomena is peak liberal hand-wringing.
There were 39 school shootings this year [2024] that resulted in injuries or deaths, according to an Education Week analysis. There were 38 school shootings with injuries or deaths in 2023. There were 51 in 2022, 35 in 2021, 10 in 2020, and 24 each in 2019 and 2018.
https://www.edweek.org/leadership/school-shootings-this-year-how-many-and-where/2024/01
This would include both Columbine style stalk through the halls and kill everyone in sight shootings as well as a couple of hoodrats shooting each other over some petty dispute. To put this in perspective, there are over 111,000 schools in America, meaning you had a 0.03423% chance of being in a school shooting in 2024, not considering how many of those would be avoided simply by not going to a shitty school filled with junior criminals.
This is also the chance that you will be present at a school shooting, not that you will be killed in one. Those odds are 1 in 5 million, less than drowning or being struck by lightning.
All this to say that school shootings are mostly a non issue that is pushed to the forefront by media sensationalism and liberal "won't somebody think of the children?!?" screeching.
I always tell people that communism is an interesting idea: what if we all worked our very best, took only what we needed, and placed the good of society over our own selfish desires?
But it doesn't work (even a little bit) in practice. Selfishness and abuse of power are baked into the human psyche. The 1960s was rife with failed communes, proving even small scale implementation fails.
And this is where the left pisses me off to no end, because their entire political platform is based on half baked ideas and they just hand wave it away and double down on them when they inevitably fail.
In WWII the US supplied our Russian "friends" with the following items via Lend-Lease:
- 400,000 jeeps and trucks
- 14,000 airplanes
- 8,000 tractors
- 13,000 tanks
- Over 1.5 million blankets
- 15 million pairs of army boots
- 107,000 tons of cotton
- 2.7 million tons of petroleum products
- 4.5 million tons of food
Oh, and the US and its allies also fought Germany in the Atlantic, North Africa, and Western Europe. But yeah, Stalin basically won the war by himself. Asshole.
"Out of the way, peck!"
I was going to say the same thing. How many people using the term boomer even know that it refers to the post WWII "baby boom" of the latest 1940s and early 1950s?
Don't even get me started on the term "boomer shooter", which refers to video games like Doom that came out in the 1990s when these folks would have been in their forties and probably not even playing video games like current 40 year olds do because they didn't grow up with them.
Go try to buy some kind of small consumer electronic. A handheld radio, a solar charger, a USB media player, some headphones, an electric thermos, etc. Just pick something and go look for what brands are selling one. You'll see the obvious China junk brands, but a tiny handful of 'good' brands, that are also made in and owned by China.
Of the retro game players are made by Chinese brands, as are MP3 players now that the zune and iPod are a distant memory.
I carry a small Swiss Army knife on my keychain and use it every day for something. I also carry a small lockback for heavier duty cutting where a little slip joint isn't safe. I can't imagine living in a place that treats knives like the authoritarians in the UK do.
I see what you did there.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bad_Dudes_Vs._DragonNinja
I liked that game.
sword: a curved blade of 50 centimetres or over
I guess European style straight swords are good to go?
Jesus, looking at this list is both depressing if that you have a government willing to jail or kill you for owning these innocuous items, and a window into how small minded politicians are.
"Zombie knife". LoL, it's like the retards got their hands on a BudK catalog and just banned anything scary looking.
I'm actually surprised they disciplined her at all.
There's several Supreme Court cases that have held that police have no duty to protect individual citizens even when they see them being attacked right before their eyes. This is simply logical conclusion to that policy.
So, good on Miami for imposing standards when they could have just copped out.
What we would consider "modern" police departments didn't exist until the late 1800s.
For example, Teddy Roosevelt professionalized the NYPD as police commissioner from 1895-97. He put phones in all police stations, established physical standards, and armed them all with pistols. I have to believe he would be disappointed if he could see what his efforts morphed into through the 20th century to today.
All this to say that, while we see how cops are and what they do as a fact of life, this is not how it historically worked and it's not what the founding fathers would have intended.
Wickard v Filburn
Ah yes: you grew this wheat for your own private use, but it's existence impacts the markets because now you won't be buying something that you otherwise might have bought, therefore it's "in or affecting interstate commerce".
A ridiculous argument that, taken to its logical conclusion, grants the federal government unlimited power over everything because every act or failure to act and every piece of property or raw material can potentially affect interstate commerce in some sort of six degrees of separation way.
America as the founders envisioned died in the Civil War, but the 20th century, particularly the New Deal saw the destruction of even the pretense that the nation consists of numerous sovereigns with a federal government that only exists for a few limited purposes and has no powers beyond those granted to it by the Constitution.
Having an unstamped machine gun is literally just an issue of taxation
I'm honestly surprised that people charged with violating the NFA haven't challenged the law as cruel and unusual punishment. 10 years in federal prison for failure to pay a $200 tax? Shit, they've got nothing to lose adding it to their defense.
And those lying assholes swore in Miller it was a tax measure, not an attempt at illegal federal gun control, so they could use fedgov's own words against it (they cared just a bit more about the appearance of complying with the Constitution then; now they don't even bother).
Apparently the fools on the pro-gun side argued only a point of minutia: that the P80 kit didn't fall under the definition of "readily convertible" to a firearm based on where the definition fell in the text. The ruling was narrow in that it held some kits meet the definition ("we'll know it when we see it"). They didn't even challenge the constitutionality of the law under Bruen's text/history/tradition test.
When you challenge a law, you list every possible reason you claim it should be struck down, because you never know which argument will be the winner, and you're stuck with the arguments from the original trial on appeal.
The Obamacare lawsuit was the model for how you do it. The Republicans threw every objection they could think of in the filing, which was a good thing, because they won on some obscure Medicare cost sharing rule instead of the primary argument that it was illegal for the feds to force you to buy insurance from a private company.
The court ate up the bullshit claim that the penalty was a tax, even though it was always called a penalty until they were defending it in court. It would have been game over right there if that was the only argument in the filing.
you think job insecurity is what makes me work hard?
Well, considering you make more in one movie than most Americans make over the span of an entire career, I think your perceptions of work, pay, and the need for job security are grossly distorted from those of a normal person.
Now, you may enjoy acting to the degree that you would do it for free, and I have no doubt that there are people in the world who love their jobs so much that they would work either for free or at the minimum salary needed to keep them fed and clothed, but most of us are here for the money.
As a rational actor who is occupying their time with something they do not enjoy so that they can get the money needed to live their life, if I had the opportunity to receive my paycheck without actually having to work for it, I would take it in a heartbeat. So would almost everyone else.
This is funny and all, but going there with the intention to start a fight is just stupid. You never know how far people will go, or who is armed.
This girl is fired up; she's gonna destroy a guy's life someday. Palestine flags and pronouns in the dating profile are a screening tool, kids.
LoL
As an aside, I refuse to buy games from stores that open them up and leave the case on the shelf. Every single one of those is now used and no one should pay full price for them.
The Red Cross is replaced with a red crescent or diamond in Arab countries as well, because they are offended by the cross as a symbol of Christianity- although it's not a Christian cross and was not founded as a religious organization.
Such tolerant and logical groups, these non-Christians.
IDK, it just sounded like some made up Eastern European name. Lots of movies make up countries like that.
LoL. I was going to post something similar. Apparently it's a Spanish city with a famous castle. TIL that a fake Marvel movie country has the same name as a real city in Spain.
Looks like they screened the movie there before it's US release, so it's listed as the first release date on the wiki.
This is all related to a concept of fairness that is ingrained in the human psyche.
I took a class once where the presenter handed someone in the audience a $1 bill and then handed the person next to him a $10 bill. When he asked the first person how he felt about the situation, he felt cheated even though objectively he was a dollar richer, and the fact that his neighbor was more fortunate had no bearing on that fact.
You also see this when people run red lights. Oftentimes I will see a car run a fresh red light, then the car or two behind him will run it too. "It's not fair that he gets to run the red light and I have to sit here".
If you import people from cultures with no respect for the law, those that already live here will chafe at the unfairness that they are still expected to be good citizens.
Yep, gave my mea culpa to m0r1arty when he pointed it out. Not sure what I was thinking.
While advocating violence here will get your post removed, I remain perplexed that more people don't go that route when a government or business systematically destroys their life (see also: child support and alimony).
It seems that a perfectly logical outgrowth of ruining someone's life is that you should expect them to take revenge, yet that doesn't seem to be part of the calculus of these entities that do it, and for the most part they appear to be correct.
That's one of the reasons they went after Luigi so hard: if the masses realize they can just kill the people screwing them over it will upset the entire balance of power.
It's a lie. They want to push you to digital to kill used game sales. That's the same reason they lock content behind a "season pass" or similar nonsense, so it doesn't follow the sale of the media and the new owner has to purchase it themself.
I bet MS and Sony drop discs entirely on their next consoles. Which sucks, because they double as Blu-ray players, so it's one less thing to buy.