Even for him.

I like him. I don't always agree with him, but I think he's one of the few that really gives a shit and actually walks what he talks and I deeply respect that. I value the perspective that comes with age too. But it's time for age limits, man. It's past time.

Grasping the idea that things don't always make sense, and that's it's okay when they don't, is like setting down a heavy load you didn't realize you were carrying.

Imagine picking a lawyer based on them backing the same insane insane conspiracy theories you do rather than their legal acumen and ability to get you out of trouble...

My grandmother's go-to cure for nausea was 7-up and orange juice. Any grandkid that wound up staying home from school got it. She swore it had to be 7-up, even though the stuff had the same ingredients as any other lemon-lime soda. Gotta wonder how much this kind of marketing played into that insistence.

I'm just glad it was OJ and not milk.

FWIW, it works okay as a nausea remedy, but my theory is that this is just because it's got fluids, calories, and is usually palatable for someone with mild nausea.

Honestly, I respect that stance more than I respect the folks with a dozen half-assed definitions and assorted conditions on what people should or should not own.

I disagree with it, but I respect it.

Lol

At what point in this conversation have I ever pissed and moaned about the M-16 being a classic American rifle or complained about magazine capacity? At what point did I ever deny or disparage the effectiveness of the 90's Federal ban?

And you'll get that court about the time you get rid of Citizen's United. But why not at least encourage lawmakers to get rid of the low hanging fruit that gives them an easy excuse to strike new gun laws down and force the lobbyists to spend more of that money to defeat it?

Or you can blame people for pointing out obvious flaws in these policies and accuse those people of arguing for standpoints they've never held...

Take whatever approach you think is most effective.

I don't care what you call it. The semantics don't matter to me. We can do it in any terms you like.

But if you ban gun A because it's weapon of war, but allow gun B to be sold because it's a hunting tool, when both are semi-automaitc guns shooting the same bullet out of clips, then your ban accomplished nothing of substance and won't be around long.

But all that matters is people don't have that one specific kind of gun, right?

I'm not even arguing the usefulness of bans here, just that the people trying to enact them write them in a way that undermines their purpose and leads to a defeat in the courts. You want to ban assault rifles? Write better legislation.

As a thought experiment, if someone attacks me with lethal intent, and I grab what is by your definition an assault weapon and not a self defense tool, does that make my defense of self and family invalid? Do I now somehow become the aggressor in this scenario because I am weilding a weapon of war? Is it only ethical for me to defend myself with a pistol? Am I bound by eithics to ensure I don't have an advantage in effective range over my attacker?

The Remington Model 700 was introduced in the 1960's and adapted to become a sniper rifle by the US military in the late 1980's. Many of the modifications made to the design for military use are the same that competitive sport shooters would make to improve long range accuracy. It was a hunting tool first, but became a highly effective weapon of war used with the intent to kill. Would it be prudent to ban this firearm as well, or does the 700 get a pass based on the origin of it's design?

I ask, not because I cradle my rifle at night praying for a break in or because I'm not concerned about gun violence, but because campaigns to ban assault rifles so often focus on the origin of these designs rather than on the technical details and civilian uses of the firearm in question. This becomes important when, as is all but inevitable, that ban winds up in court. As gets mentioned so often the only fundamental difference between an AR-15 and any number of small caliber hunting rifles (which can often be found chambered in 5.56/.223 just like an AR-15) is that the AR-15 has a pistol grip. It's an uneven application of the legal process even before you consider 2A rights.

Technically correct is the best kind of correct.

It's not always about the government. Regardless of what happens in 2028, we're likely to have the American version of the The Troubles.

All you can do if the tanks roll in is haul ass, try to avoid flock cameras, and hope no one is looking for you specifically. But, when whatever paramilitary org is upset this week starts burning your neighborhood and the police decide they aren't going to do much about it, community defense becomes a viable option.

Honestly. If the guy had dressed a few mildly progressive policies up in MAGA hats and did some good for people he could have been a legend for doing basically the bare minimum of what a first world government should do, he still could have talked shit about Obama and Biden while he did it and he probably wouldn't have gotten half the grief, hate, and rage he has thus far.

People's expectations have dropped so low that any consideration for the common man would look like a shining example of altruism in comparison to what we've learned we'll get out of him.

He's just pathologically incapable of it though. It'll never fucking happen.

My personal theory is that claiming antifa is bad allows them to imply that fascism is good without directly saying it, conditioning their base to accept all the face eating as just a cost of rooting out the wicked terrorists.

I may be giving them too much credit, though.