The Mauser action is considered to be a very precise, very repeatable action, correct? Is that the basis for its claim to accuracy in rifles that use it?

So, at 3:40---what precisely is the course? It's not an oval, it's not a figure 8--what is it?

incite
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/incite

in·​cite | \ in-ˈsīt

transitive verb
: to move to action : stir up : spur on : urge on
---------------------------------------------------

INCITE
https://dictionary.thelaw.com/incite/

To arouse; stir up; instigate; set in motion; as, to “incite” a riot Also, generally, in criminal law to instigate, persuade, or move another to commit a crime; in this sense nearly synonymous with “abet” See Long v. State, 23 Neb. 33, 36 N. W. 310.

Related Legal Terms & Definitions
ABET Criminal Law; to aid, help or encourage someone else to commit a crime. Commonly referred…
ENCOURAGE In criminal law. To instigate ; to incite to action; to give courage to
---------------------------------------------------


18 U.S. Code § 2383 - Rebellion or insurrection

Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
---------------------------------------------------



So, the morning of...
Did he arouse the crowd?
Stir them up?
Help instigate or set in motion?

Did he encourage the crowd?
see: ENCOURAGE In criminal law. To instigate ; to incite
---------------------------------------------------

"these people are not going to take it any longer. They’re not going to take it any longer.
"We will never give up. We will never concede, it doesn’t happen.
"Our country has had enough. We will not take it anymore and that’s what this is all about. To use a favorite term that all of you people really came up with, we will stop the steal.
"we want to get this right because we’re going to have somebody in there that should not be in there and our country will be destroyed, and we’re not going to stand for that.
"Our media is not free. It’s not fair. It suppresses thought. It suppresses speech, and it’s become the enemy of the people. It’s become the enemy of the people.
"We’re going walk down to the Capitol, and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators, and congressmen and women. We’re probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them because you’ll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength, and you have to be strong.
"Today, we see a very important event though, because right over there, right there, we see the event going to take place. And I’m going to be watching, because history is going to be made.
"You will have an illegitimate president, that’s what you’ll have. And we can’t let that happen.
"we got to get rid of the weak congresspeople, the ones that aren’t any good, the Liz Cheneys of the world, we got to get rid of them. We got to get rid of them.
"The Republicans have to get tougher. You’re not going to have a Republican party if you don’t get tougher.
"We must stop the steal and then we must ensure that such outrageous election fraud never happens again,
"They want to come in again and rip off our country. Can’t let it happen.
"we fight. We fight like Hell and if you don’t fight like Hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore.
"So we’re going to, we’re going to walk down Pennsylvania Avenue,...The Democrats are hopeless. They’re never voting for anything, not even one vote. (ellipses = he loves PA Ave.)

-----------------------------------------

Some people might call that speech one that AROUSED the crowd, especially all the ask and response.
Some people might say Trump STIRRED UP the crowd
Some people might say he HELPED INSTIGATE the crowd
Some people might say he ENCOURAGED the crowd

-----------------------------------------

ooooooooooooooooooooooooookkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkaaaayyyyyyy
whatever u say mah man, clearly you and yours have it all figured out. * eyeroll *


>>>>>>BUT WAIT!!! THERE'S MORE!<<<<<<

Twitter:

One might be tempted to say "Well he said all this shit in the morning, that's not when all this happened." True, but around 1:55 pm ALMOST IMMEDIATELY after he tweets this :

( just a link to the video of his speech again, so 2x the quotes up there )

Donald J. Trump

@realdonaldtrump

h t t p s : // t .co/izItBeFE6G

Jan 6th 2021 - 1:49:54 PM EST·Twitter for iPhone (1 49 and 54 seconds to be precise)



Here's the ALMOST IMMEDIATELY part (1:49:54 - 1:55) (almost exactly 5 minutes after his tweet)

1:55 p.m. The U.S. Capitol Police are evacuating some congressional office buildings due to “police activity” as thousands gather outside the Capitol to protest the electoral vote. Police told congressional staff members they should evacuate the Cannon House Office Building and the building that houses the Library of Congress. It wasn’t immediately clear what specifically sparked the evacuation. A police spokeswoman did not immediately respond to calls and emails seeking comment. Thousands of people have descended on the U.S. Capitol as Congress is expected to vote to affirm Joe Biden’s 2020 presidential win. Videos posted online showed protesters fighting with U.S. Capitol Police officers as police fired pepper spray to keep them back.

Copyright 2021 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.



>>>>>> LOOKS LIKE INCITEMENT TO ME <<<<<<
>>>>>> LOOKS LIKE INCITEMENT TO ME <<<<<<
>>>>>> LOOKS LIKE INCITEMENT TO ME <<<<<<
>>>>>> LOOKS LIKE INCITEMENT TO ME <<<<<<
>>>>>> LOOKS LIKE INCITEMENT TO ME <<<<<<
>>>>>> LOOKS LIKE INCITEMENT TO ME <<<<<<

>>>>> Do these words have no meaning to you? <<<<<
I know what encourage means. I know what stirred up means. I know what helped instigate means. I know what aroused means; when those phrases refer to a crowd.


And that's what is here.





Don't expect any more from me on this topic. Frankly I'm at a point where i don't care if you understand or not because it's right in front of you, clear as crystal.

People do not use specific words for no-reason.

incite
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/incite

in·​cite | \ in-ˈsīt

transitive verb
: to move to action : stir up : spur on : urge on
---------------------------------------------------

INCITE
https://dictionary.thelaw.com/incite/

To arouse; stir up; instigate; set in motion; as, to “incite” a riot Also, generally, in criminal law to instigate, persuade, or move another to commit a crime; in this sense nearly synonymous with “abet” See Long v. State, 23 Neb. 33, 36 N. W. 310.

Related Legal Terms & Definitions
ABET Criminal Law; to aid, help or encourage someone else to commit a crime. Commonly referred…
ENCOURAGE In criminal law. To instigate ; to incite to action; to give courage to
---------------------------------------------------


18 U.S. Code § 2383 - Rebellion or insurrection

Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
---------------------------------------------------



So, the morning of...
Did he arouse the crowd?
Stir them up?
Help instigate or set in motion?

Did he encourage the crowd?
see: ENCOURAGE In criminal law. To instigate ; to incite
---------------------------------------------------

"these people are not going to take it any longer. They’re not going to take it any longer.
"We will never give up. We will never concede, it doesn’t happen.
"Our country has had enough. We will not take it anymore and that’s what this is all about. To use a favorite term that all of you people really came up with, we will stop the steal.
"we want to get this right because we’re going to have somebody in there that should not be in there and our country will be destroyed, and we’re not going to stand for that.
"Our media is not free. It’s not fair. It suppresses thought. It suppresses speech, and it’s become the enemy of the people. It’s become the enemy of the people.
"We’re going walk down to the Capitol, and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators, and congressmen and women. We’re probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them because you’ll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength, and you have to be strong.
"Today, we see a very important event though, because right over there, right there, we see the event going to take place. And I’m going to be watching, because history is going to be made.
"You will have an illegitimate president, that’s what you’ll have. And we can’t let that happen.
"we got to get rid of the weak congresspeople, the ones that aren’t any good, the Liz Cheneys of the world, we got to get rid of them. We got to get rid of them.
"The Republicans have to get tougher. You’re not going to have a Republican party if you don’t get tougher.
"We must stop the steal and then we must ensure that such outrageous election fraud never happens again,
"They want to come in again and rip off our country. Can’t let it happen.
"we fight. We fight like Hell and if you don’t fight like Hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore.
"So we’re going to, we’re going to walk down Pennsylvania Avenue,...The Democrats are hopeless. They’re never voting for anything, not even one vote. (ellipses = he loves PA Ave.)

-----------------------------------------

Some people might call that speech one that AROUSED the crowd, especially all the ask and response.
Some people might say Trump STIRRED UP the crowd
Some people might say he HELPED INSTIGATE the crowd
Some people might say he ENCOURAGED the crowd

-----------------------------------------

ooooooooooooooooooooooooookkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkaaaayyyyyyy
whatever u say mah man, clearly you and yours have it all figured out. * eyeroll *


>>>>>>BUT WAIT!!! THERE'S MORE!<<<<<<

Twitter:

One might be tempted to say "Well he said all this shit in the morning, that's not when all this happened." True, but around 1:55 pm ALMOST IMMEDIATELY after he tweets this :

( just a link to the video of his speech again, so 2x the quotes up there )

Donald J. Trump

@realdonaldtrump

h t t p s : // t .co/izItBeFE6G

Jan 6th 2021 - 1:49:54 PM EST·Twitter for iPhone (1 49 and 54 seconds to be precise)



Here's the ALMOST IMMEDIATELY part (1:49:54 - 1:55) (almost exactly 5 minutes after his tweet)

1:55 p.m. The U.S. Capitol Police are evacuating some congressional office buildings due to “police activity” as thousands gather outside the Capitol to protest the electoral vote. Police told congressional staff members they should evacuate the Cannon House Office Building and the building that houses the Library of Congress. It wasn’t immediately clear what specifically sparked the evacuation. A police spokeswoman did not immediately respond to calls and emails seeking comment. Thousands of people have descended on the U.S. Capitol as Congress is expected to vote to affirm Joe Biden’s 2020 presidential win. Videos posted online showed protesters fighting with U.S. Capitol Police officers as police fired pepper spray to keep them back.

Copyright 2021 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.



>>>>>> LOOKS LIKE INCITEMENT TO ME <<<<<<
>>>>>> LOOKS LIKE INCITEMENT TO ME <<<<<<
>>>>>> LOOKS LIKE INCITEMENT TO ME <<<<<<
>>>>>> LOOKS LIKE INCITEMENT TO ME <<<<<<
>>>>>> LOOKS LIKE INCITEMENT TO ME <<<<<<
>>>>>> LOOKS LIKE INCITEMENT TO ME <<<<<<

Also, that Epoch times site guy... and the company


I'm not wasting more time on your nonsense than I have to

BUT LET ME BE CLEAR I WILL MAKE THE BET - THROW DOWN IF THAT'S WHAT YOU WANT Ya' FUCKING SELL-YOUR-OWN-COUNTRY-OUT-FASCIST-WANNABE
+buuuurp+ ooo sorry about that, just came out, anyway.

im not wasting my time digging because idk it's like at what point do you tell a person who is suffering from a mental illness that you're not taking them seriously anymore?


+pats your head+




nevertheless, from a glancing of the sources cited on the wiki, there's an...odd? story behind this site?

-------------\
Introducing|>>>>>>>>>>>> The Epoch Times! The news source that is so honest we have no fucking clue where they get their money from...except probably china...probably.
-------------/

"The Epoch Times was founded in 2000 by John Tang and other Chinese Americans affiliated with the Falun Gong new religious movement.[26] Tang was a graduate student in Georgia at the time; he began the newspaper in his basement.[21] The founders said they were responding to censorship inside China and a lack of international understanding about the Chinese government's repression of Falun Gong.[27][28] In May 2000, the paper was first published in the Chinese language in New York, with the web launch in August 2000.[29]

According to NBC News, "little is publicly known about the precise ownership, origins or influences of The Epoch Times," and it is loosely organized into several regional tax free non-profits, under the umbrella of the Epoch Media Group, together with New Tang Dynasty Television.[18][21]

The newspaper's revenue has increased rapidly in recent years, from $3.8 million in 2016 to $8.1 million in 2017 (with spending of $7.2 million) and $12.4 million in 2018.[36] Tax documents of the Epoch Media Group indicated that between 2012 and 2016, the group received $900,000 from a principal at Renaissance Technologies, a hedge fund led by the conservative political donor Robert Mercer.[37] Chris Kitze, a former NBC executive and creator of the fake news website Before It's News who also manages a cryptocurrency hedge fund, joined the paper's board as vice president in 2017.[36]

A 2020 report in The New York Times called The Epoch Times' recent wealth "something of a mystery." Steve Bannon, the former executive chairman of Breitbart News who produced a documentary with NTD, said "I’d give them a number" on a project budget and "they'd come back and say, 'We’re good for that number.'" Former employees say they were told The Epoch Times is financed by subscriptions, ads and donations from wealthy Falun Gong practitioners.[21]

Technically correct: the Constitution does not provide specific details of how Supreme Court appointments are to be made. The fine details have been left up to the Senate and Executive (to a lesser degree, I believe). The executive branch has the right to nominate someone to the court, the Senate then has a duty to serve as a check on that. Technically there's nothing in the Constitution stating you're not allowed to advance a SC nominee weeks before an election.

It IS however, a naked partisan power grab. In 2016 one party argued, 8-9 months prior to the election, that their political opponents should not be able to have their SC nominee even get a hearing prior to the election. There was no actual precedent for this, but they insisted that the will of the electorate must be respected, and that we therefore must await the results of the election. So we did. Now 4 years later, the same party that insisted on respecting the will of the electorate in 2016 is taking precisely the opposite stance. Because last time they could potentially gain from the delay, and this time they almost certainly won't.

The CNN guy was correct: it is NOT unconstitutional to ram through a SC appointment. The authors of the Constitution didn't see fit to include that level of granularity in how the process would work. There is a process to clear this all up though: let's amend the Constitution! That's a super American thing to do! Let's establish, once and for all, the specific rules of the process. Then there won't be any back-and-forth like this about when a nominee can move ahead and when they can't. Nice and tidy.

The question then becomes: at what point in a President's term do they no longer get to nominate a replacement to the Supreme Court, when an election is pending? Should there in fact be no limit (like prior precedent, or lack thereof), and you believe that Merrick Garland should have been allowed hearings, and by extension the Amy Barrett hearings now are legit? Personally, I say we establish a cut-off to spare the political arguments in the future. Let's make it 100 days prior to the election: it's nice round number, bit over 3 months (so time for meaningful hearings and background checks), and should be after or at the end of primary season most cycles. That would of course invalidate both the 2016 and 2020 schemes by the Republicans, but I'm sure that's just a coincidence.

What's your take, Bob? How should this be handled? You posted the video, so I assume you have a stance on the issue?

Feel so satisfying to see that precision...

But feels so dissatisfying seeing that I must be getting as old as everyone else cheering him on from the bleachers.

#old

newtboy's on point again, thanks.

Using bcglorf's logic, it is TAXATION that invented the internet. Name me a country (capitalist/communist/socialist or otherwise) that doesn't tax its people, bcglorf. Makes no sense to me. The video's intent is about defining the "who" invented the (early) internet, it's about credit where it's due, not blindly attributing everything to the almighty "capitalism". The video is saying IS IT NOT IT (capitalism).

I wouldn't say the inventors didn't take advantage of its research, it's just that for them it's not (only) about profit. The military benefits with precision-guided missiles, drones & satellites, universities got their connected & online classrooms.

China is ALREADY doing R&D on 6G (https://www.techradar.com/news/china-has-already-kicked-off-its-6g-research)... "capitalism" better catch up, bcglorf!

What MUST be said though, is that the world really should thank the USA to open the tech & infrastructure up to the public (including the world) to make the world a more connected place (even with its many social warts and all).

Congratulations! Your video, Precision Water Drop Saves Home, has reached the #1 spot in the current Top 15 New Videos listing. This is a very difficult thing to accomplish but you managed to pull it off. For your contribution you have been awarded 2 Power Points.

This achievement has earned you your "Golden One" Level 59 Badge!

Your video, Precision Water Drop Saves Home, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Footnotes
First, B-17 #909, which completed 150 successful combat missions over Europe crashed last week---during an exhibition flight. Multiple fatalities. incredibly sad. The world's most experienced B-17 pilot was at the controls and they'd lost an engine when it crashed on the return approach to the runway.
Second, night missions for B-17s were rare, in part because of American doctrine--daylight precision bombing...

@newtboy,

"bankrupting the global economy isn't the only way to plan for asteroids, now is it? What we have done is put some money towards developing solutions that could be implemented in time, with minor exceptions for super fast unknown asteroids we likely couldn't do much about if we did have a planetary defense system."

That's precisely my point though, bankrupting the global economy to reach negative net emissions tomorrow isn't the only way to plan for climate change either.

"the probability of disastrous climate change is near 100% if you take historic human behavior into account. For many it's already hit. It's only the severity and speed that are in question, and those estimates rise alarmingly with every bit of data we use to replace guesses in the equations.

And the odds of a catastrophic asteroid hit sometime in the future is near 100% too, it's just a question of how many millions of years Earth's luck holds out. Nor has every prediction or projection underestimated future warming so far, your flat wrong on that.

More to the point, the timing and severity of the changes we face is ABSOLUTELY relevant to the actions we need to take. Similarly, knowing the benefit of reducing our emissions by X% by a particular date is also extremely relevant to the actions we need to take. Unfortunately, it must be acknowledged that we have a lot of gaps and uncertainty in our knowledge on those points.

At minimum base level, we know changing global temperature on the whole will impact us negatively, that our CO2 emissions will make things warmer than they otherwise would be, and thus can easily conclude with certainty that the science dictates policies to reduce emissions are a good idea.

Now, you seem to be hell bent on demanding those policies take the shape of staring down the face of disaster 2-3 times worse than the IPCC AR5 reports absolute worst case scenario. I've got to tell you, that the uncertainties involved with that kind of prediction are too great to warrant an honest dictate that the facts support a need for economically devastating action being taken today. It's just not the case.

Even if green tech never takes over, if the next century sees us final solve fusion power and adoption of electric cars, we already get our emission outputs off the worst track scenario the IPCC projected in AR5. I honestly do believe that we will see non-fossil fuel electricity generation and electric cars as the norm in my lifetime, so I'm hopeful for a future that tracks better than the IPCC worst case. That doesn't mean we should do nothing, but it's more like we should take a similarly rational/practical approach to it like you see us doing with asteroids.

@newtboy said: "a 3' rise, which is all but guaranteed by 2100 under the most optimistic current projections."

Lies.

The most recent IPCC report(AR5) has their section on sea level rise here:
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_Chapter13_FINAL.pdf

In the summary for policy makers section under projections they note: " For the period 2081–2100, compared to 1986–2005, global mean sea level rise is likely (medium confidence) to be in the 5 to 95% range of projections from process based models, which give 0.26 to 0.55 m for RCP2.6, 0.32 to 0.63 m for RCP4.5, 0.33 to 0.63 m for RCP6.0, and 0.45 to 0.82 m for RCP8.5. For RCP8.5, the rise by 2100 is 0.52 to 0.98 m"

And to give you maximum benefit of doubt they also comment on possible(unlikely) exceeding of stated estimates:" Based on current understanding, only the collapse of marine-based sectors of the Antarctic ice sheet, if initiated, could cause global mean sea level to rise substantially above the likely range during the 21st century. This potential additional contribution cannot be precisely quantified but there is medium confidence that it would not exceed several tenths of a meter of sea level rise during the 21st century. "

So, to summarize that, the worst case emissions scenario the IPCC ran(8.5), has in itself a worst case sea level rise ranging 0.5-1.0m, so 1.5 to 3ft. They do note a potential allowance for another few tenths of a meter if unexpected collapse of antarctic ice also occurs.

Let me quote you again: "3' rise, which is all but guaranteed by 2100 under the most optimistic current projections"

and yet the most recent collaborative summary from the scientific community states under their most pessimistic projections have a 3 ft as the extreme upper limit...

You also did however state "IPCC (again, known for overly conservative estimates)", so it does seem you almost do admit having low opinion of the scientific consensus and prefer cherry picking the most extreme scenarios you can find anywhere and claiming them as the absolute golden standard...

The reason I'd use a biometric vs a keyed trigger lock is for speed and ease of use in the dark. If I have to give it a little squeeze to get it to release, zero concern. Does it secure the firearm? Yes. Is it 100%, no. Show me one that is.

p.s. in a random sampling, the twenty-three 15 year old boys in my algebra class, none of them own or plan to buy a flat piece of bent metal that precisely fits in a lock of this type, let along lock picking tools. The determination that this lock is no good is based on tests that have little to do with the intended function.

*promote
*quality

Interesting--I can't actually tell if the ICE guy KNOWS he's bluffing--or if he isn't sure of precisely what the document in his hand actually lets him do