This type of weapon is specifically designed and constructed for the purpose of killing large numbers of human beings as quickly and efficiently as possible, while keeping the operator at a safe distance from these humans. This is exactly what this weapon is supposed to do. When used “appropriately”, as it was designed, lots of people will die.
Safe for the operator, yes. They have features to make sure the operator is not injured while killing large numbers of people quickly, as designed.
Of course, one could shoot at a firing range as well. This is essentially testing the tool, to make sure it is in good condition for it’s intended purpose; to kill large numbers of people as quickly as possible. You’re just making sure that the weapon will work properly, as designed.
A land mine is perfectly safe as long as you don’t go anywhere near it.
If nobody ever does, all that material and labor is futile and useless. A mine is a terrible thing to waste.
signs the warrant, grabs the rope
Allow me to clarify. When I asked for a suspended sentence…
I thought you were into swinging.
<Adds elucidator to The List>
Wait a second…
<Checks The List. Sees that it is largely made up of elucidator.>
<Puts down The List.>
<Checks watch.>
Damn.
<Waits patiently for Whiskey o’clock.>
Mr. Murphy has apparently aborted his congressional term.
Congressman Paul Gosar thinks George Soros is financing the neo-Nazis.
AZ congressman floats an absolutely insane conspiracy theory about who is funding today's neo-Nazis?
Well, yeah, basically. At least, moderately large numbers of non-armored personnel.
I would describe the M-16 as an assault rifle–designed to aid infantry in taking ground against non-armored defenders. It gets broader use than that in practice, but it’s definitely a suppressive fire machine.
I’m not sure what the point is of a semi-auto AR-15 other than something to sell to low-dollar collectors & “mall ninjas.” When you modify an AR-15 to get effective spray fire, and unleash that on a crowd, then it’s just a mass murder machine.
Freedumb!
Am I too late to join you?
:smack:
What the fuck dude; you can’t just wait around until beer-thirty to ask that!
Trump and fellow Republicans want to allow employers to not provide birth control in employee health plans due to religious reasons.
So, no birth control; no abortions; no government support (food, health, education, etc) for all these unwanted kids and their single mothers. Typical Christian Conservative mindset: “We’re gonna make sure you get born. After that you’re on your own.”
This is an off-topic rant but I can’t control myself. First, corporations don’t have religious principles…people do, maybe, but not corporations. Second: if your religion has a problem with birth control or homosexuality, fine – don’t use birth control, don’t be gay. But I seriously doubt your religion considers it a sin to provide insurance or bake cakes for sinners. You’re not being principled…you’re just being an asshole.
end of rant
Hobby Lobby.
Not the Supreme Court’s finest moment. I whole-heartedly agree with RBG’s dissent: “the exercise of religion is characteristic of natural persons, not artificial legal entities…”
OTOH, “Corporations are people too, my friend”.
Yet ANOTHER reason why health insurance shouldn’t be tied to employers. Car insurance isn’t. Homeowner’s insurance isn’t.
I want some Christian Science or Jehovah’s Witness closely held corporation to refuse to allow their insurance policies to pay for blood transfusions. They’ve had that sincerely held religious belief a lot longer than Protestants have been against birth control, so it should be a slam dunk, right?
And for Christian Scientists, possibly to insist that no medical care should be covered? I’m completely unaware of the extent of their beliefs around doctors and surgery and such.