Not voting because Harris is a woman?

[hntnhole]

12 hours ago, Fistedmike said:

Basically, shut the fuck up!!

Maybe you should take your own advice.  

[rawfuckingonly]

On 11/2/2024 at 12:55 PM, hntnhole said:

I remember so well ... they didn't say it outright, to my face, but it was perfectly clear regardless.  Plus, all 4 of my male cousins went on to fail at their first or second try at a career, and wound up back at the same tired old trough: they became pastors !!!  In fact though, I wouldn't have fucked any of them with trump's shriveled excuse for a dick, no matter how hard they begged.  

That's the real tragedy.  What could have been useful, productive lives wound up being wasted chasing myths created only for the "saved".  But who do they hit up for some dough?  You guessed it.  They weren't born any more stupid than anyone else - but they chose to stay there.  They think that just because they lay down, foam at the mouth and holler "Jeeeeeezuz" they're entitled to squat on top of humanity. 

The real stunner though, is they think they're entitled to "inherit" the earth, without lifting so much as a finger to help preserve it.  All they have to do is spout the 'party line', and presto - they get to squat on the labors of other folks.  

People need to use their minds, become educated (not necessarily higher education, but that certainly doesn't hurt.  

Hypocrisy really knows no bounds with you, does it? 

You're a piece of work man. You really are.

[BootmanLA]

@rawfuckingonly You asked about rational gun restrictions. The most recent I can think of is the ban on bump stocks, a device used exclusively for the purposes of making a semi-automatic rifle operate more like (in fact, almost indistinguishable from) a fully automatic rifle, thus enabling rapid fire without having to pull the trigger repeatedly. The Court struck that down. Courts have struck down limits on high-capacity magazines (how many bullets do you need to kill a rabbit, anyway?). Courts have struck down location-based carry restrictions, saying in essence there's almost no place that any community can declare off-limits to guns, even crowded places like theaters that present serious management issues.

They've even struck down laws criminalizing filing serial numbers off guns, making them untraceable (but it's still illegal to alter a VIN number on a vehicle). Lower courts have even struck down the ban on "ghost guns" (guns assembled from parts that all lack a serial number), though the Supreme Court may - or may not - be willing to let that regulation stand.

I think we can all accept that some of us will have differing views on whether *particular* restrictions are sensible or not. For instance, I can't think of a sensible reason we should allow people to have AR-15s and similar style weapons (contrary to the bullshit their proponents push, they're not designed for hunting and they're a poor choice for it). But I can see where someone might argue otherwise.

I can't imagine ANY rational argument that we should allow the production of handguns without serial numbers to make them untraceable. I can't imagine ANY rational argument that a large capacity magazine - which exists solely so you don't have to stop and reload as often - is useful for ANYTHING other than killing a bunch of people (in hunting, the first round fired is going to spook every potential target within range, giving you time enough to reload manually). Ditto for bump stocks. As a people we're contorting ourselves into pretzels to find that all these otherwise rational limits are, in fact, prohibited by an amendment that until 16 years ago wasn't even acknowledged as applying to individuals.

[hntnhole]

22 hours ago, rawfuckingonly said:

Hypocrisy really knows no bounds with you, does it?

There's a really easy remedy, rfo; simply block my commentary and you won't have to be so upset over such small potato's again. 

[PozBearWI]

@hntnhole seems to have gone off the rails buddy (not you, RFO).  Sometimes it's best to just not respond.