Not in my experience. I've known many people who tried in Texas and Nevada, all failed. They said it was about 3 pages in triplicate (4 with cover page, totalling 12), fingerprints, photos, a pristine criminal record, chests of cash (the guns cost thousands or tens of thousands), a Class 3 FFL dealer willing to sell to you, 9 months to a year waiting for approval, and no local ordinance against it (local police will be notified).

I said the background check is similarly difficult to pass, not the entire process.

No one asked you that. We balked at your claim-
"The 2A specifically says "arms". There is plenty of debate and case law regarding what arms they meant. Suffice to say there isn't a shadow of a doubt that it means firearms (long and short) of all varieties commonly available."
...and I then gave you the federal definition of "firearms" which you begrudgingly admitted trumps yours, but still cling to the concept that firearms can't be regulated (even though they clearly are). I'm surprised you recall it so differently, especially when you can verify by just scrolling up.

This is a paranoid delusion. Because that's a possibility in a future where the 2a is repealed, they think that's enough reason to ignore any positive uses, like knowing if the person just diagnosed with schizophrenia has an arsenal, or the person who's stalking your 15 year old daughter, or the man who beats his wife. Also, taken to conclusion, that argument is basically "It might make it harder for me to break the law. That's unacceptable." Hardly a reasonable argument imo.

? Your argument was there are better issues to throw money at, bucketloads you said, now you admit it takes no money and declare yourself correct?!

Then don't be dumb and fuck little kids.
Don't be dumb and rape random women.
Don't be dumb by getting caught in the Jr high locker room filming.
Don't be a snarky tool who hides from what he said by doing mental gymnastics to pretend their warnings aren't implications.
See how giving these warnings imply you needed warning? That's how warnings work.

Because I post here doesn't make me the big dog...I'm not even top 20. Everyone is welcome, welcome to post as much or little as they choose, but if I see lies, misstatements, abuse, or insults when none are called for, I'm going to say something, just like I do in person. That's called being an upright citizen. I guess you prefer those who shrink away from that obligation....so hit ignore. That's what I'm doing.

Nobody should give this terrible human being air.
There are a lot of liars and underhanded dealers among the Republican party and their supporters, but most of them seem to lie, cheat, and steal for financial benefit or power. I've always had the feeling that she does it simply because she enjoys hurting other people and causing disruption.

Wow. Little to no evidence of smoked marijuana having any connection to lung or other cancers.

I must admit I'm surprised. To me it seems like burning something and inhaling the smoke is "obviously" a bad idea with regards to health.

Since the link between tobacco cigarettes and cancer is well established and agreed on by doctors, it makes one wonder what the difference is. Is it entirely the additives that cigarette manufacturers put into cigarettes? If so, why the hell wouldn't there be massive pressure to mass produce additive-free cigarettes at least as an option for smokers?

Also, I guess one (potential) downside of legalization is that the same sort of corporations that knowingly put cancer-causing shit into cigarettes might expand into marijuana territory, potentially trying to put crap into your pot that dispensaries and dealers never have.

Still, overall this is clearly good news for pot fans out there, and will put further pressure on the double standard between legal-but-far-more-dangerous alcohol and tobacco as compared to illegal-but-relatively-innocuous pot. Congratulations! Light one up in celebration (as if you needed a reason).

Jesus fucking Christ....What bullshit.
He failed the field test after illegally parking on the freeway with dealer plates and admitting to drinking and driving, argued and stalled rather than complied, and then played games with the field test, failing it, and didn't submit to the breathalyzer as required by law (you can't delay the test by arguing about your rights as he did, by law, they clearly warned him so). That's automatic conviction in most places....white or black.

Totally cuffed for cause, then eventually had the charges dropped because they "lost" the footage, but by his own words he's guilty of the charge of refusing the test.
Every bad experience had by a person of color is not institutional racism, especially when they're actually breaking the law and being belligerent....which he was by parking on the shoulder and arguing instead of complying with lawful commands. Had they not "lost" the video, he should have been convicted and had his licence revoked....white or black.

Thanks @C-note, you've single handedly turned me from someone who exposed racism to someone who now actively debunks it. Congratulations.

The unemployment rate in the black community has always been 2x higher then the national rate. I give this guy a nod for acting in a part that is not a drug dealer, pimp, crackhead or the first person to get killed in a horror movie.

Pssh, whatever -[ from drug dealer to slingin' nachos from a truck - Welcome to California mothafucka! Seriously, it seems like everyone does that shit. I knew a construction worker who took it one step further and served bourgeois creme brule from a cart. Ain't nothing special, but better than working for the man or destroying the world in tech!

Okay, so my dealer is a little weird. But after you try the shit he's selling you'll float too.

Ok, gotta point out that it is not illegal to own an automatic weapon in the US. Any owned before the ban are grandfathered. I also think certain types of firearm dealer/manufacturer license holders can buy, sell, and make them under certain circumstances. Plenty of people legally own full auto weapons in America, you can rent them at certain ranges (remember the little girl that shot the instructor in the head), and there was even a TV show about a guy who's business was making them that ended just recently.
I think it is illegal to sell them to non license holders in America...but that's a far cry from saying no one can legally have them.

They missed the NRA's contention (that the courts agreed with) about why bump stocks weren't machine guns too. The argument was that since only one bullet comes out of the gun for every trigger pull, it's technically not a machine gun, it's still a semi auto.

Well, I had it drycleaned....when are you taking me out?

No, opportunity is not the same as evidence, but is an important part of making a case.

I'm pretty sure there was body camera evidence of him saying he was going to kill the guy during the chase (maybe a different case), but none of the shooting or aftermath from any officer's body camera. This is the uselessness of a camera they control, it should be always on, live streamed to a secured server, not with an on off switch and no backup.

Remember, the only evidence we know of that he's a drug dealer came from the same suspicious search. Once the cop has opportunity to plant evidence, the case is blown because it's reasonable to think they might have, so any conviction is out.

Once he shoots, there's no reason he should have anything else to do with the case (unless he was alone, but that's not the case here). Allowing the shooter to be the investigator is a clear conflict of interest and allows a suspect to investigate himself and tamper with evidence. Normal procedure would be for him to let others take over immediately and surrender his gun pending investigation....so there is no legitimate reason for the killer to be in the car.........

Edit: and how to explain he cop DNA on the gun but not the victim's? It makes no sense unless it's the cop's gun never touched by the victim and placed afterwards, otherwise it would at a minimum have his blood on it and logically his sweat and fingerprints inside and out.

The cops had reason to search, on camera, but not the shooter with his body cam turned off.

Newt
I do go to bed hatting you but then I think of you in that yellow dress then all is well.


Having a clear opportunity to plant evidence is not the same as planting evidence.

When was his body camera on? When was it turn off? You are making a reach that he turned it off to "plant a gun" . If this happened then yes I would have more suspicion towards the cop.

Other than facts you are speculating , pure conjecture of a planting of a gun. That does not hold up in court..

Ok

Black guy shoots me - a white drug dealer -- then plants a gun in my car .. but only evidence is a bystander showing the killer messing around in his back seat then goes to my dead body in the car and later a gun is "found" ... But no one see this planting -- DNA of only the black shooter found on the planted gun.

Yes in this case you might be convicted of planting a gun.. Or some other that would suggest that you planted the gun.

..........Only because there is no reason for the killer to be in the car...............


The cop had reason -- to search for weapons/ drugs / paperwork of the car etc. So not quite apples to apples.

Oh Bob. Trolling hard today I see.

The camera caught him retrieving and planting the gun...which had his DNA on it but not the victims, and cameras have repeatedly caught police unambiguously planting evidence and weapons....so I can only assume you are intentionally approving of police planting evidence if you say it shows them to be in the right. You wouldn't be alone, the judge said the same thing, it was a justified homicide because of course he thought the heroin dealer was armed, so shooting him and planting a gun was perfectly fine. (not sure how he supposedly knew it was a heroin dealer before the shooting, though)

You are accidentally correct, however. Even hard leftists CAN seem to grasp reality when shown it, unlike those who would simply pretend those videos don't exist....but don't trust your lying eyes, trust Rush. He's never lied to you.

Stockley was caught on camera retrieving and planting the gun, which only had his DNA on it.
He was acquitted today with the judge commenting "Finally, the Court observes, based on its nearly thirty years on the bench, that an urban heroin dealer not in possession of a firearm would be an anomaly."

It seems clear that, in this judges opinion, it's open season on accused drug dealers, armed or not. He should probably move to the Philippines with that attitude, where they approve of murdering the accused.

**EDIT**
I'm finding other sources that say that sterile "terminator seeds" are a patented technique, but that Monsanto has promised not to use it. Straight from the horse's mouth:
http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/pages/terminator-seeds.aspx

So it appears that my info below is wrong. I will try to talk with my family and get the full story. That being said, I'll leave my original comment and the followup below unaltered.
*********


My firsthand knowledge of this stuff was from more than 10 years ago, and also when I was pretty young (early 20's). So I did some web searching to try to get updated since your question is a very interesting one:

http://web.mit.edu/demoscience/Monsanto/about.html

According to that, Monsanto is the company behind "Roundup Ready", and their corn (and other crops in the line) do use sterile "terminator seeds". It also mentions that farmers "must purchase the most recent strain of seed from Monsanto" each year.

I was never in the decision-making structure of my family farm, but I did remember that we couldn't just buy the Roundup Ready seed *once* and then hold a small amount back as seed for the next year and continue to get the benefits.

I'm not 100% sure exactly how the modification for sterility works -- I don't know if the plant will sprout if you plant the sterile seeds and just fail to produce any ears / fruit, or if it just won't germinate at all. I do remember that we had to be quite careful to fully clean out the corn grown from the GM seeds from our storage bins, and better yet to store our non-GM corn to be used for future seed in entirely different bins. That was done to make sure that we didn't end up planting any of the sterile stuff.

I'm sure that the seed dealers that sell the GM stuff really push farmers to buy and plant it every year, as hinted to in that link. But you certainly don't *have* to. On the other hand, if you go back to non-GM seed for a year or two or more, you can't use a strong herbicide like Roundup if you have an unexpected outbreak of weeds or other pest plants -- the Roundup would kill the non-GM crop along with everything else.

Basically, I don't specifically begrudge companies like Monsanto for their practices concerning these GM crops. The "terminator seeds" are controversial, but don't seem like a big deal to me. If you could buy GM seeds once and then just hold back some of your harvest for next season's seed, they'd only get your money once AND we'd probably lose the original strains. So I see that as kinda win-win, especially if you don't 100% buy into their sales department urging you to use GM seed every single year.

I don't want to sound like a shill for Monsanto -- some of their other practices are pretty shady, particularly political lobbying. But from the perspective of my family farm, the GM corn that we use was/is a real beneficial thing. Significantly less pesticide/herbicide use over time, and it allows for expanded low/no till farming. Before herbicides, tilling was one of the only ways to kill off pest plants. But, it also makes the fields lose some moisture and nutrients. Expanded farming and ubiquitous tilling was largely the cause of the "dust bowl" dirty 30's. Anyway, I'd say that a lot of good has come out of modernized techniques and technology like GM crops.

@Mordhaus

Except that the United States has for many decades relied on undocumented immigrants as a source of low-wage labor to do the jobs most Americans don't want. Now all of a sudden, after using their cheap labor to keep failing American agriculture and manufacturing alive you just want to yank the carpet out from under them?

Most of the people now up in arms about the "scourge" of illegal immigrants have HIRED illegals at one time or another (in the case of Trump, I'm sure he still employs dozens of hundreds). The US Government could simply have issued more work visas and enforced the rules more closely, but why do that when your buddies can charge sub-minimum wage and stiff their employees on the paycheck whenever they feel like it without fear of repercussion? Instead they wink and nod, punishing the immigrants occasionally, but rarely (if ever) touching the businesses who KNEW they were employing illegals.

It's like ignoring the drug dealers and traffickers for decades, then suddenly deciding drug USERS are a scourge who must be punished.

Uhm, isnt that exactly the sort of thing these guys have been doing all along? Trying to prove liberals are doing shit like this by simply acting as the sponsors?
You know, like the undercover cop acting as a prostitute or drug dealer...

Anyway, am I the only one thinking this video seems like one of these documentary style "found footage" movies? The people in it all seem like very bad actors, especially that "Ryan Clayton". So weird.