It feels like people downplay how much our policitians are in israels pocket. AIPAC is flaunting publicly that they practically own all American politicians.
I find it wild that people say this so openly now, when before Oct 7 saying something like this would get you branded as a neo-Nazi. AIPAC being a massively powerful lobby is nothing new, it’s just socially acceptable to oppose them now.
You aren’t wrong. It’s entirely about status and needing to stigmatize, penalize and limit “fake” art because the artists in question are worried it will cut into the work available to them in the form of things like commissions.
Which when you try to say it as written sounds like some degenerate version of “lick nuts” which is possibly not intended?
There’s also the one about bearing false witness, aka perjury/defamation/libel/slander.
What it says, the firstborn of every womb belongs to God and should be sacrificed to him, but you can trade a lamb if you want to keep the firstborn, like a coupon.
So hypothetically, you either sacrifice a lamb to God or kill your first born child - this mirrors nicely with Passover.
Lots of work in that area in Texas though, with Air Products having a lot of plants in TX and AZ as well as the refineries.
But if he’s trying to get chemical plant work and not just construction, make sure they know how to weld pipe - something like being able to do a 6G position MIG weld with a TIG root on pipe should be absolutely required for anyone thinking about plant work or pipe fabrication.
If they actually believe in that whole originalism thing they claim (basically that the text of the constitution means what it would have meant at the time it was written, and shifts in the definition of words don’t change that meaning) they still can’t allow it. There’s basically no way to interpret the Constitution that would result in mandating a specific religious affirmation be in public facilities isn’t “promoting an establishment of religion”.
The best they could hope for without just ignoring the Constitution entirely and making something up (which all their conservatism.aside they generally haven’t done yet) would be arguing that this requires opening the door to any similar list of religious tenets by literally every faith on the planet.
The law specifies the exact text, so this won’t fly. Even using the other set of ten commandments in the Bible won’t fly.
I am looking forward to the lawsuits on 1A and how this functionally means they will have to display any list of religious rules or tenets requested. Nine Satanic Statements, the Seven Tenets of The Satanic Temple, the Noble Eightfold Path, etc, etc. We can turn their schools into a museum of comparative religion.
No, it doesn’t. That’s what I’m getting at. Look at how they define a machine gun in the act. It requires that the gun fire more than once per operation of the trigger (this is also what it means for a firearm to be automatic). A bump stock facilitates operating the trigger again more quickly, but does not fire more then once per operation of the trigger.
You’re not looking at the definition used in the law but deciding that anything that lets you shoot faster counts.
All they are a modification to turn a semiautomatic gun into a full automatic weapon.
They don’t though. And I went into great detail as to what exactly they do and how it works to explain why they don’t do that.
An automatic weapon fires more than once per operation of the trigger by definition. Any gun that fires once per operation of the trigger is not automatic by definition.
A bump stock doesn’t change that, it makes it easier and more accurate to bump.fire, which is basically using the recoil to bounce your finger off the trigger and back onto it to pull it faster than you otherwise would.
With practice you can bump fire with a regular stock, that doesn’t mean all semiautomatic weapons are actually automatic.
Like the binary trigger thing - eventually that will be challenged in the courts and the argument won’t be over whether or not the words binary trigger are in the law, but whether or not lifting your finger off the trigger counts as a second operation of the trigger or as part of the previous one because that is what would determine if it fires one or two shots per operation of the trigger and thus whether or not it’s legally automatic and whether or not it is controlled as an automatic weapon.
The law doesn’t say what you wish it said, and it isn’t exactly vague.
Although I’m not sure what the state of Louisiana has against yeast in a blood sacrifice.
I would think that’s more not sacrificing something containing yeast alongside blood, not yeasty blood. Since offerings also, you know, fed the priests it would make sense to keep the blood and bread separate.
I want the ten Commandments of the satanists church then as well
No such thing.
The Church of Satan has the Nine Satanic Statements but I think you mean the Seven Tenets of the Satanic Temple? Either way, neither comes in a quantity of ten.
She was an Air Force veteran who took an oath upon enlistment that she would faithfully defend the Constitution of the United States from all enemies, foreign and domestic.
I’m sure from her thoroughly deluded, brain-rotted perspective that’s exactly what she was doing - protecting the Constitution from a domestic enemy seeking to steal the election.
Practically no one sees themselves as the villain of their own story.
A bump stock does not function by a single action of the trigger and does not meet the statutory definition as a result. The ATF rule banning them got struck down because Congress hadn’t authorized the ATF to regulate machine guns beyond that specific statutory definition.
They had several cases along these lines involving several agencies, and I feel like people don’t understand the underlying legal idea - rule making power belongs to Congress. Federal agencies under the executive branch that have rule making powers receive those powers by Congress delegating it to them in a limited fashion through legislation. Those powers extend only so far as the passed legislation delegates them and no further. Even in cases where it seems like it would be useful, or the name of the agency suggests it would be something in their sphere of influence.
However this supreme court said that the magic words ‘bump stock’ wasn’t in the legalisation.
A bump stock doesn’t make a gun automatic fire, therefore a prohibition on modifications to make a gun automatic fire does not include it. It’s a basic “the law says what it says, you don’t get to add things you don’t like and call them close enough” argument. It’s not about the words “bump stock”, but that the law prohibits modifications to make a gun automatic and a bump stock does not make a gun automatic, it merely makes a method for firing a semiautomatic gun faster easier to achieve.
Bump firing is basically using the recoil from a shot to bounce your finger off the trigger and then pull the trigger again, which increases the rate of fire. It’s even less accurate than automatic fire (because of the way the gun has to literally bounce around), and not quite as fast (but pretty close). You can do it without a bump stock, but it’s easier to achieve, more accurate and more comfortable to do with one. The fact that when bump firing you only fire a single round for each function of the trigger makes it not automatic by definition.
The binary triggers mentioned earlier in the thread are basically triggers that will fire both when the trigger is pulled and when it is released, which hypothetically doubles the firing rate of a semiautomatic weapon by not requiring you to release the trigger and pull it again to fire another round. Binary triggers basically come down to an argument of what counts as an “function of the trigger” and whether both pulling and releasing the trigger can count as separate functions of the trigger - if they can then it’s not automatic, if they cannot then it is.
I’d rather them think on it and actually articulate a position, but that’s a high bar to ask for.
There’s a few variations, but the one I’m most familiar with is like go fish, except you don’t have to be honest if you have the card someone else asks for.
The version of this I’m used to involved starting at 2 and counting up, and having to claim and play some number of that card whether you have it or not. If another player thinks it’s a bluff they call you out and if you were bluffing you have to take the discard pile, otherwise they have to take the discard pile. First player out of cards wins. So first player has to play 2s, second player has to play 3s, etc.
I’ve played versions done with trivia, though where you have to determine if the answer given is real or bullshit (which would be more likely to turn into a game show).
That’s basically what the game show is - a few different games that are each a variation on a quiz show in which the expectation is that players can lie and other players have to call them out on it. Catching a lie benefits the accuser and penalizes the liar, false accusations penalize the accuser.
Often it results in more people posting low quality replies consisting of nothing more than “you’re an idiot” because they cannot just downvote to indicate that.
…they presumably also cannot articulate their disagreement in any more naunced way than that, either.
At the very least it’s much better than it used to be. So long as you’re running hardware that won’t make you jump through hoops to get working, and that’s less common and less awful than it used to be.
Now-now it’s Reddit - he might have posted on one of the subs that people monitor with bots and silently autoban you from other subs for having ever participated in the offending sub. So he might very well have been Perma banned from 7 other subs for the comment, whether it was up voted, downvoted or totally ignored.