He followed this up with a video of his first trip to a range to shoot historic pistols. Single action had advantages.

Your video, What are 'single-action' and 'double-action' triggers?, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 193 Badge!

Today, the morning after firing Comey, (possibly for requesting more funding for the investigation into Trump's administration colluding with Russia yesterday), Trump is meeting in secret (closed door meetings) with the two Russian diplomats that are indisputably directly involved in the collusion on tape.

There has yet to be a shred of evidence that even appears to exonerate them of these charges of treason, and every single action they take indicates guilt.

Insane that we are now in a position where we have to hope this follows Watergate's lead, because the alternative path is directly into tyrannical despotism.

Sorry for a wall of repeated text, I tire of my replies being erased without being read.....

newtboy says...


Let me be clear about how those you lambast see it......

Forcefully nominating Clinton was the single action that made the most difference in interfering with stopping Trump. It gave him more votes than he earned himself. His entire campaign was "if not me, you get Clinton" and that argument won him the election.
The DNC is responsible for that action...and to a lesser extent her supporters like you that put blinders on to her innumerable flaws and the vitriolic hatred against her and chose her over a probable winner with a penis. Once it was clear they cheated to help her, it was over for her. She was not going to get enough Sanders votes no matter what anyone said, she just raped them of their primary vote, losing their election vote in the process.
THAT is a stone cold fact.

She could never have won...she's just too despised by the right, and they (clearly) act on their anger. You should have pushed for Warren instead of Clinton if it was just a genital thing for you. Even if she had won, we would have lost. She would (continue to) be a lightning rod for right wing hatred, and the obstructionism of the Obama administration would look like heaven compared to the division she would foster.

But you don't read or listen. You'll probably just erase this like every other post....so perhaps I'll copy it on my page so you can't.

Grow up.




bareboards2 said:

Let me be clear about something.

We are only responsible for our own actions. We are not responsible for other people's actions. We cannot change them.

We live in the present. Not the past.

So we choose for ourselves what we do now.

Donald Trump should not be President.

Every action taken that interfered with stopping Trump means that a choice was made in that present moment to help him.

That is a stone cold fact.



1 second ago

up0down












newtboy says...

And that's why you lost. You don't listen....you instruct and then shame as if you're their mom and they owe you a duty to obey. You aren't, they don't.
Sanders lost because of underhanded collusion between the DNC and Clinton. He may have lost without that cheating...we'll never know. When she and her subordinates cheated...they lost the election right then.
My support or lack thereof made not a whit of difference, she won California.....and my ballot had her name marked (even if not by my own hand) just so she might also win the popular vote...so you're totally barking up the wrong tree. In the end, I found her the lesser of 2 evils and 4 unqualified....but she was SO unacceptable to so many that the one that was both evil and unqualified won, because SHE drove his voters to the polls in record numbers, an argument I made in February as to why she was the WORST choice.
That is the truth, a truth I pointed out 8-9 months back when there was still a chance.
Independent Sanders supporters told you to support him, not the hated, smarmy, dishonest, under FBI investigation, baggage handler that tied Trump in polls at best. He was the democratic candidate that CRUSHED him in all polls, and you didn't support him or support the rule of law/election rules, and Trump is president. See how that's 100% YOUR fault and not theirs?....probably not, you don't read replies or accept responsibility for your own actions, because that would be acting too much like an adult.
Sweet zombie Jesus.




bareboards2 said:

I didn't read it, @newtboy.

Grow up. Sanders lost. You and others like your threw a hissy fit.

Trump is president because you didn't listen to Sanders.

That is the bald faced truth.

Sanders told you to support her and you didn't.

And Trump is President.

This is your responsibility.



1 second ago

It doesn't work like that. What you end up with is something akin to Australia's gun laws, which 'technically' still allow certain people to own guns, realistically most won't or can't

Category A: Rimfire rifles (not semi-automatic), circuit loaded firearms. shotguns (not pump-action or semi-automatic), air rifles including semi automatic, and paintball gun. A "Genuine Reason" must be provided for a Category A firearm. [AKA, you have to prove you have a reason to own these weapons. Newsflash, the majority of police will automatically deny you. Oh yeah, for a PAINTBALL gun as well.]

Category B: Centrefire rifles including bolt action, pump action, circuit loaded, and lever action (not semi-automatic), muzzleloading firearms made after 1 January 1901. [Same as Cat A, must have a 'genuine reason' to own one, be registered, have a fee, ton of other limitations, so basically hard to own]

Category C: Pump-action or self-loading shotguns having a magazine capacity of 5 or fewer rounds and semi automatic rimfire rifles. [Only Primary producers, farm workers, firearm dealers, firearm safety officers, collectors and clay target shooters can own functional Category C firearms.]

Category D: Self-loading centrefire rifles, pump-action or self-loading shotguns have a magazine capacity of more than 5 rounds. [Functional Category D firearms are restricted to government agencies, occupational shooters and primary producers in some states. Collectors may own deactivated Category D firearms.]

Category H: Handguns including air pistols and deactivated handguns. [This class is available to target shooters and certain security guards whose job requires possession of a firearm. To be eligible for a Category H firearm, a target shooter must serve a probationary period of 6 months using club handguns, after which they may apply for a permit. A minimum number of matches yearly to retain each category of handgun and be a paid-up member of an approved pistol club. Target shooters are limited to handguns of .38 or 9mm calibre or less and magazines may hold a maximum of 10 rounds. Participants in certain "approved" pistol competitions may acquire handguns up to .45", currently Single Action Shooting and Metallic Silhouette. IPSC shooting is approved for 9mm/.38/.357 sig, handguns that meet the IPSC rules, larger calibres such as .45 were approved for IPSC handgun shooting contests in Australia in 2014. Barrels must be at least 100mm (3.94") long for revolvers, and 120mm (4.72") for semi-automatic pistols unless the pistols are clearly ISSF target pistols; magazines are restricted to 10 rounds.]

Category R/E: Restricted weapons, such as machine guns, rocket launchers, full automatic self loading rifles, flame-throwers, anti-tank guns, howitzers and other artillery weapons [Obviously this class is right out...]

You can own some muzzleloading weapons without restrictions, although percussion cap pistols are restricted. In addition to these minor rules, all guns must be secured in a safe or other similar location, all must be fully registered so that the government knows the location of every single weapon/owner, and you can't sell them to another person, only to a dealer or the law to be destroyed.

After a few years of de-fanging and getting the citizens used to not having weapons, the Australian government and law enforcement routinely quietly hold gun buybacks to persuade more people to give up their weapons. They also do amnesty turn ins now and then.

So, that is the AMAZING suite of laws Australia put in place to stop mass shootings. Forgive me if, when combined, those type of laws would basically neuter the 2nd amendment. We've already neutered the 1st with 'hate speech' and the ability to sue over getting your feelings hurt. The 4th has been steadily under attack, because GOOD citizens shouldn't mind if the government rummages through everything you own or do. We haven't messed with the 5th amendment too much, so we could look at that next, maybe allow torture of everyone for confessions.

I'm getting tired of listing points, so let me just say this. I am incredibly sorry that people died, they shouldn't have and it is an utter shame. However, we are already fighting on a daily basis to keep a facsimile of the rights that were fought for when we built this country. Watering them down further only helps our government tighten the bonds of enslavement upon us. I can't agree with that.

The best evidence you have for your claims (as I see it) is anecdotal at best.
3rd world countries 1) are not at all vegetarian and 2) don't get most cancers Westerners do largely because they don't eat processed foods or expose themselves to carcinogenic chemicals constantly....we do.
Again, NEVER get your science from the internet.

"Pro-life" is by definition "anti-choice".

If you're really pro-planet, a MUCH better way to go about it is try to get people to have fewer children. That will make exponentially more difference than some people eating fewer animals. In fact, if past human behavior is a guide, if we all stop eating animals, animals will cease to exist for the most part, so that's not helpful to them at all.

Again, fewer people is the proper answer, not forcefully change biologically engrained behavior. I made that choice, so I can eat all the animals I ever possibly can and I've done more for the planet and it's animals with that single action than 1000 vegans with vegan children...or more positive difference than one vegan with children, depending on how you want to look at it.

As a living being, I'm standing up for all living beings who certainly object to your choice to breed, both the voiceless and those with voice, and saying stop making choices that negatively impact us all, like having more children and grandchildren. If enough people would do that, eating meat won't be an ecological issue. ;-)

I didn't watch the videos, I don't get my science from the internet. I read scientific publications that contain peer reviewed science papers, and I've never seen one that said ALL the nutrients found in meat could be replaced with vegetable nutrients easily, simply, viably, or without excessive expense.
Also, it ignores that fact that most produce available in the first world comes with a huge carbon footprint and massive ecological damage because of the production methods, so it's not the 'clean' trade off you seem to assume.

Small family farms were plenty to meet demand for all of human history until about the last 50 years. Quit having kids, and it will be enough again and we can stop abusing animals and the eco system just to make enough food for humans.

A short, good life is preferable to no life at all.

Nope. I should have scheduled the one in that picture that's mine to end his life at least a year earlier, but I couldn't bring myself to do it. NOT doing it was immoral. If someone had been willing to eat him, I would be all for it. If someone wants to eat me, go for it...I suggest slow smoking and a molasses based BBQ sauce. Eating my dog would be ecologically sound, as opposed to the cremation we ended up with, or burial, being the only other option available.
If I raised dogs for food, I would not think twice about ending their life in their prime. That would be the reason they existed in the first place, and without that reason they would never get that chance.

Again, milk cows only exist because someone wanted to partner with them to benefit both. Without that symbiosis, they would not get the opportunity to exist at all. IMO, existence is preferable to no existence. Yes, they need to get pregnant at least once, but as I understand it, that's it so long as you keep up with milking them. Veal, now there I'll totally agree with you that IT'S abuse.

Animals are not people. They do not usually have the same need for freedom, and those that do have that need were never domesticated. It is not immoral to form a symbiosis with another species as long as you both benefit in some way, otherwise you're just a parasite.

? Taste, as in how animals taste? BS, that's not all. That's a component, sure, but there's incredibly more to it than that.

I prefer to give animals a reason to exist, knowing that without that human centric reason, they simply won't get the chance, but I do my best to purchase animal products that are created with the least distress and best conditions for the animals in question...granted that's not always possible to know.

Trust me, I've tried vegetarian 'meats', I know the difference, and absolutely don't prefer vegan fare, or vegetarian fare that attempts to emulate meat. If I want meat, I'll eat meat. You'll get my butter only by prying it from my cold, dead hands. ;-)

I don't think taste is quite as simple as you imply. Yes, there is a component of 'addiction' to certain foods, especially sugar rich foods.
There's no such thing as vegan cheese or chocolate, you mean tofu and carob...and I agree, they both suck.

Sorry, that's simply wrong. A poor eating vegan can certainly negatively impact the planet with their food choices. It's easy. Oreos for instance, are most certainly made with ecologically damaging factory farm methods creating the ingredients...well, those methods and chemists. I don't know off hand the carbon footprint and ecological impact of an oreo, but it's not "none".

No one said anything resembling that.
I said that protecting your right to not self incriminate requires people doing things like this, legally and reasonably. Quite a different thing from the straw man red herring you bring up, that support for this single action is equitable to saying 'anything legal is good' and 'anything illegal is bad' EDIT: or that if you think this specific kind of thing is 'good', you support fighting "every single battle I possibly can". I feel that if you must hyper-exaggerate what the other side in a debate said in order to rebut it, it indicates you have no answer for what was actually said.

If people like him didn't do things like this, the remaining states wouldn't need to adopt any restrictions, because they'll simply implement those restrictions without adopting them, as the cops in this instance (illegally) did. Without people like him, you've LOST those rights already. He's not the reason they're disappearing, he's the reason they still exist anywhere.

If this gets the cops fired, it helps stop police abuse. If it gets them seriously reprimanded, it helps stop abuse. If it just shames them for being idiots, it helps stop abuse.

Again, quietly filming is NOT being a threat. If you are threatened by being filmed, boy howdy are you living in the wrong century.

Again, IF he is on the watch list, it's just another example of why the watch list is useless, because anyone the police or fed or technician doesn't LIKE ends up on it, not suspected terrorists. (EDIT:it's been found that many of those that work directly with the 'terrorist watch list' have abused it by adding ex-wives and other personal enemies to it, making it an 'enemies list' of random people's personal enemies...and a few people being watched as terrorists...which is why so many of those committing terrorist acts are found to be on the list, but are not being watched)

@lucky760 , The DA seemed to indicate he had no obligation to produce ID in that state by dropping the charges, as did the judge that got involved. Not proof, but a good indicator.

They simplify the math. In the old you would have something like 100 Time Units, and there would be different types of shots, snap shot, auto shot, aimed shot etc and different actions that cost varied amounts of time units - movement also cost time units. Now a "move" is a single action, a "shot" is a single action. So the math is simplified and it's somewhat easier to maximize your potential. It does sacrifice a bit of the charm, because it becomes more "easy" but eh, hard to tell at this point.

>> ^spoco2:

I don't get what he's talking about in terms of removing time units and replacing them with a number of moves, and this somehow 'clearing up the player's headspace'.
Huh?
How is 'number of moves' different to 'amount of time units left'?
I don't get it.
Still, having said that, this looks true to the original, and pretty bloody awesome.
Loved that game then (pfft, usb sticks... pfffft, USB did not exist when the original came out sir), and would love this version too.
If... you know... I had time to play games anymore. Release an Android version I can play on the train in and out of work and I could

I just don't understand the "Corporatist" label.

Corporations are organisms composed of individuals. Any action taken by a corporation, positive or negative, cannot be attributed to the "Corporation" but the individuals who are a part of that corporation. Once you decide to try to attribute any single action by a corporation to single individual within the corporation you find it's next to impossible. Decisions are not made unilaterally by individuals, each individual is complicit in the actions taken. Dig deeper and you'll find there are rarely any distinct individuals who actually hold the power to make decisions. Each individual is beholding to take the direction that's best for the corporation as a whole.

How many people in that audience work for a corporation? I'm betting nearly every single one of them. So when Ron Paul calls out 'Corporations' as the boogie-man he's actually implicating every single person in that audience for the decisions and actions they take every single day in the course of their work.

If you work for a Corporation and your Corporation is responsible for negative activity that hurst individuals, communities, the nation, the world...then you are guilty of contributing to those actions no matter what your roll in the Corporation. It may be reassuring to convince yourself that others within the corporation are responsible but then try to identify those individuals. The closer you inspect the actions of each individual the more you'll realize no one individual is responsible. We're all responsible.

>> ^peggedbea:
jesus, listen to yourselves.... either you guys almost exclusively deal with the sorriest, bitchiest, most spoiled, princess-complex females in the universe ... or you're really kind of dickish.
i'm using larsarus's comment as the example, but his sentiments seem to be close to the norm here.
expecting that my work and mind be valued and respected as much as yours, does not mean i don't value your existence too. and helping your neighbor reach something high, or get through the door with her hands full doesn't mean you've bowed down to feminist subjugation or were manipulated by doe-eyes. for fucks sake dudes.
social rule for all genitals: don't be a dick. (pun not intended)
>> ^LarsaruS:
My thoughts on equality
In my opinion equality is better than 17th century chivalry. The problem with equality though is that some people feel that they are more equal than others. This is, as far as I have observed, usually a female trait (unless you count the statistical outliers like the few ultra-rich and heads of states and the like) in that they demand equality in all things that benefit them yet refuse to fight for/accept equality in things that don't benefit them or is to their disadvantage. As I see it it is the old problem of living standards i.e. if you are used to having a high standard of living then lowering it is not a viable option. Giving way for a male can be seen as a lowering of their living standards in this instance.
How to deal with it
I have found that using their slogans against them and not helping them works quite well as they can't argue with you when you use their own arguments against them. Example: A female wants to reach the top shelves but can't because she is female and short. She sees a tall male and she looks at him with doe-eyes and asks with a lilt in her voice if he could help poor little her. Simply reply with a No and "Girl power!" or some other feminist slogan (In Sweden there was a slogan that went "Kvinnor kan!" which roughly means "Females can!" with [do anything males can] implied which I usually use). Some females realise the astounding irony of fighting gender inequalities and then relying on them for help but some of them get really pissed, in my opinion, because they can't get a male to do their bidding and are not used to being told 'No' by males. But hey if you want equality then you have got it. I would not help a random short male so I wont help a random female either. It is better for all to learn to improvise and solve their own tiny problems, how to get the crisps/chips from the top shelf, than to rely on the kindness/weakness of others.
In conclusion: you - right & they - wrong. Equality > Chivalry & Strength > Weakness
P.S. Wow this is a wall of text... congrats on getting through it :-D



Another wall of text is incoming... be warned (Not interested in starting a flame war but will probably derail the thread a bit but here goes...)

A couple of comments as you used my text as an example:
1) I would help my neighbours, I like them and know them... well most of them at least and the ones I don't like I probably would not help... As someone said above: chivalry and tipping is a choice not mandatory and so is helping others, especially people you don't like/care about.

2) I can't speak for all of the sift but when I write a text like mine I use broad generalizations to get the/my point across, Example: "All Iraqis and Afghanis are terrorists who want to blow up the world", even if it is "a bit" exaggerated or not true in many many many cases(I would guestimate it to ~99.99% of them or so)...

3) Female wiles are still female wiles whether there is a "feminist agenda"/"feminist subjugation" or not. To clarify my stance/point: Males tend to get their way by use of force, physical/monetary/mental and so on, whilst Females get their way by looking good and using males to do their bidding, see gold diggers/black widows and so on. Yes, females are worth as much and contribute to other stuff using their brains blah blah blah. However, it is a, in my eyes at least, simple concept as (most) Males (except asexuals, homosexuals, paraplegics and others not interested in females and/or able to procreate) will do basically anything to increase their chance of getting laid, see plastic surgery/crazy diet & workout schemes and so on, and helping a female does that, in our minds at least, (increases the chance of it, not guarantees it. Don't confuse the two as it might land you in trouble ) and they know that we, males, believe that and use it to their advantage. It is all quite Machiavellian and I applaud them for it.

4) is a bit OT but ties in with My, not everyone's, views on things. Cont. of 3).
It's simply biology in action. Every single action we (as a biological species) ever do is for the ultimate goal of securing procreation/the continuation of our lifeform. (Once again: My views, maybe not shared with some/most...) We (as in males) work out to look good and to be able to fight off sabre-toothed tigers (Providing safety & security), we study to get a job that provides money (for food and shelter, more money usually = better food & shelter) and so on. These things lead to a higher chance of the young surviving and is therefore seen as positive traits when females are looking for a mate. In general animals that play to their strengths survive, those who don't go extinct, and in general males can overpower females but females can outscheme males. Remember to keep on copying and diversifying that DNA. It is the meaning of life after all. Survival of the most adaptable and all that junk...

PS. Oh I almost forgot to say that that was an excellent pun Bea... love that finishing touch... (Seriously I do, very nice)

PPS. Extremly long wall of text... hopefully it is clear enough to be read and understood by others but I know what I mean and that means others do too right?

WTF. Is this like some kind of strategy or something to psych out her opponent? Why do they make everyone the spectators stay silent when the players can make such a ridiculous screeching racket?

Players don't have the same focus as other athletes? I've read that hitting a ball thrown by a major league pitcher is the most difficult single action of all sports, and those stadiums are really &#!@$! loud. A loud crowd is considered one of the advantages the home team has in the NFL. Soccer stadiums: really, really loud. The crowd is expected to wave those thingies around and bang them together during free throws in the NBA (imagine some guy in a funny hat trying to get everyone to be quiet). A race car driver surely can't hear anything except the raucous scream of their engine.

Anyways, I consider it my god given right to shout "You suck!" at the opposing players. Golf, I can maybe understand the expectation of silence, but not Tennis. Perhaps it has something to do with "gentleman's sports" where god forbid the lowly peasants in the audience should annoy the players.

Upvote for such an annoying video? Sure, because this nonsense needs to be stopped much like the videos where police officers kick old ladies in the face.

>> ^Flood:
Winstonfield,
Maybe... just MAYBE... I mean, it might be possible... maybe even highly probable... that when someone supports a single action performed by Obama, then that doesn't imply that this someone automatically supports every action performed by Obama.


Flood, it's not worth your time.

To pennypacker here, anyone who says a nice thing about Obama is a zombie. And anyone who says something negative about Bush has "Bush Derangement Syndrome".

Maybe... just MAYBE... I mean, it might be possible... maybe even highly probable... that when someone supports a single action performed by Obama, then that doesn't imply that this someone automatically supports every action performed by Obama.

And yet, this single action is proof that Obama is "able to make better judgements"? And people have "never heard this before"? Politicians toss out cheap, meaningless 'apologies' every 2 seconds. Oh - and BO'll "fix it so it never happens again"? Bullogna with a capital bull.

To see people get all moist over something as cheap, cheesy, fake, and baldly political as this is nauseating. They're saying it shows how wonderful BO is. I say it is just one more example of how he's as slimy, low-down, base and manipulative as Rove or Cheney ever were. Obama is NOT a different kind of politician. Whenever he is confronted, he gets testy, dismissive, and belittles those he disagrees with. He is not willing to listen to competing ideas of philosophies except as lip service. His administration to date has the elegance of a toilet plunger. To witness citizens gladly abandoning reason, sense, and even basic THOUGHT just because they are so desperate to like the guy is repulsive.

Like the fact that he apologized? Fine. Whatever. But you're stopping short. The reason you guys were so DESPERATE for a Bush apology was so that you could have something to use to hold him ACCOUNTABLE. Impeachment.. Removal from office... Prosecution for 'war crimes' or whatever. You rejected the apologies Bush did offer because they were not tacit acceptance of consequence. And yet now that Obama comes along and does the same thing somehow it is all different and better and gives you warm fuzzies? Pathetic. So are you also willing to make BO accept the consequence of trying to put a tax-dodging felon on his cabinet?

Winstonfield,

Maybe... just MAYBE... I mean, it might be possible... maybe even highly probable... that when someone supports a single action performed by Obama, then that doesn't imply that this someone automatically supports every action performed by Obama.

Posted this on the other vid circulating around and posting here as well.

Well... I was a police officer long ago, I don't see any cause why that officer should have drawn his weapon, if anything he screwed up by not helping out with the physical take down. However, I watched this a few times and did notice something. Watch his left hand just as the shot is fired (the other vid has the sound of the shot), this looks like an accidental discharge.

The reason I say this is because of his left hand. His left hand looks like he was chambering the pistol which never should happen (there should always already be a round in the chamber), Semi autos should always be preloaded and you NEVER single action a double action revolver (I doubt he had a revolver). They say he is a 2 year vet of the force, but looks pure rookie to me. Also... sad but, if it was accidental, there will be pressures to not admit it, they rather fight it as a justifiable shooting, I will not explain the reasons for that as its too sad.

Total FUBAR

Looking it again, I am even more convinced the idiot was pulling back his slide, must have been a semi auto. Doing so makes no sense at all. His stupid finger was on the trigger and when the slide came forward it discharged. That's my 2 cents based on a really grainy vid.

One more thing, when you shoot, you shoot to kill. He holstered his weapon immediately, normally you would continue to cover the subject.

Had to be Accidental Discharge OR a targeted assassination (which wouldn't happen in public, wouldn't be just one shot and would not be done by a rookie)

Most police officers are good and competent people, but 20 percent or less aren't. They hold so much power and have such room for abuse with limited accountability that a few bad ones can really create enormous sickness.

I'm betting the truth will never come out, everyone will cry out murder and the dept will not admit accidental shooting unless they don't have a foot to stand on. They will come up with something to justify the shooting. That cop will be under a lot of pressure not to admit accidental discharge and certain opposing groups will be more eager to pursue this as a matter of police abuse rather than police total ineptitude.

Why am I not finding any expert opinions/analysis of this? Stuff I read in the articles I've seen so far has been total bunk.

Well, I guess I can be totally wrong of course.

last and final update: I saw some other vids from other angles, one of them had a pretty clear pic. I don't think he was chambering, I now believe that he did not properly handle his firearm. He probably has a nice little welt on the thumb of his left hand. he seemed to be a bit flustered, he tried unholstering from a sitting position which can be tricky - police holsters are designed so that they only come out at a certain angle so that someone from behind you can not take your firearm out in a grapple. I tried thinking of a scenario where I would pull my weapon in this scenario: The only thing I can think of is that during a pat down... if something was felt to be a possible weapon (we would have called out "possible signal zero"), at which point I might have drawn and covered till the search was complete. The other officers though, didn't seem very alarmed and were taken by total surprise by the shot.

I just can't see this being anything other than an accident (and total incompetence). Hopefully they tested his blood for possible intoxication and also checked his left hand.