1. Here is the gun fact smack down 2022…pretty much the majority of pro gun arguments you will need:

  2. That makes no sense. If you vote for her you’re supporting her. Btw nobody wants to take your guns

  3. Next time you make it to gold 1 you might want to consider spamming gems on arena refills and refreshes to find 1-man or weak defenses to farm all the way up to gold 5. Once you're in gold 5 there's enough 1-man defenses to feed off and stay up there if you're active throughout the day and able to refresh a lot.

  4. Interesting strategy... thanks for offering it, wouldn't have thought about doing it, but makes sense... I've got the coin refills... just need the refresh list gems.

  5. Classic arena fights should not take 10 minutes. Ideally, you want them to take <30 seconds. That is why speed teams are super popular. Speed teams will not work against every team, but if you pick your targets wisely, it makes arena much faster.

  6. All I can see is insane abuse by scammers worldwide taking advantage of people using the shield of cleaner english. This seems bad.

  7. Hopefully others will share links... I can't tonight. I can tell you as an avid gun rights supporter for 15ish years... it wasn't hard to find links establishing viewpoints as to why the 2A was always an individual right in the past. This second, as I google real quickly? I can't find squat... that's terrifying to me.

  8. So here's an older copy/paste I had saved... love SO many of the relevant quotes... though it is not sourced as well as I'd like today.

  9. Can’t directly post this comment here for some reason, but it seems to go into pretty good detail

  10. How is closing the boyfriend loophole a bad thing? And extended background checks for 18-21 year olds isn't an issue as well. Plenty of people at that age are complete dumbasses who shouldn't have a gun.

  11. The "boyfriend loophole" is an extension of something I already take issue with. Currently you lose your gun rights (potentially forever) if you are found guilty of even a MISDEMEANOR of domestic violence. Those charges include somethings that we could probably agree upon.. and some that are absolutely not grounds for such an epic loss of rights...

  12. Majority of the stabbing happens off camera... so while it certainly appears to be self defense to me... there's a chance it's clearly not... if he decapitated the kid, then clearly charges were justified.

  13. There is already stone-cold proof of the PD waiting FOREVER to take the shooter down, as children died, called for help, and even phoned 911... why does this breaking piece matter? Crucify the lot of them.

  14. one democrat not even in the senate saying something doesn't mean they're going to remove it. the people that matter here (Biden, Manchin, etc) are still very much against removing the filibuster.

  15. As your article says, Schumer did it first... McConnell continued the "nuclear option" on the same topic. We'll never know if McConnell would've gone nuclear without the original sin 4-years prior. I think it's fair to say they aren't learning from past mistakes. I'm hoping neither side is foolish enough to let a simple majority pass any/all legislation in this country. That said, if this congress narrowly allows for simple majority on say one or two political topics, I'd have no doubt the next red congress would expand it further again.

  16. It looks like a new study... so might take a while for a good review of it.

  17. It doesn't go much farther than Heller, except that you can bear arms outside the home provided you meet the shall issue requirements of your state. May issue carry permitting schemes are dead.

  18. Interesting... so you think the vox author is correct to be so alarmed?There couldn't have been text/history to go off for say "assault weapons"... so laws infringing on those, as long as citizens are still 'permitted' to keep and bear firearms in general... could still pass the test, no?

  19. Historically, civilians carried the same arms as the military. So there is historical precedent that such arms are protected. There isn’t any historical support for banning military-style arms (in fact, in nearly all of the precedent that the court cited, any restrictions had exemptions for weapons used by the military, because those specifically are the type of arms protected by the 2A.

  20. I mean if we're really looking at "spree/mass" shooters... the type who are out to indiscriminately kill... almost all of them chose their targets as gun free zones.

  21. Okay so I looked at the study linked in the article - and its actually bizzare.

  22. I do agree the discussions can be difficult due to changing definitions and intentional misinformation.

  23. Proud of this sub for the good questions on OP's mental health!

  24. You can choose which primary you want to be part of. Go to azsos.gov/votebymail and request a ballot, you can also sign up for the active early voting list. Deadline to request a ballot for the August 2 primary is July 22. Keep in mind that Green party cannot vote in the Presidential Preference elections, which is the AZ version of presidential primaries. You have to be registered as a democrat or a republican to vote in those.

  25. I think you may want to switch your axis’ whichever you put on the Y becomes the dependent variable and I think the graph MAY read more legible if the number of mass shootings was read as dependent of more or less strict gun laws , however idk you may want to try and create a scale for the laws since I’m not sure how that’s scaled

  26. I may try myself to have a look because this is something I’ve wanted to do for a while as well so good luck to us :)

  27. If ever implemented, gun owners would be screwed because firing pins wear down and we would be forced to constantly buy new fire pins (if we wanted to stay in compliance). The whole thing can be defeated by criminals by sanding down the unique markings, using a brass catcher or dropping someone else's brass at a crime scene. I don't think any of this matters though. They probably know damn well the technology is not reliable and wont work. This is just their way of reducing pistol sales in NY.

  28. I think that's all accurate. The concept is absolute garbage, but they care more about the potential for eliminating gun purchases, without having to explicitly say they're banning guns.

  29. Shit NJ is next. This effectively caps the market of any new handgun designs for the state, just like California

  30. If they find it is feasible technology to implement, I agree it would be very similar to California's "safe" handgun registry... but even worse.

  31. That was a solid video, and made the point without even referencing warren v dc... the one most people mention on "no duty to protect".

  32. Why the fuck are the police fears relevant to anything? They’re afraid of unarmed people, cell phones, cigarettes, literally everything. So who cares

  33. I think every example they gave in the article was solid justification for taking them, do you not? It’s your right to bear arms until you prove you cannot be trusted to do so responsibly

  34. I'm generally very against ERPO's or red flag laws.

  35. What really needs to happen in cases where a minor is ERPO'd is that the parents become completely responsible for whatever that minor may do with their firearms.

  36. I mean having them sign an affidavit that they'd be legally liable for any harm done by their child with the guns, is better than just confiscating their property. I don't believe that's currently an option though in most red flag laws.

  37. Glorious having them sign to disavow the NRA and support FPC... epic.

  38. I like the color scheme, and choices made on some of the pictures. I think it's a bit much to read though... your first point is the strongest, I might just focus on the top left and top right points. Make it bigger font... too much reading otherwise, IMO.

  39. Reason has been such a fantastic source for so long. This is simply explained, non-political, and most importantly accurate. Great piece to share with people just jumping into this discussion... not that most would bother to even read it. SMH

  40. Amendment: Legally and economically. You can always pay the off roster premium. 43x is 13-15 hundred. Go figure.

  41. Non-Californian here... how do you pay the "off roster premium"... what's the loophole that allows newer guns to still be purchased?

  42. A cop buys the gun for themselves -and thus they are totally exempted from the bans. They can then sell this pistol that they bought for themselves at whatever markup they please, now that it is in California.

  43. Wowzers... that's definitely a messed-up loophole. No private party sales in CA right? So cop makes profit, FFL makes money, and end-user gets screwed. Fantastic law /s

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Author: admin