OshaqHennessey @ OshaqHennessey @midwest.social

Posts

0

Comments

33

Joined

5 days ago

Yeah, pretty sure you're right. Though I'll admit I've forgotten much more than I know on the topic.

Mad cow disease is caused by prions from dead cow brains infecting the healthy brains of living cows. It's kind of the cow equivalent of Kuru.

It's definitely a G-force thing. If I remember correctly from Mythbusters, the human limit is about 10 Gs before losing consciousness, 15 Gs before suffering internal organ damage, and about 20 Gs before instant death.

Yeah, Costco is surprisingly not scummy under its current leadership. They and Arizona are the only two I don't have any major issues with.

That is a disappointingly low number

Correct. To my knowledge, there is no legal way to possess a suppressor or high capacity magazine in California, under their current laws. In (almost) all other states, high capacity magazines are not regulated, and suppressors can be legally obtained with a $200 tax stamp and NFA form.

I'm not from California, so I'm not as familiar with their laws, but I find the idea of an easy loophole to suppressor ownership very difficult to believe.

So, you want to take away rights from all people, even those who have demonstrated an ability to safely and responsibly own firearms, because a very small minority of people abused those same rights? Why should I be punished because someone else broke the law? How is that not a violation of my sixth ammendment right to due process?

If I were interested in being snarky, this is where I would tell you to think like an adult, not a tyrant.

Some of us live in rural areas and use guns almost daily to defend crops and livestock from pests and predators. How should those people "adjust"?

You must be confusing a CCW (Concealed Carry of a Weapon) permit with an FFL (Federal Firearms License).

A CCW is obtainable by almost anyone who is over 21 and not a convicted felon, and allows you carry a concealed weapon, such as a handgun or a knife with a blade longer than 3 inches.

An FFL is obtainable by business-owners who pass extensive background checks with the ATF and allows them to legally sell firearms to other people.

A CCW can be obtained over a weekend or two. An FFL takes months of paperwork, interviews, background checks, and filing fees.

If you don't believe me, please go try and obtain an FFL. I'd be very interested to learn how far you get.

I'm not certain if you're referring to the border with Mexico or the rest of the US, but if a weapon is banned in California, it's also banned to import one into California from another US state.

Setting up checkpoints and checking every car coming in for weapons would be a violation of every citizens' right to travel, and fourth ammendment right against unreasonable searches.

So, how do you propose to implement "better birder control" without violating the rights of citizens who have committed crime?

Your suggestion, if implemented, would result in only the wealthy having a right to self preservation. Are you certain it would be a good idea to consolidate even more power into their hands and further entrench their monopoly on violence?

It's an intentional choice, but it's not for style. The EPA passed regulations in the 90s that demanded a certain level of efficiency from all manufacturers. Sounds great in theory, but the execution was very flawed. The problem is, the regulations allow for less efficiency, based on the size and weight of the vehicle. Well, it's much easier to engineer a big, heavy vehicle than it is to engineer a more efficient vehicle, so which option do you think most American car companies chose? That amount of bulk allows them to have a lower rated MPG while still remaining "compliant."

Most modern means of electricity production involve creating heat in some way, then using that heat to boil water, creating steam. That steam is then used to turn a turbine, which generates electricity.

The premier of the next Herbie sequel, in which Herbie falls in love with a yellow Beetle of the same body style as the pictured limo.

There was never any need for the eagle debate. In the books, the idea of the eagles is explicitly rejected by Gandalf because it would have been too obvious and too risky. Sauron would surely see them riding the eagles, and the eagles could have been corrupted by the ring's power.

I can read just fine. You're asserting that climate change should be embraced because we'll learn to "live with it." I'm pointing out that you're ignoring a giant mountain of evidence that says the best case scenario is that ten percent of our species survives. So, if we're understanding each other correctly, ninety percent of humans dying is the "new normal" you're saying we should be cool with, and I'm not cool with that.

I just realized you're from .ml. Please block me, I can't stand you assholes anyway.

Ok then, it sounds like you think the only way to improve society is to replace its members with ones who are "more sensible," as defined by you. Sorry, but I'm not sure how to help you with that one either.

You're right, capitalism won't make the Earth completely uninhabitable. Many mass extinction events have occurred in our planet's past, and life has always eventually recovered (obviously).

However, capitalism will destroy our planet's ability to sustain our society, and eventually our species, and it is doing so at an alarming rate. To disagree, at this point, is to ignore an amout of scientific evidence so substantial, it amounts similarly to denying the Earth is round.

It sounds like you're saying the only way to better a society is to replace all its members with ones who already agree with you. If so, I'm not real sure how to help you. Good luck with that.

Millions of Californians already legally own Glock handguns. Enforcing the law in this case refers to confiscating the legally acquired private property of citizens who have demonstrated an ability to safely and responsibly own their property. How do you reconcile your suggestion to enforce the law with those Californians' fourth ammendment right against unreasonable search and seizure of private property and their six ammendment right to due process?

Incentive programs are one idea, but they do have some problems, the biggest and most obvious being: how much do you offer, who's going to pay for it, and what do you do with them once you have them?

A Glock handgun retails for $500 - 600. Do you offer that much? If so, that will be very expensive, and now that they're banned, you won't be able to sell them for nearly that much to recoup the cost. If you offer less, how is that not a violation of one's fourth ammendment right against unreasonable seizure of private property?

Should gun manufacturers be responsible for bearing the cost of reimbursing every Glock-owning Californian, or should the citizens who voted for the measure pay for it since they wanted it?

Once all the Glocks are confiscated, what should be done with them? If they're sold, that just moves the "problem" elsewhere. If they're destroyed, that's a waste of perfectly working steel and polymer you just paid good money for.