If the child carries to term and the child and or the baby dies shouldn't the supreme court be charged with murder as an accessory?

You need to do some more research, there are some terrible bills out there in addition to ones with straightforward good things like background checks. The ghost gun fanatics will end up banning aluminum stock and most 3D printers, they are so ignorant.
https://www.westernjournal.com/dem-reps-attempt-get-rid-ghost-guns-ban-common-tool/
Ghost gun "kits" like you say are blocks of aluminum or polymer partially machined that have to be further machined to be turned into a gun. Cad files for turning a rectangular block of aluminum into a gun are easily available. These are not guns, and treating them as such is simply stupid.

Firearm accessories like magazines are critical parts to a functioning weapon. People have already been successful in getting most people to think 30rnd mags for an AR-15 is "high capacity" when it's actually the standard capacity. They want to ban every removable magazine, with zero data that it will reduce gun crime. There have been bills to define any semi-automatic weapon an "assault weapon". Ludicrous.

Silly, just a ban on selling one style of rifle, not a type. Are they still actually working on that, or are you talking about past attempts? I thought that has gone nowhere since Jan 2019 when it was introduced and shelved. New bill number please.

Supressors/silencers, not a firearm but an accessory, like bump stocks. That's not anti gun.

D I Y, good luck. Who's actually trying any such thing? They would have to ban each design, because they can't ban the method. I've not heard of any actual legislation, just moaning. Bill number please.
Ghost guns, pre manufactured kits but requiring assembly, should be treated like any gun imo. That means serial numbers and background checks, that's not anti gun legislation.

Private sales loophole, exactly what I mentioned, and in no way anti gun. They aren't trying to ban private sales, just require background checks.
I think you're making that up, where did you get the idea most illegal guns are bought by girlfriends?
I bought a new gun from a dealer at a show in Florida with no check myself once, so nope. You're just wrong.

I feel like you are almost certainly just parroting right wing claims without actually seeing if they're true. Give me current bill numbers in the house or Senate please.

Banning modifications is not anti gun, it's anti modification.

You can buy guns online, just not safely or legally. You can buy prostitutes and fentenal online. You can buy kits that require you to make one drill hole to make a functioning unlicensed unregistered unidentifiable gun online legally.

Crazy people can certainly buy guns, in private sales with no background checks. That's why the loopholes should be eradicated, or do you support giving terrorists a method to secretly buy guns legally? That's the outcome of fighting closing loopholes.

I'm a manager at a family-owned pizza place, so I deal with pizzas and pizza accessories.

Thank you....accepted.

The "no good cop" part is right...it's not guilt by association though, it's guilt by being complicit, not turning them in, turning a blind eye, lying to protect the "bad apples"...being accessories after the fact is criminal. Yes, failure to clean their own house makes them bad cops. That's fixable, but only if they clean house...the best, easiest, most thorough way would be fire them all and only reinstate those with clean records, those with complaints need retraining at the least before being police again, many need to be fired. Not perfect, but better than most suggestions imo.
Edit: I do like the suggestion to make it the law that they must intervene if another cop is out of control, and must report it. I also support body cams that can't be turned off, but I want covering them or taking them off to be a felony.

I did say fire them all....but also said to hire them back. That gives us an opportunity to say 'this guy has 27 complaints and 3 multi-million dollar settlements paid out, he's not cop material'. Union rules won't let cops be fired even for cause most times, and absolutely won't allow a national registry of criminal cops. Those facts need to change if the culture is to change.

I agree, there are those few out there advocating no police....I'm just not one of them.

I'm of the opinion that if we keep any of the bad apples, nothing else matters, they'll corrupt the rest. The best way to save the bunch is remove any apples that even LOOK bad....that may leave us with a massive shortage, but that's FAR better than the criminal force we have today, no? One bad apple spoils the bunch...I wish those crying about a just few bad apples understood the phrase they're parsing.

Nothing will satisfy EVERYONE, but it actually takes very little to placate most mobs, just the suggestion that they've been heard is often enough, and why things got so bad. Too often "we hear you" is the only reform, and even that is forgotten as soon as the streets are cleared. I hope this time is different, but I'm not holding my breath.

*quality dissection of what "a few bad apples" means in context.
This entire crop is spoiled, tainted by the toxic sludge oozing from the bad apple at the top all the way down.

Are there some police, even most, who would never attack citizens, arrest someone they know to be innocent based on race, or falsify charges? Absolutely. Unfortunately there's a statistical vacuum when it comes to policing themselves. That makes them all accessories after the crime under the law, and as a fact.
The bad apples couldn't represent the police if the police fired them with permanent nationwide records so they can't just move to the next police force after being fired for crimes. Instead they shield and hide those rotting apples behind their blue wall, tainting themselves in the process.

When I see an Apple going bad, I throw it out immediately...I don't wait until it's become slimy and furry, spoiling all my fruit.

I wonder if this stems somewhat from their marketing - they are trying to sell you a fashion accessory or perhaps symbol of status, not a gadget or a gizmo. At best it's a tool for trendy creative types, in the same way a wand is a tool for a wizard; Its a magic box not a glorified computer, a single crystal grown deep beneath The Valley of Silicon which the tech-priests then ensorcell using incantations passed down from the late grand master. An Iphone cannot be repaired because it does not break... it dies. Never forget the memories you shared with it, because they are irretrievable otherwise. Admitting it can be put right after a light drowning would perhaps dispel the magic.

That's my take anyway. Oh, and that they'd rather sell you a new thing that repair an old thing.

I suppose the irony is that most people will never see the genuine artistry and engineering excellence that goes into these things.

You could make a handbag out of the gator but then it would be an accessory

http://www.vstavridis.gr/contact-us/

Contact us for more information about our products and services. Our experienced customer service team can help you find exactly what you need and can provide advise on our accessories and delivery options. Our customer service team is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. For security and training purposes, telephone calls to and from the customer service team may be recorded and monitored.

E-mail: vasileiosstavridis@gmail.com

*Ban for self link

Thanks for that link -- really good.

I do think that "the left" is perhaps a bit too focused on specific weapon or accessory types. AR-15's, bump stocks, magazine sizes, etc. It's not completely ridiculous to say that if we banned AR-15's with 20-30 shot magazines, most of these shooters would just move on to the next best thing; maybe a Ruger Mini 14 or something with a 15 shot magazine.

Would that mitigate some of the deadly potential? Sure. Slightly. But it wouldn't prevent things at all, just (slightly) mitigate them. That might be worth doing, but it isn't beneficial enough to be what we should be focusing on.


I think two things could help contribute to prevention. Registration, and Licensing.

Step 1) Anyone who owns or purchases a firearm would be legally required to get it/them registered. Serial numbers (if they exist), etc. Anyway, descriptions of the weapon(s) on file and linked to a registered owner. If a firearm is used in a crime, the registered owner could be partially liable for that crime. Crime resulting in death? Owner subject to charges of negligent manslaughter. Violent crime, but no deaths? Owner subject to charges of conspiracy to commit X. Registered owner finds one or more of their firearms stolen or missing? Report them as such, and your liability could be removed or mitigated. Failure to register a firearm would also carry criminal penalties.

Step 2) Anyone who wants to use a firearm would be legally required to get a license. Licensing requires taking a proficiency and safety test. The initial license would require practical examination (safety and proficiency) at a range. Initial licensing and renewals (every 4 years?) would require passing a written test of knowledge about ownership laws, safety, etc. Just like a driver's license. And just like a driver's license, there could be things that might reasonably preclude your ability to get a license. Felony record? No license for you. Mental health issues? No license for you.


The NRA loves to tout themselves as responsible gun owners. Well, responsible people take responsibility. Remember that one kid in your class back in third grade that talked back to the teacher, so she made you all stay in and read during recess? Yeah, he ruined it for the rest of you. Guess what -- that's happening again. These nutjobs that shoot up schools or into a crowd of civilians are ruining things for the rest of you. We've tried unfettered access and an extremely lax interpretation of the second amendment. It didn't work out well. For evidence, compare the US to any other developed country on Earth.

Guns are a part of American culture, to an extent that taking them away completely would be ... problematic. But there are many, many things between the nothing that we're doing now and that.

Want want want want WANT!!!
That is literally the grooviest car stereo accessory ever!
*promote some awesome old school tunes. I wonder how it does when the car is moving.

I used to use black masking tape to decorate ped-xing signs around San Jose and and LA with walking sticks, top-hats and other accessories. That was 10+ years ago, but always disappointed that I don't see some in these compilation vids.

Yeah, if that's the best they have, and I think its giving him WAY too much credit, it's absolutely no excuse and he should be prosecuted for 3 attempted murders, and his partner(s) should be prosecuted for accessory to attempted murder if not simple attempted murder for not supplying treatment instantly.

If he couldn't tell it was a truck, he clearly couldn't tell if it was a gun, so shouldn't shoot.
If he couldn't hit the intended target, he shouldn't ever shoot.
If he missed the intended target, a mentally challenged boy playing with a non threatening toy sitting down and not moving, with all 3 shots, he should never be allowed to touch a gun ever again.
But, I don't think they were aiming for the boy, I think they hit exactly who they intended to hit, the prone black man with his empty arms outstretched begging "don't shoot". When asked why he shot the unarmed, prone, surrendered, non threatening caregiver, the cop didn't say "I missed", or "I hit the wrong guy" or "I feared for my life" or "I thought I saw a gun" (not that seeing a gun is a reason to shoot, like they seem to think), he said "I don't know".

Under no circumstance was there a reason to shoot in this instance.
Under no circumstance was there a reason to triple handcuff the unarmed, non threatening man they just shot.
Under no circumstance was there a reason to withhold medical treatment for >15 minutes.
This was an attempted murder, not a mistake.

Close.
I believe they are nearly all liars because they themselves have clearly said that all police officers are liars. They will and have admitted publicly and repeatedly that this is the case, they are trained that lying is acceptable to gain information or compliance. I also believe that they are incapable of finding it acceptable to lie in some circumstances with impunity but at the same time NOT lying about their own bad actions...and time and time again that has proven to be correct. (once a liar, always a liar) It's not >50% that are liars, it's closer to >98%.
That said, I don't think a large percentage of them are actually intentional murderers, likely <1%, but I do think that >98% will support, lie for, falsify evidence for, threaten retaliation for, and actually retaliate for that <1%. That's also been proven by their actions repeatedly. That makes them all (>98%) accessories after the fact...so maybe not murderers, but murderer adjacent.

This admitted bias is borne from decades of repeated and consistent confirmation that it's correct, both from media and personal experience. Yes, it's unfair for that <2% of 'honest cops', but not as unfair as the >98% of dishonest cops are to them by far.

I think it's a sad state of affairs when my position, that those charged with and paid to protect and serve should maybe TRY to protect, is considered prejudice. Any officer that didn't TRY would be guilty with me on the jury. (of course, lucky for them, I am honest and admit I have a bias against police and think they are all liars and completely untrustworthy, so I never serve on a jury)

EDIT: I find it hypocritical that officers demand better pay and legal leeway because they have a 'dangerous job', but when presented with MINOR danger (like water) they cry and whine that 'they shouldn't have to put themselves in danger just to save citizen's lives'. I'm sure glad we had a completely different class of officer in 2001 or hundreds more would have died in the twin towers...but it makes one question, what would they do today in the same circumstance?

What's great that no one seems to have touched on in the media yet is that under most common day laws pretty much every cop could technically be convicted of being complicit in murder, an accessory to a hate crime, et al. Silence and solidarity didn't used to be tolerated from criminals.