Into The Afternight: Our 3rd Shift O/T
13 repliesIf you’re still up and want to talk Chiefs, or just hang with fellow citizens of the Kingdom, this is the place.
History & old stuff tonight.
How’s everyone tonight?
With that, time’s yours.
If you’re still up and want to talk Chiefs, or just hang with fellow citizens of the Kingdom, this is the place.
History & old stuff tonight.
How’s everyone tonight?
With that, time’s yours.
I don’t know what the things he calls caltrops actually are, but none of them look to naturally fall with a point sticking up, which is the common feature of all the caltrops I’m familiar with. It’s kind of the point of the things, really. (ba-dum, tiss!)
It is well-established that I favor liberal (not Liberal) gun rights, so with that in mind, I’m going to answer an unasked question or two, the first being ‘what is the best gun to have in a gunfight’, and the obvious answer is ‘the one you can get your hands on’. But hot on the heels of that is an equally important answer, ‘the one you are most comfortable with’.
That comfort level requires experience, and experience strongly implies ownership. Indeed, the lone dissent of the recent 9th Circuit case admits that the law isn’t an airtight seal, so read on.
“[B]y its terms, the semiautomatic rifle regulation is not a ban on young adults’ ability to obtain semiautomatic rifles. This is true even though it prohibits FFLs [Federal Firearms Licensees] from selling or transferring semiautomatic rifles to young adults…. The semiautomatic rifle regulation allows for family gifts and a variety of other modes of possession through acquisition or loan; for example, the regulation permits a parent to purchase a semiautomatic rifle and transfer it to their child under age 21 through gift….”
Now pause to think about it a bit, as we get to a point made in the concurrence.
“California justifies its law by citing statistics showing that young adults constitute less than 5% of the population but represent more than 15% of homicide and manslaughter arrests. The state argues that intermediate scrutiny should apply and that it survives that test because the law is a “reasonable fit” for the state’s important public safety goal.
But even assuming intermediate scrutiny applies, the state’s assertion of a “reasonable fit” reduces that requirement to a malleable and meaningless limit on the government’s power to restrict constitutional rights. As the majority opinion capably points out, only 0.25% of young adults commit violent crimes. So California limits the rights of 99.75% of young adults based on the bad acts of an incredibly small sliver of the young….”
https://reason.com/volokh/2022/05/11/8184844/#more-8184844
To me, that’s the ultimate aim of “gun control”, the suppression of the rights of 99.75% to (hopefully) restrain the 0.25%. Maybe.
Meanwhile, families up here who count on their yearly deer, now more than ever depend on it to feed families. City mice, of course, couldn’t care less about that, they’re busy watching media hype, and will turn away, if they strip the guns up here away, leaving poor families even more strapped for cash. That’s not too large a sacrifice to force on them, is it? It’s not like they matter, after all. Just turn away, to the next right that must be uselessly reduced. The collateral damage will be none of your concern, a necessary sacrifice to the “greater good”.
If that sounds sanctimonious to you, good, because I’m sarcastically satirizing the presumption that the policy promises are worth grinding down strangers. No biggie.