Once again Trump appointed prosecutor David Weiss sent a public letter/reprimand to Republican Senator Lindsey Graham again stating that he had full control over the Hunter Biden criminal investigation had never been denied authority to bring charges in ANY jurisdiction and the latest GOP fake whistleblower (that hasn’t ever testified under oath) is another outright liar with clear bias, this one angry he wasn’t promoted by Weiss… another fraud like all the rest have been conclusively proven to be (the ones that actually existed that is, most Republican “whistleblowers” never existed anywhere but the lying minds of Republicans, they aren’t real people they’re made up just like the phantom “tapes”).

This is the third time he has had to publicly correct Republican senators that continue to outright lie about the facts in efforts to protect Trump from the consequences of his uncountable anti American crimes (crimes much worse than wearing or defacing flags, dozens and dozens of treasonous and seditious crimes). Poor babies, even the unqualified judges they stuffed the judiciary with aren’t helping them escape exposure and justice. They all know, Trump is only ONE of many targets Jack Smith has his eyes on, and he’s not fucking around.

D’oh! The forensic evaluation of the “Hunter laptop” has now proven most if not all data had been altered or installed after it was in Giuliani’s possession. Much of it poorly, like the fake WhatsApp text MAGA has latched onto as proof of crime that is actually in the wrong color, the wrong format, and even though it’s purported to be a text from 2017 (on a day when Hunter and Joe were now proven to not be together) it has a photo of Hunter as his avatar in the screenshot that’s from 2022.
Hide and watch…Hunter is going to sue every Republican Senator for $10 million each and he’s going to get it. Dumbshits….never knowingly falsely slander and libel the son of the president, it won’t work out. 😂

Oh SNAP!! ANOTHER!!! Gal Luft, THE "very credible witness on Biden family corruption" - James Comer, has been arrested for eight counts after jumping bail in Feb., including failing to register as a foreign agent, evading oil sanctions, two counts of making false statements to investigators and three counts of illicit arms trafficking.
Accused by U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York of having "subverted foreign agent registration laws in the United States to seek to promote Chinese policies by acting through a former high-ranking U.S. Government official." And stated he had “agreed to covertly recruit and pay" the official, an adviser to then President-elect Donald Trump, to "publicly support certain policies with respect to China." Luft is also accused of attempting to broker "illicit arms transactions with, among others, certain Chinese individuals and entities." He allegedly worked to broker a deal for Chinese companies to sell weapons, including anti-tank launchers, grenade launchers and mortar rounds, to Libya. He’s also accused of brokering sales of Iranian oil.
Notice…sold influence on presidential policy on China, similar to the baseless accusations against Hunter…EVEY ACCUSATION IS AN ADMISSION, even the Hunter accusations. 😂 😂 😂 JUST FUCKING WOW SON.
https://www.newsweek.com/gal-luft-indictment-biden-whistleblower-charged-1812161

These MAGA tears are so yummy and sweet, you guys. YUMMY! MMMMMM….

Looks like a guided mortar round.

At those g forces, with few exceptions, it seems it would be useless to launch most satellites, and it’s definitely not for live cargo.
It would be great on the moon….as a super weapon to blackmail earth with. It could launch all the rocks the Moon Master desires at any earth target….like a moon mortar with unlimited ammo.

True, but the argument itself suggests the rogue government would have a military we need to protect ourselves from with said rifles.

The public might have access to nearly equivalent rifles, but not the funds to buy those in great numbers. How many people do you know with a .50 caliber and the skills to use it?
Then there's all the weaponry you can't have. Grenades. Mortars. Armored armed vehicles. Drones. Navy guns. Missiles. I R scanning and other optical tech. Training. There's a lot more to the military than rifles.

With high tech warfare, guerrilla tactics should be far less effective than Vietnam, and Americans don't seem up to suicide bombing as a main tactic. It could sting them, but I don't think it could last like Red Dawn.

Once again, I'm pro gun, I have guns, I just think it's ludicrous to think they could fight the military. I'd be lucky to get a second shot off.

I never denied saying that. I'll say it again if you like.

"You common cry of curs, whose breath I hate
As reek o' th' rotten fens, whose loves I prize
As the dead carcasses of unburied men
That do corrupt my air, I banish you!"
-Shakespeare

"Swerve me? The path to my fixed purpose is laid with iron rails, whereon my soul is grooved to run."
-Herman Melville

"That Edward shall be fearful of his life,
And then, to purge his fear, I'll be thy death.
King Henry and the prince his son are gone:
Clarence, thy turn is next, and then the rest,
Counting myself but bad till I be best."
Shakespeare

"All that most maddens and torments; all that stirs up the lees of things; all truth with malice in it; all that cracks the sinews and cakes the brain; all the subtle demonisms of life and thought; all evil, to crazy Ahab, were visibly personified, and made practically assailable in Moby Dick. He piled upon the whale’s white hump the sum of all the general rage and hate felt by his whole race from Adam down; and then, as if his chest had been a mortar, he burst his hot heart’s shell upon it."
-Herman Melville

“Destruction is a form of creation.”
-Graham Greene


I should probably thank @bobknight33 . Now I know why people cut the tongues out of some men.

The document is in duplicate. Literally in the link. Yes, fingerprint card also. The cost is low. The cost of the firearm is a separate issue.

Yes, the background check. The "process" I'm referring to has context, i.e. the background check process. Obvious really.

"No one asked you that."

You asked me.

"So [do] you think machine guns aren't firearms...or do you think they aren't really illegal? Edit: What about bazookas, grenades, mortars, etc.?"

"Which you begrudgingly".

What language made it begrudging? I stated it was the case without any issue. Stop making stuff up.

I didn't say they can't be regulated. I said that they can't be "effectively regulated". I also stated that there are many regulations that are probably illegal (waiting for supreme court challenges). And I said that there are some regulations that do exist because the supreme court debated it and came to the conclusion that it was within the scope of the 2A.

"especially when you can verify by just scrolling up"

Yeah, exactly, so what are you on about. My comments are literally above you. Why distort them? Do you have comprehension issues? No shame if you do.

"This is a paranoid delusion."
You're entitled to your opinion. History supports their argument though.

"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"

Yes, there are better issues to throw money at, but the issue is they don't want to throw money at anything when there is a low cost red herring issue they can use to gain public standing instead.

"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."

Yes, they are all warnings. And valid ones at that. The issue is context. You don't put a "warning strong current" warning in the middle of a desert because there is nothing to warn about.

Likewise making those warnings here makes no sense. Ergo, no, these warnings don't imply anyone needs warning. They are just random warnings.

Otherwise we could continue on and I could say:

Don't be dumb and fuck your mother's dead body.
Don't be dumb and fuck animals.
Etc., etc., warnings that are truly good advice but make no sense in the given situation.

On the other hand:
"Danger, high voltage wires" on a cabinet that holds a large transformer makes sense.
"Do not dig, high pressure gas lines buried here" above buried high pressure pipes makes sense.

Do you see the difference?

"Everyone is welcome, welcome to post as much or little as they choose"

Well, everyone is welcome until they're not. And they're not welcome pretty quick here.

"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"

Funny about that, that's what I'm doing.

Machine guns are firearms. You can buy pre 1986 machine guns in the USA (I'm not sure what form you have to fill out). The 1986 cutoff is fairly pointless.

I don't consider bazookas, grenades, mortars, etc. firearms. To me a firearm is essentially a rifle that fires cartridges. But if the US government considers them as firearms then that is what they are for legislative purposes.

I believe there is case law regarding what scope of arms they were referring to in the 2A and the result was any common firearm. This currently includes almost all pistols and rifles, both automatic and semi-automatic (with the exception being automatic guns must have been made before 1986 - I believe this limit should be removed).

I'm very much against restricting semi-automatic rifles. There are no good reasons for restricting them. It is unconstitutional. They are not the "weapon of choice" for mass shootings, pistols are. The lethality of them in mass shootings is the same as that of pistols (someone ran an analysis just recently). This last point surprised me a little.

https://www.reddit.com/r/gunpolitics/comments/d7ypcv/no_mass_shootings_carried_out_with_semiautomatic/

I'm for background checks (i.e. for second hand sales which are the only sales left without a background check) as long as the service is cheap and no records are kept (i.e. it isn't used to create a de-facto registration database).

Public health wise, talking about firearms is a red herring. If I were to drop a bucket load of money into stuff in the USA it would be into making health care and mental health care cheap and available and reducing poverty. This would have more affect on mortality and morbidity rates then any gun legislation will. And yes, I would give fully subsidized health care to the poor.

By now you should be asking yourself what planet someone comes from where they support the 2A and free health care at the same time.

So you think machine guns aren't firearms...or do you think they aren't really illegal?

Edit: What about bazookas, grenades, mortars, etc.?
They are firearms by the federal definition....https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/921

(3)The term “firearm” means (A) any weapon (including a starter gun) which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive; (B) the frame or receiver of any such weapon; (C) any firearm muffler or firearm silencer; or (D) any destructive device. Such term does not include an antique firearm.
(4)The term “destructive device” means—
(A)any explosive, incendiary, or poison gas—
(i)bomb,
(ii)grenade,
(iii)rocket having a propellant charge of more than four ounces,
(iv)missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than one-quarter ounce,
(v)mine, or
(vi)device similar to any of the devices described in the preceding clauses;

Love is like mortar. It is what keeps the bricks together and also keeps them apart.

Yeah, that's what I was thinking. I've never been in the military but my first thought was that they should probably move before the enemy starts lobbing mortar rounds or launches an RPG to displace the sniper.

I think Nerdwriter's knowledge of AWS is superficial (he admitted just finding out about them). AWS are not licensing their tech to other companies, they are renting time out on servers using their tech (mostly software). That graphic he showed of market share is also misleading - if you look closely it's just survey results of "do you use x,y,z cloud provider(s)?" (although undoubtedly AWS is the most popular by any measurement of # of customers, but it's not necessarily the biggest - hard to say because Microsoft, Google, and Amazon don't publish their numbers).
Renting time out on a server is orders of magnitude more scalable than installing and maintaining a bunch of sensors at thousands of retail locations.
Since their patents are vague enough, they could license that "idea" out to other companies who want to attempt the same thing, but probably they want full control of any brick-and-mortar store, to minimize support costs, and provide a consistent experience.
Plus, not every retail experience is like a grocery store, so it's a bit of a stretch to say they'll take over all retail everywhere...

This is 50% of a good video. The first half presents actual facts, which make a strong case that classic dogfighters are being made obsolete by very long range, stealthy aggressors. Simply put, fighters aren't fighting the same fight anymore. Muskets and grenadoes are out: rifles and mortars are in.

The second half, however, is propaganda and promises. Describing the goals of a program isn't itself a good defense of the demonstrated capabilities of a program.

It's true that the F-35 is being built to counter advanced technology opponents (Russia and China and their customers), and it's further true that we will probably (hopefully) never use them. This is not an argument against building the F-35, however: Russia and China are building their versions and the US would be at a strategic disadvantage if we effectively ceded air control of every conflict zone to the Russia-backed side. It's an arms race whether we like it or not.

It does feel like we're spending way too much on a overly compromised aircraft, though.

I don't buy it. Probably just pyrotechnics that look impressive. Actual mortar rounds or land mines or whatever would have at least knocked him around.

ed: Pardon me, her. Should have watched until the end.

@newtboy

I don't think I'm much in danger of contradiction in suggesting that you yourself have yet to crack a book of feminist theory or engage with a feminist activist making no more extravagant sex/gender claims that the one you quote from that unimpeachable source, dictionary.com (and when did dictionaries move from being an aid to understanding obscure words to the ultimate arbiters of political thought?).

There is no separating the movement from the ideology; this is an ancient truism. Without the movement, the idea dies. Without the idea, the movement doesn't exist. My unfollowable second paragraph comprises only examples of actual, nasty feminist doctrine which I have encountered in the real world, and could probably even document with a few google searches. I can hardly be blamed that this group is so dissolute, so indiscriminately inclusive of maniacs and criminal fanatics that no single representative feminist can be found, no central text can answer for the whole.

But for the sake of increasingly and inexplicably divisive argument, let's attempt to isolate just that 'small-f' feminism in the definition you give: "feminism: noun: the doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men", which I will unconditionally repudiate and abjure, for the following reasons.

i) Let's be boring and start with the name. A name that has rightly attracted much criticism, and which Virginia Woolf - not a feminist, merely a devastatingly intelligent and talented woman - called "a vicious and corrupt word that has done much harm in its day and is now obsolete".* Anyone can see the defect here, an implicitly sexist term that apparently calls for the advancement of one sex at the expense of - whom? Well, whom do you think? A special politics for women only and exclusionary of those other incidental members of the human species, once allies and comrades and now relegated to the other side of what has become a literally unending antagonism.

You may say, "it's only a name", but how little else your dictionary leaves me to examine. No, were there no other social or intellectual harm in feminism, I would reject it on the ground of its name alone.

ii, sailor) Would that there were a known equivalent for the term 'racialism' that could relate to the cultural fiction of gender. The demand for women's rights necessarily requires that such a category 'women' exists, and is in need of special protection. Well what virtue is there in any woman that exists in no man? What mannish fault that finds no womanly echo? Then how is this distinction maintained except through supernatural thinking?

There are no women; and if there are no women, then there is nothing for feminism to accomplish. You may sign me up at any time for the doctrine of 'anti-sexism' or of 'individualism', but I will spit on anyone who advocates for 'women's rights'.

iii) This has been touched on before, and praise satan for that time saving mercy, but I reject the implicit assumption that there is a natural societal opposition to the principle of sex equality and that those who fail to declare for this, again, historically very recent dogma fall by default into that opposing force.



*The quote is worth taking in its fuller context, written in a time when the word 'feminist' was a slur on those heroes whose suffering and idealism has been so ghoulishly plundered for the tawdry use of @bareboards2 and her cohort:

"What more fitting than to destroy an old word, a vicious and corrupt word that has done much harm in its day and is now obsolete? The word ‘feminist’ is the word indicated. That word, according to the dictionary, means ‘one who champions the rights of women’. Since the only right, the right to earn a living, has been won, the word no longer has a meaning. And a word without a meaning is a dead word, a corrupt word. Let us therefore celebrate this occasion by cremating the corpse. Let us write that word in large black letters on a sheet of foolscap; then solemnly apply a match to the paper. Look, how it burns! What a light dances over the world! Now let us bray the ashes in a mortar with a goose-feather pen, and declare in unison singing together that anyone who uses that word in future is a ring-the-bell-and-run-away-man, a mischief maker, a groper among old bones, the proof of whose defilement is written in a smudge of dirty water upon his face. The smoke has died down; the word is destroyed. Observe, Sir, what has happened as the result of our celebration. The word ‘feminist’ is destroyed; the air is cleared; and in that clearer air what do we see? Men and women working together for the same cause. The cloud has lifted from the past too. What were they working for in the nineteenth century — those queer dead women in their poke bonnets and shawls? The very same cause for which we are working now. ‘Our claim was no claim of women’s rights only;’— it is Josephine Butler who speaks —‘it was larger and deeper; it was a claim for the rights of all — all men and women — to the respect in their persons of the great principles of Justice and Equality and Liberty.’"