It's the A-10's gun firing at 4200 rounds per minute, 70 per second:

The General Electric GAU-8/A Avenger is a 30mm hydraulically driven seven-barrel Gatling-type cannon that is typically mounted to the United States Air Force's Fairchild Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II. It is capable of firing 4,200 rounds per minute.

Here is a gun test of the system:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=33teK7L4DM4

Yep, a comedian on a comedy tour taking a joke picture pretending to assault a sleeping woman who then quit of his own accord is exactly the same as a long term pedophile who enjoys his parties full support and never backs down or apologizes even after losing, or a philanderer who blackmail his mistress by taking naked pictures of her tied up and threatening to make them public then fights removal.

There is no equivalency. There's not a monopoly on one side, no, but there's absolutely not "every bit as much corruption and dishonesty on the Democrat side of politics as there is on the Republican". Republican dishonesty is about selling the country to Russia and raiding the treasury, and hiding or excusing inexcusable behavior and permeates everything they say. Democratic dishonesty is about which email account an email came from and pretending the leadership has no bias, and bowing to hyper sensitivity and disingenuous faux outrage.

For example...
Asked how his tax plan benefits the rich, he replied....
Trump: "No, I don't benefit. I don't benefit. In fact, very very strongly, as you see, I think there's very little benefit for people of wealth."

When asked about his rich friends....
"They can call me all they want; not going to help," he said Sept. 27, 2017. "I'm doing the right thing and it's not good for me, believe me."

When asked about the Trump zero tolerance plan to tear families apart as a political ploy, Trump claimed the Democrats did it and only they can reverse it, then he reversed his plan himself proving both family destroying lies to be lies.

The consistency, levels, and importance of the dishonesty from Republicans is exponentially greater than that from Democrats, who are far from perfect themselves.

Edit: Btw, Mahr has addressed the issue of him running for office repeatedly, he's capable and intelligent enough to be honest and say he's a horrible politician and would probably never run, and he knows he's far more influential exactly where he is than he might be as a freshman representative.....and he's smart enough to see that a candidate that gets out the vote for the opposition (like Clinton) is a horrendously stupid idea.
And Franken worked out great until he caved to false outrage and quit while pedophiles and abusive philanderers were welcomed into the opposing party feigning the outrage over a funny (but disrespectful) picture.

I don't understand why a-holes like this get so much credence and attention on this site as well as others. If Mahr and his very well heeled cronies are so capable and intelligent, let them run for office like the other comedian - Franken did ... and how did that work out????

And don't take this as support for the Trump Chumps - there is every bit as much corruption and dishonesty on the Democrat side of politics as there is on the Republican - the Democrats just sugarcoat it, and the media drools all over themselves supporting it...

Again,

the pool is surrounded by adults not capable of telling her to stop or contact management to tell her not to.

It's better to film her and laugh at her on the internet, to fuel our pleasure in consuming this as entertainment on her behalf.

Racism-prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior.
-the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.

....I absolutely hate the bastardized definition you gave, because it's flatly wrong and just an excuse for horrid behavior.
Edit: the statement "I feel "racism against whites" is not only currently impossible, but the idea is inherently racist. " is inherently racist.
One, whites are hardly always dominant in every situation (I sure as hell wasn't when I lived in East Palo Alto for years) and two, actual dominance has little to do with racism, it's about what you think. For example, if blacks think they're automatically superior to others based on race, but not in status because they are oppressed, they are perfectly capable of vile, even murderous racism towards non blacks.

Clearly, racism paired with power is far more harmful, but the powerless can be just as racist.

Excellent.

"The problem is that very dangerous people have very easy access to very dangerous weapons."

So, there's 3 issues there. Address any ONE of the three, and things would get better. Maybe not "job done" better, but better. Take moderate, corrective steps on all three, and we'd be MUCH better off.

1) Dangerous people. How could we take dangerous people out of the equation? Background checks. Licensing. Revoking gun ownership privileges for convicts and people diagnosed with mental health problems.

2) Easy access. What could we do better to sensibly and fairly restrict access to firearms? Well, lets see ... fucking anything stands a better chance of working than the nothing that we're doing now. So again, background checks, licensing, registration. Enforcement of said requirements.

3) Dangerous weapons. I think a legitimate criticism of "the left"s typical stance on gun control is that they might be a bit TOO focused on this one.
There is some core truth to the NRA harping "guns don't kill people, people kill people." If a murderous psycho decides that they want to kill a bunch of people, they can find ways of doing it that don't necessarily require guns.
However, it is also true that easy access to weapons designed for war can escalate the degree of tragedy quickly.

Basically, this one and #2 are a trade-off. Bolt action rifles and shotguns might be OK with fewer restrictions. Semi-automatic? High capacity? Doesn't it make sense at some point to at least be a bit careful about who we allow unfettered access to these things?


Trump's parroting of the NRA plan to put MORE guns in schools would be laugh out loud stupid if it wasn't guaranteed to end in tragedy rather than comedy. I can't fathom how anyone, even the nuttiest of gun nuts, could think that is a good idea. And I'm actually rather pro-gun. But, c'mon ... some limitations and restrictions just make obvious sense.

A car is a much better and more legitimate general-purpose "tool" than a firearm. But improper use is dangerous and potentially deadly, so we take some common sense steps to try to limit that. Want to drive? Get a license. Pass a safety test. Pass physical and medical tests to show that you are capable of controlling the vehicle. Periodically re-test to stay current. And, expect to LOSE your license if you drive irresponsibly (drunk, moving violations, etc.).

I don't think those are unfair requirements to be granted the privilege of a license to drive a motor vehicle. To me anybody that has a proper respect for the utility of a firearm, and also a respect for the damage that improper use of firearms can do, should be in favor of sensible restrictions and limitations placed on the privilege of being allowed to own and use a firearm, just like we accept for cars.

This brings up some interesting points.

What is an "assault rifle"? My grand-dad's 303 bolt action rifle was used to fight Germans in the war. It was an "assault rifle". Yet I don't believe this is what you mean. Do you mean AR-15s or similar? The AR in AR-15 stands for Armalite Rifle. It was a select fire gun (capable of automatic fire). The civilian version is semi-automatic. It isn't an "assault rifle" but you could use it as one. You can use any gun as an assault weapon if you so choose to designate it for that purpose.

You may not need a semi-auto for deer hunting, but hunting doesn't end with one animal. Going duck hunting - it's much easier with a semi-auto and 6 round versus a 2 round break action. Going on a pig hunt (for animal destruction). You'll want a semi-auto with a high capacity magazine.

What about home defense? You most certainly DO need a semi-auto long gun. If you choose a pistol over a long gun then you are putting yourself at a massive disadvantage - and the whole point of using a tool to defend yourself is to give yourself an advantage over the aggressor.

Should a gun be harder to get in the USA? In my opinion yes. It should be harder. Whether that is by making ownership of some firearms dependent on being an active member of a club (where the club has the requirement to be each other's keeper) or stopping unvetted second hand sales or some other solution or combination thereof, I don't know the answer. But the two suggestions I've put here are a really good start. Along with a storage onus (don't properly store your firearm and it gets used in a crime - you get a BIG fine). Basically I believe there are plenty of solutions that won't infringe on an American's 2nd amendment rights to acquire and own a firearm.

"There's no other legal tool available to the public capable of mass murders with so little effort."

I disagree. Petrol and cars/trucks. Both are legal and easily used to commit mass murder (and have been). I'll add swords (long knives) into this with a caveat - you need to be a highly trained swordsman to commit such an atrocity.

Cars are so dangerous that they have killed more people in the US in the last 50 years by accident than guns have on purpose. It took 50 years of concerted effort by subsequent US administrations to get the yearly death toll by cars lower than that of firearms (the curve for cars only recently dipped below that of firearms).

Knives can cause as much or more vascular damage than a typical firearm wound. The difference is that knives require the smallest interpersonal confrontation distance (it is hand to hand combat - people don't like this), and to consistently achieve high levels of vascular damage requires a higher degree of training.

The right of non-restricted people to own firearms has little affect on murder rates. E.g. Australia has a higher rate of firearm ownership now than before its lauded firearms laws came into effect in 1997. The majority of studies done on this topic conclude that the restrictions had no effect (or no measurable effect) on the continued reduction in firearm fatalities.

I think the greatest issue in the US is that some people see the use of firearms as a solution to some problems where it is not a good solution. I.e. it is a cultural issue.

This is a good reminder that Trump's being inept and not taking the job seriously has real consequences. During the election people often argued "Don't worry, his advisors will be smart and capable for him." But some things can't be outsourced, and he's proven he's not one to seek out sensible advice anyway.

It's not giving up the gun that might save lives, it's giving up the right to own them.
His gun probably wouldn't ever kill someone.
The right of any non restricted person to buy one is what leads to murderers having this tool often used to commit mass murder.
Would that stop all mass murders? Absolutely not, but it would stop SOME...probably most. Other methods people use are harder to assemble without being caught (bombs), are far less lethal (knives, arrows), and/or are harder to procure (tasteless poisons or gas). There's no other legal tool available to the public capable of mass murders with so little effort.

And yes, @BSR, this guy just made a sawed off AR15. He better post the video of him cutting it in half again if he doesn't want a visit from ATF. That gun almost certainly still fires, it's just incredibly more dangerous to the user now, and highly illegal. Not sure what you're saying in your snarky post, he didn't ever say a word otherwise.

Are you an FBI investigator ? Because they are the only one's with access to any "proof" of Trump collusion or other crimes at this point....but to be clear there's a ton of indicators that they have "proof" of serious malfeasance.

There is abundant proof that Trump is a repeatedly convicted and admitted (he plead guilty) fraud, however....which is what I referenced. Not long ago that would have been plenty to disqualify him from running at all. Today, multiple convictions for running fraud schools, selling fraud investments, charitable fraud, etc. aren't even on the list of worst 10 things in his history.

The republican created dossier is another nothingburger.

Once again, since you need things explained multiple times to grasp it, the memo is nothing, it's not evidence, it's a disputed republican provocateur's inflammatory notes based on....nothing according to the Democrats that have read the actual classified evidence, which is not being released. The ridiculous partisan memo probably won't be released either, the DOD is clear it could harm our national interests and law enforcement capabilities, and republicans refuse to allow them to screen for secret information it may contain, so releasing it as planned would intentionally be doing what they're (and you're) irate Clinton could possibly have done unintentionally with her less secure email servers, releasing harmful secret information, this time intentionally and for pure short term political gains and nothing more.
Good luck with that.

Keep in mind, the author of your memo is the same idiot who claimed the recent email and "missing" emails was absolute proof of a secret anti Trump society having taken over at the FBI..until the missing emails were recovered, then he moved on to this next BS ploy.

The last couple of decades I've really begun to see the military as corporate welfare. We have a force capable of crushing, literally crushing any non nuclear power nation 20 times over. We can never use that force against a significant nuclear power nation like Russia or China lest we risk WWW3, the war that will REALLY end all wars (by humanity at least). Our tech is also pretty much useless against a guerrilla force because they can melt across borders and into the local population.

Our outdated technology still would destroy any of the nations other than Russia or China. We have shit mothballed and decaying that would do so. We have a fucking stockpile of main battle tanks that we will never use, but we keep building them and storing them because, apparently, if you let the people go who know how to make them you can never replace that knowledge.

All the while, we let people get mired in school debt, credit debt, and increase our national debt because we need to crush some unknown force. We spend a fraction of what we should be spending on space exploration and colonization. I could go on, but why bother.

If you have any doubt, just look at the F35. By the time it is all said and done, we will have close to half a trillion sunk into that fucking debacle and it STILL isn't functioning capably. Russia and China haven't got anything close to it and we don't need it against anyone else. You could take that money and give close to 2 grand to every single man, woman, and child in the country. Instead we basically are lining Lockheed Martin's pockets.

I just saw this comment....

Having been a young woman a million years ago, I can attest to us being capable of being fucking stupid.

It just shows up in different ways. And with less "hey, look at me."

Everyone is made in the image of God and is capable of giving and receiving love. The question isn't whether you can be good without knowing God, the question is whether it's "good" enough. There isn't a scale that weighs your good deeds and sins at the end of your life. Every sin will be accounted for and there is no forgiveness for sins apart from Christ. Our standard of good is relative while Gods standard is absolute. That is why Jesus had to come, because our good isn't good enough.

That is true, but I've never claimed to be perfect, unlike Trump, nor do my mistakes adversely affect millions of people, his do, nor do I have access to high level advisors and information he chooses to ignore.

Also, I am capable of admitting my mistakes given evidence of them, again, in stark contrast to your hero. I've never once heard him accepting fault or responsibility for any of his innumerable failings, it's always someone else's fault.

Edit: on reflection, I realized your admission that Trump makes mistakes is a HUGE step forward for you, keep it up.