I'm out of the loop. What's going on?
It's not shills disagreeing with you. It's people who watched that video and saw the police sitting on the side lines while the peaceful protestors threw objects at motorists breaking windows, etc. Then when someone attempted to defend themselves the cops decided not to arrest the fuckers on the side of the streets throwing things, but the guy defending himself.
You mean the officer on foot that showed up 2 seconds after the guy showed his weapon had absolutely no details about the situation? I find that hard to believe.
If you want material in it's historically original form, unedited for a woke generation you can't just walk into a modern retailer and pickup a set of new books for your library. You have to look at the edition dates. Anything later than 2000 is suspect. Anything post-Obama should absolutely be scrutinized.
And then, for no reason at all they were burning books.
If you have DVD's consider creating digital backups.
There is so much pre-Obama content that isn't virtue signalling. I say pre-Obama because that's really when we start seeing the SJW messaging ramp up, our history being re-written, historical TV/movies being edited to remove inconvenient scenes considered offensive. I've watched a lot of shows across the years. There's a huge increase in sjw in messaging starting around 2011. It's like someone flipped a switch. SJW messaging has been there to varying extents since the 60's. It's very subtle in the 60's mostly about women's rights, and black acceptance. The 70/80/90's it's more of the same plus the gay agenda increasing in messaging each of those 3 decades. 2000's the feminist, gay and race based agendas are much more pronounced. You get your uncomfortable injection of homosexual scene that serves no damned purpose for the story. As you know it gets worse from there. And here we are present year.
Regardless, there are many gems out there. For movies start in the 30's and work your way through to the early 2000's. So much content is free some sjw issues. In the 30's you can find titles that were pre-movie associate before ratings and let me tell you there are some wild, fun rides.
TV, start in the 50's. The Honeymooners is a real pleasure. Also treat yourself to a re-watch of Cheers and Night Court. Really, fun stuff, genuine comedy not this sjw bullshit.
You can access quite a few titles on DVD and bluray from your local library for free.
Unfortunately, many of those older titles are being shelved or edited for racism, homophobia, etc. So the titles you get access to through services like Netflix or Amazon Prime may not be their original theatrical release edits and neither will modern dvd/bluray release. Anything post-Obama is suspect for sjw edits.
As if gets called for polls......
It's been a while for me too....wait they have gay sports players now?
The Bill of Rights is a racist document written by racists!!!! - some libtard, probably!
Why isn't this considered white supremacist sedition? They're white. They're violent. They're threatening a sacred place.
There's going to be a 4473 instruction guide on springs:
Does your spring require a 4473?
If the spring if going to be used to build a firearm then you must fill out the 4473. If it is going to be used to build a pinball machine then it's not required.
That's gold, Jerry! GOLD!
Antifa needs to "protest" in a stand your ground state. How can't we make that happen?
I often wonder if the added accuracy of those old long barrel revolvers wouldn't offset the inaccuracy of the a modern semi-automatic with higher capacity magazines or am I just romanticizing the old revolvers?
I seriously doubt that the "passport" (vaxpass) is going to stand up to constitutionality for domestic travel. While they may imply strongly that you won't be able to travel going so far as to deny a driver's license, they're not going to deny foot travel. The first foot travel caravan to cross state lines is going to nullify legal arguments in support of a vaxpass to deny automobile or even domestic airline travel.
The important point here, like with masks, is to not submit to what is essentially voluntary enforcement. Think about that. Have you heard of anyone being arrested or fined for not wearing a mask WITHOUT a private business calling the cops for what amounts to trespassing when someone not wearing a mask is asked to leave, refuses and then the business calls the cop. That's voluntary enforcement. I've yet to have one business call the police on me for not wearing a mask. They have asked me to wear a mask to which I reply civilly that my mask broke and I didn't have another. They will either give you a pass or they will offer a mask. I've yet to be asked to leave, but if they offered the mask I've worn it. In the end it's a private business and they can conduct their business within their walls how they see fit unless I wanted to claim that forcing me to wear a mask is homophobic. BAKE THE CAKE BIGOT!
You may be tempted to point to businesses being required to force employees to wear masks and there's a reason for that. They don't have the same rights as individuals and must have a license to operate, a license issued or revoked at the state's pleasure.
For international travel, that's a different story. Other countries can place upon you any requirement they want before allowing you to enter their country.
TWO boxes of ammo? Ammo should be shared equally among all peoples!!!!!
Lets see....2 boxes of ammo, 50 rounds each....333 million people in the US....anyone have a calculator my math isn't working out..........
My choices with smartphones: 1) Shitty data limits that make it unusable for multimedia consumption or 2) bigger data limits and no tethering. I really don't want to break the $45/month cost for phone service. It's fucking ridiculous in this day and age. But I do love seeing homies complain about their $120 a month plans....those stupid schmucks.
Everyone with a clue knew this was going to happen as soon as they began talking about flattening the curve.
BTW, we're in day 373 of 15 days to flatten the curve.
I was thinking that if I had to do this I would just bring a burner flip phone for the lulz.
Ann Coulter has entered the chat.
The Suez canal has entered the chat.
TLDR: Husband & wife have an argument. Wife leaves. Wife calls cops on husband to do a "wellness check" the next day.
According to an incident report, he “seemed normal,” “was calm for the most part,” and even said “he would never commit suicide.”
However, none of the officers had asked Edward any questions about the factors relating to his risk of suicide, risk of violence, or prior misuse of firearms. (Edward had no criminal record and no history of violence or self-harm.) In fact, one of the officers later admitted he “did not consult any specific psychological or psychiatric criteria” or medical professionals for his decisions that day.
Let me interject here: Recently I went to the doctor. They gave me some new paperwork to fill out. One of the sheets of paper was a PHQ-9 form. I was half way through it before I came to my senses. This is a mental health survey. This is laying the ground work for red flag law invocation. Why is my GP asking about my mental health when I can barely get any GP to acknowledge the reasons I go to see them with ludicrous amounts of symptomatic presentations and diagnostics? On the back of this form is a scale used for the physician to score your mental heath. It starts with "minimal depression" 0 - 4. You can't not turn in this form and be considered free from depression. Sure, to you and me "minimal depression" is innocuous enough, but to gun grabbing authorities "minimal depression" is going to be enough. Do not fill out this paperwork if you value your second amendment rights. I returned the first sheet, but not the PHQ-9. The receptionist told me she needed it. I asked if she was going to deny me services if I didn't provide it. She said, "No", to which I replied, "Then you don't need it". I folded it up and put it in my pocket.
To continue the TLDR (I know, I lied), the police confiscated Edward's guns based on "community caretaking", a narrow exception to the fourth amendment.
First created by the Supreme Court nearly 50 years ago, the community caretaking exception was designed for cases involving impounded cars and highway safety, on the grounds that police are often called to car accidents to remove nuisances like inoperable vehicles on public roads
Siding with law enforcement, the First Circuit noted that a police officer “must act as a master of all emergencies, who is ‘expected to...provide an infinite variety of services to preserve and protect community safety.’”
We are currently in a state of emergency and have been since the beginning of 2020. Emergency powers are authorized. And so, all government actions are in response to an emergency. Just saying....
in its first amicus brief before the High Court, the Biden Administration glossed over these concerns and called on the justices to uphold the First Circuit’s ruling. Noting that “the ultimate touchstone of the Fourth Amendment is ‘reasonableness,’” the Justice Department argued that warrants should not be “presumptively required when a government official’s action is objectively grounded in a non-investigatory public interest, such as health or safety.”
Inside the linked site is the original story from Forbes. I highly suggest you read that too.
WTF? The wording of this post implies this is somehow bad? Are you fucking kidding me? These requires women to take responsibility for their own actions instead of placing a man's innocent or guilt at her feet for her to decide purely based on whether she regrets the experience or not even months after the fact.
Rape culture in the US has turned innocent until proven guilt on its head. The Minnesota Supreme Court ruling rights this wrong.
By contrast, California's "Yes Means Yes" criminalizes sex if any alcohol is involved, but always it will be the man in the encounter that is the criminal, never the woman no matter how drunk she got herself or how insistent she was to have sex. If the next day she files a criminal complaint just the fact that she was drunk guarantees a conviction.
When a cop pulls a gun on you, regardless of legal definitions for intents and purposes you are arrested until they give you permission to leave.....chief.