As some of us knew at the time, it was not hyperbole, he meant it. Worse, it was correct.
Bragging on tape about attempting to rape his friends wife and sexually assaulting any and every woman he found attractive made no difference, why would attempted murder (I doubt he could be successful even with a free shot) be different? Remember, in America, any level of sexual deviance is frowned upon more than violence....unless the perpetrator shares your political party.

Before this I would have said that having 2 guns or 20 makes no difference how lethal you are, but this does show that to be wrong(he would have overheated his barrel with only 2-3 rifles). I think it's also an extreme outlier case, something we shouldn't necessarily legislate specifically for.

The 1994 AWB was totally useless, mostly concerned with scary looking cosmetic features like a pistol grip and a flash hider(!) that have no impact on lethality.

Of course anybody can bump fire an AR15 by hooking their thumb in a belt loop. Full auto firing is inaccurate, so firing from the hip isn't going to be too much worse.

And lastly but probably most important. 80% of gun deaths are from handguns. Focusing efforts there are worth so much more than trying to stop the next lunatic trying to kill 50 people.

Either way, he brought plenty more than needed.


Sidenote :
Everyone who shoots regularly (sport, not hunting) has thousands of rounds.
A 1k brick of 223 is ~28c per shot.
If you buy boxes of 20 each at the range, you're gonna pay closer to ~50c per shot.
If you go to the range 2x per month, firing 200 rounds per trip (6 or 7 mags worth), that's 2.5 months to empty a 1k brick.
~110 bucks/month if you buy 1k at a time.
~200 bucks/month if you buy individual boxes at the range.
The choice is simple. 1k bricks to save money.
So if you have 5 different caliber rifles, you have 5 1k bricks.
This is one of those "out of touch" sort of things with TV coverage. They make it sound like thousands of rounds is a lot to have.

Granted, I know hunters that have 40 rounds to their name, and it will take them 10 years to shoot all 40. One shot at season start to check zero. Then 1 or 2 more to take 1 or 2 deer. But they don't like to shoot, they like to hunt.



I googled 'rapid fire triggers'.

Geissele, Timney, Hypertouch, these are all normal triggers.
They are premium offerings. Smooth, low grit, low creep, clean crisp break.
They don't actually have any function that artificially increases rate of fire.
The marketing can fool you if you don't know what they are.
(It's like buying a "no name mouse" vs a "gamer mouse". One feels better, but you still click just as fast.)

Tac Con 3MR does have its own gimmick. It does a partial reset on every fire. Your finger still has to move forward and back to fire again, so you're still limited by your reaction time. In reviews it's no different than a normal trigger rate of fire wise.



4473 just asks if you've ever been convicted of a felony that could (not did) have had a 1 year sentence. That's a pretty broad set.

AFAIK, they all screw your right to vote. I could be wrong.


Note :
Sorry about edits mid your reply.
I have a habit of "word processing" in place - out of fear that I'll click back or something and lose my text.

-scheherazade

i think you are onto something there about the reasons for the political extremes gaining traction.

people are far more isolated in today's world,which ironic considering how open everything is.

but now they have the option to:ignore,block or defriend.

creating a nice,warm and comfy bubble in which to reside in and never have to deal with those who may disagree,criticize or challenge anything in their pretty little head.

during the presidential election i had liberals defriend me because i was critical of hillary.

oh they LOVED me when i was telling them that sanders was going be exposed to the "ron paul" treatment.the fact that the primary was obviously rigged made no difference to them.

but when i continued to be critical of their golden child?

misogynist traitor (actual quote).

the trump supporters adored me when i was breaking down the reasons why some people may vote for trump,and that people should not simply dismiss trump out of hand.

my liberal friends despised me for this,thinking that somehow me pointing to the political climate of my country translated to support for trump.

but i was just a cis gender white privileged male who did not deserve and opinion (another actual quote).

and those trump supporters turned on me in an instant when i began pointing out the more disturbing aspects of trump,his history and politics.oh..they didn't like that.

fucking commie fucking libtard.i thought you were on "our" side! (another quote).

all in all...over 400 people,from both sides of the political spectrum,called me some impressive names..and defriended me.

all because what i was posting conflicted or challenged their cult of personality,which they had attached their ideology.

so now they all sit in their little circles and smell each others farts and call them good and righteous.

i think charlottesville,virginia,seattle are just the beginning.....i fear things are going to get much MUCH worse.

Our legal system up here already has codified that 'idiocy', and it's been in place quite awhile.

The women's only clothing optional spa that tried to say 'no penises allowed' is legally at odds with the provincial human rights code:
http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/male-genitalia-policy-spurs-backlash-at-toronto-women-s-spa-1.3456844

The Canadian charter of human rights also lists freedom from discrimination as being no different for choice/behaviour things like religion, alongside birth traits like race or gender. So legally our system doesn't think rejecting a clergy application for being atheist as any different to rejecting it because of race.

And I kind of hate using a 'trivial' and much trumpeted example from America but a bakery not wanting to make a cake based on people's sexual preferences was declared illegal:
http://aclu-co.org/court-rules-bakery-illegally-discriminated-against-gay-couple/

I'll try to summarise my last paragraph better.

The Democratic party needs to reach out to people that didn't vote Hillary. They are instead choosing to condemn those that didn't vote Hillary as racists or friends of racists. They need to be doing the exact opposite. They need to find things to compromise on and reach out to the people that didn't vote Hillary. That doesn't have to necessarily be on any of the ideas I've tossed out above, but they've gotta do something.

A last point, the moral relativism or correctness of the cause here isn't the only thing that matters. If you can't convince a majority of the population that you are on the side of their self interest and liberties and freedoms, then you are going to lose. The things I've listed are examples of the left taking away freedoms that many on the right consider important or even fundamental to them. If no compromises can be made, the Democrats haven't got much reason for optimism about the next election looking any better.

Thanks for taking the time to answer. Why would I want to re-read the BIBLE (I capitalised it because really, it makes no difference)? I wrote AFAIK. I didn't say it did not say it. I specifically asked for this information in case anyone else had it (which I made clear).

It seems only very old translations say omnipotent (i.e. king james, third millenium). All new translations have "Lord God Almighty". Almighty is a synonym to omnipotent.

http://www.biblestudytools.com/revelation/19-6-compare.html

Judging sins (i.e. knowing what happens in a limited situation) is not omniscience.

Creating the universe, while powerful, is not omnipotent.

I.e. your examples fit the second meaning of omnipotent/almighty, which is "greatly powerful".

Now, Matthew 19:26 is interesting because it is actually a quote from Jesus. That's the new closest thing to omnipotent for me. EDIT: no, thinking about it, he might be saying "it's possible", as in it has a probability of happening.

EDIT 2: Very importantly, reading the Bible by itself causes these very problems. I mentioned the Orthodox Tradition above - where they have an oral and written history that defines the interpretation so that people don't make up their own shit (like I do all the time - lol).

@newtboy 's original comment may stand in your eyes. But you don't get to dictate whether it is a fact or not. But more importantly than that - what comment are you referring to? I don't see him having written what you are paraphrasing.

No different than any other American pharmaceutical commercial.

@bobknight33
you literally just repeated things that i,and pretty much everyone on the sift already know.

and has NOTHING to do with what i was asking.

i stated,quite clearly,that on a philosophical and political level,you would disagree with the justice democrats.there is no confusion here,and no reason for you to have gone down the line the things you disagree with.

the question i asked is how is the justice democrats breaking away from the dominant corporate democrats any different from the tea party breaking away from the mainstream republicans?

hint:there is no difference.

i may disagree with the tea party on many political issues,but i admired and respected their integrity to challenge the monolithic political domination of the republican party.even though i may disagree with them politically.to start their own branch WITHIN the republican party.

which is exactly what the justice democrats are doing.

the main reason why i asked is because you down-voted THIS video promoting the justice democrats,and yet had posted a video by kyle,from secular talk and who is a founding member of the justice democrats.criticizing the corporate democrats for their addiction to big campaign donors.

so i appreciate that you took the time to check out their platform,but are we really surprised that you disagree with the majority of what they are trying to accomplish?

of course not,which is why my question was not "do you agree with the justice democrats?"

because you down-voting this video,promoting justice democrats,and then posting a video FROM the justice democrats is a tad confusing.

i was really just asking you to clarify.

do you respect and admire a grass roots movement within the democratic party that seeks to challenge the status quo? even though you may disagree politically?

or are you SO partisan that anything that has "democrat" in the label is automatically to be admonished,criticized and ultimately ridiculed?

bonus question:were you aware the video you posted was from a founding member of justice democrats?

i guess i am just trying to understand,because the downvote along with you posting a video from the very people you just downvoted is philosophically inconsistent.

political party affiliation makes no difference. Look at these people as humans on both sides it may make more sense.

That is the part that I find worrisome though, is that his 'argument' is far from compelling. His very starting point is based on a completely false moral equivalency between the rule of Stalin, Mao and modern day America. As if dictatorships where the law enforcement would execute you for criticising the leader or being born to the wrong class or parents are no different or worse than America having 'sobriety checkpoints'. That's not compelling, it's idiocy.

Furthermore, as @drradon pointed out the alternative to a state is anarchy. Anarchy isn't a utopia even though the speaker almost seems to pretend that it is. The only 'justice' or 'law' in anarchy is might makes right, and throughout human history thugs, thieves and warlords dominate. A democratic state like America is vast improvement and beacon of light by comparison. Vehemently claiming otherwise is a blatant lie, not an 'alternative' view point. Unless we want to start accepting alternative facts...

In that video, Milo helpfully defines pedophilia, AND YOU STILL GOT IT WRONG. Stop lying, please.

Now to what he was actually talking about: criminal law has to have a stark, black and white line to define an age of consent. I don't see what's wrong with arguing that line is imperfect and some younger people are capable of giving it. I wouldn't go so far as saying that would justify breaking the law. But morally, there is no difference between screwing a minor a day before they turn 18 and the day after. In reality it might very well be completely legal in the next state over.

He is an idiot for even touching this third-rail topic and his jokes about the Father are tone-deaf but maybe that has to do with his British upbringing.

I totally agree that all religions have a problem, and all cultures have violence, fundamentalists, and other issues, but it's dishonest to say that they are all equal in problems, equally serious, equally harmful, or that the problems are equally widespread, equally ingrained in the culture, and especially equally represented by law and the government.

It's about rates, scale and motivation.

It would be dishonest to claim that there is no difference. Yet that is what it appears to be that's what you're suggesting.

Perhaps when you can draw big old Mo without the fear that someone will come after you, then we can start to talk about how equal all this is.

Bullshit. There are lots of decisions you can make that can affect everyone. Having kids is not as distinct as you're making out. The 1%ers can make decisions which affect millions of people way more than me having a kid ever could.

Every single one of us is someone's kid. Your moral situation is no different to anyone's, including my offspring. You can't separate yourself from any parent child thing, you're already intrinsically connected to that relationship. Your life is made better every day by things that other people do. Things that other people have invented, created. You're kept safe by people dying to protect you.

You live in a world made entirely of the work of other people's kids.

Ahh, so you were lying. You did have time.

From your response it's clear you don't know much about medicine.

"If you don't provide all the services required of a hospital, you don't get to call yourself a fucking hospital. "

No. You do get to call yourself a hospital. Most hospitals don't offer all medical services. Even major hospitals. You don't get to choose what is and isn't a hospital.

"There's a big bloody difference between "not equipped" and "unwilling"."

Sort of. It's a chicken and egg situation that has an order to it.

Most private hospitals are unwilling to provide non-profit services and are therefore not equipped to provide them. You won't find hospitals with the skills (i.e. doctors and nurses able to perform the procedure) and equipment (which is almost always purpose specific in medicine) and not the willingness to do the procedure. Catholic hospitals won't have either of those necessary requirements for most of the disputed procedures.

"And it's a bit fucking rich to bring up false equivalencies when you just compared unavailability of potential life-saving medical treatment to someone whinging over not getting a big mac at kfc."

No, mine was an appropriate analogy in regards to asking for a service or product that a company does not provide. In this case a Big Mac at KFC.

'"Really? They "articulate the truth"... as I said before, this is self-evidently complete and utter fucking bullshit.'

I can't say it's bullshit, but it is irrelevant.

'Yes, "inconvenient" is exactly the right word for a woman who is probably in the middle of the worst day of her life.
I mean, she might end up "inconveniently" dead, but hey, we wouldn't want to stop catholics telling other people how to live, would we?'

You're wrong. It is only an inconvenience. It sucks to be transferred to a different hospital but in general it has no adverse medical outcome on the patient. If the patient is critical the hospital will do what they can (which will be limited because they don't have the skills or equipment for that service) before transferring the patient. Just like one thousand and one other non-life-threatening and life-threatening procedures that most hospitals don't treat. Leaving the patient in place at that hospital carries a higher adverse risk than transferring them to an appropriate facility.

'And here we come to strawman of all strawmen. The problem is NOT that a woman needs a "direct abortion", it's that she may a surgical procedure that kills the child inadvertently. And this isn't theoretical, women have died from this.'

Not a strawman. You've given one example in a tabloid paper of a single woman who died from septacaemia, a week after a procedure. Unless you can show a conclusive coroner's report showing that the delay in removing the foetus (i.e. waiting until it was dead) was the cause, and not the 1000% more likely cause of infection during or after the surgery, then you don't even have that one example. And this sort of sepsis is just as likely from doing the same procedure with a live foetus. The procedure is pretty much the same. And even with one example, that's not statistically relevant. Do you have a study published in a reputable medical journal?

"The fundamental point is that religion has no place in medicine. If a patient wishes to refuse certain treatments because of their beliefs, well, they're an idiot, but it's their choice to be an idiot."

These hospitals have a mission statement based on their beliefs but they are practicing state of the art medicine. Based on their beliefs they don't offer all services , but this is no different than any other small hospital who limits their services. There are no statistically relevant adverse medical outcomes for anyone from this situation.

"But a hospital doesn't get to refuse treatment based on some bronze-age belief. If the treatment is legal in its jurisdiction and they have the capability to provide it, they must provide it. Businesses should not be allowed to refuse service on religious grounds ("I am religiously opposed to treating gay people or blacks!!")"

You're confusing you're belief of "shouldn't" with "doesn't". They can and should limit their services to what they want to offer as a hospital. The same as every public hospital does. And no, if the procedure is legal they do not have to provide it. This is true for public and private hospitals.

You seem to be sorely missing this basic vital understanding that all hospitals are limited in capacity and don't offer all services. If you go to the largest hospital near me (one of two major hospitals near me) and need emergency obstetrics, you will be shipped off to the other major hospital. That's how it works. If you go to one of many dozens of smaller private hospitals and ask for a,b, or c and they only offer x, y or z, then you're going to end up going to a different hospital.

The catholic hospital is practicing conscientious objection and passively practicing this (yes, passively, they're happy for you to go elsewhere). You want to force (that's the best word) all medical personal to bend to your will and don't accept worldviews that don't coincide with yours. Bigotry at it's finest.

'("I am religiously opposed to treating gay people or blacks!!")'
FFS: Evidence of hospitals doing this please. Not an individual doctor. Hospitals.

'As you said yourself "If you don't like it, go work somewhere else".'

You're saying "if you don't like my personal rules, then go find a different industry". Democracies a bitch when you don't get what you want. You're going to have to live with the fact that your way is just your opinion and nothing else.

You're getting pretty boring pretty quickly. I doubt I'll bother anymore with you, it's readily apparent that you're not going to learn any time soon.