bdutton

1. Competing in Olympic style shooting sports: bullseye pistol, precision air rifle, precision 3 position smallbore rifle. 2. Coaching a junior rifle team. 3. Brewing my own beer.

1. Roofies 2. Dead lube 3. Streaming midget porn 4. ???? 5. Profit!

We don't have a gun problem. We have a media fixated on a tiny segment of firearm related deaths in order to further an agenda.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/has-anyone-actually-read-the-el-paso-manifesto%3F_amp%3Dtrue&ved=2ahUKEwih4_W98PbjAhXmUd8KHeZWBvIQFjAKegQIChAB&usg=AOvVaw3CrFjSv2JtbsuAkbseci3S&ampcf=1 So what did Crusius actually write? The Times story did not link to the manifesto, nor did many other media accounts. Most news organizations decided that even though the manifesto is clearly part of the El Paso story, they should not give Crusius the exposure he sought by linking to its full text. So many stories have included just a few snippets from the document. (The Washington Examiner has also decided not to link to the manifesto, but it can be easily found on the internet.) But since the manifesto has become such an important part of the moment's political debate, it is worth looking at the whole thing. And the impression one gets after reading the manifesto is quite different than some press accounts. First, to be clear: The manifesto is insane. Part of it discussed commonly debated issues such as the environment and the economy in ways that are well within the boundaries of political conversation going on today — indeed, that might have come out of the New York Times or many other outlets. Other parts of it mixed in theories on immigration from far right circles in Europe and the U.S. Then it threw in beliefs on "race-mixing" straight from the fever swamps. And then it concluded that the solution is to murder Hispanic immigrants, going on to debate whether an AK-47 or an AR-15 would best do the job. By that point, Crusius had veered far from both reality and basic humanity.

2am Saturday

Like this?

Also... poor trigger discipline. 3/10 would not bang.

Its not a gun problem. Its a violence problem. Multiple factors leading to an escalation in random mass shootings which I have posted in this thread and the other thread already. There has been increased gun control measures enacted since 1968 with zero net effect on reducing the criminal misuse of guns. If it's not the gun it is other factors that have been overlooked (at best) or ignored (at worst).

Over 300 million guns in the us and you want to embed a gps tracking device in every one?

Walmart was a gun free zone.

Its not ambiguous at all when you interpret the 2nd amendment based on the original intent. Applying modern context is irrelevant unless your intent is to change the original meaning.

Re-posting this from the PPP thread on the same topic: In the early 1970's there was a shift in treating mental illness with incarceration in mental institutions to prescribing powerful psychotropic drugs on an out patient process. The media has become increasingly polarized along political extremes. Very little if any honest news organizations exist because it isn't profitable to do any honest reporting of news. Violence in media has increased substantially (video games, TV, Movies and even in radio). You used to get an X rating if you had any nudity or language in movies. With the introduction of cable/satellite tv, the reach of the FCC to control content, and an increased tolerance by consumers for violence and language means violent content is much more prevalent leading to a desensitizing to the violence. The Internet (an with it social media) has created a sense of anonymity to human interactions online. We would almost never say some of the things we say on an internet forum like this to people face to face. This in turn creates the false sense of superiority over people online. Both sides of the political/social spectrum are guilty of this. Also, the term of mass shooting is frequently misused (for political reasons) by the media. More people are killed in Chicago, Baltimore, Detroit... etc... on any given weekend that there are with the rare (albeit increasing) occurrence of a mass shooting like the one of El Paso. The only thing that has never changed is the function of a firearm. You could buy an AR-15 and a thousand rounds of ammo for it over mail order and have it delivered to your home with no background checks and no waiting period before the 1968 Firearm act. Yet the number of mass shootings with rifles (or in general) in those days was extremely rare. The problem is/was never about the availability and function of any given type of firearm. In summary, I think its the combination of increased psychotropic drugs to treat mental illness, decreased sensitivity to violent media content, media whiping up the radicals with sensationalized and biased reporting among others.

In the early 1970's there was a shift in treating mental illness with incarceration in mental institutions to prescribing powerful psychotropic drugs on an out patient process. The media has become increasingly polarized along political extremes. Very little if any honest news organizations exist because it isn't profitable to do any honest reporting of news. Violence in media has increased substantially (video games, TV, Movies and even in radio). You used to get an X rating if you had any nudity or language in movies. With the introduction of cable/satellite tv, the reach of the FCC to control content, and an increased tolerance by consumers for violence and language means violent content is much more prevalent leading to a desensitizing to the violence. The Internet (an with it social media) has created a sense of anonymity to human interactions online. We would almost never say some of the things we say on an internet forum like this to people face to face. This in turn creates the false sense of superiority over people online. Both sides of the political/social spectrum are guilty of this. Also, the term of mass shooting is frequently misused (for political reasons) by the media. More people are killed in Chicago, Baltimore, Detroit... etc... on any given weekend that there are with the rare (albeit increasing) occurrence of a mass shooting like the one of El Paso. The only thing that has never changed is the function of a firearm. You could buy an AR-15 and a thousand rounds of ammo for it over mail order and have it delivered to your home with no background checks and no waiting period before the 1968 Firearm act. Yet the number of mass shootings with rifles (or in general) in those days was extremely rare. The problem is/was never about the availability and function of any given type of firearm. This is not true. The .223 was designed to be lightweight and accurate. The ability to carry more ammo was the purpose. Also, one of the complaints about using the .223 'ball' ammo (full metal jacket) in places like Mogadishu was that despite direct hits to the torso the bullet would put a clean hole through the target. The fighters in Mogadishu were hopped up on drugs and it would take 2-3 hits before they would stay down. A lot of the special ops would buy their own hollow points to increase the effectiveness (despite being against the geneva convention).

And one of the least used weapons to commit murder with. Knives and hammers kill more people than ar-15s and similar variants.

Thanks for the correction.

Another one in Dayton OR. https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/us-news/breaking-dayton-shooting-multiple-victims-18825543.amp

My eldest daughters favorite song (see my avatar). We listened to it for her first time in my car. Really is the greatest rock song of all time.

Thick well marbled rib eye. Himalayan salt and fresh ground pepper on both sides. Vacume seal and place in sous vide cooker at 124f for 3 hours. Prep grill on highest temp and sear for 90 seconds per side. With torch or tongs, sear the edges.

The Cure: Live in Orange

Already mentioned but worth mentioning again... Led Zeppelin... Song Remains the Same.

Mueller gave exactly what everyone wanted. For the Democrats: Just enough for them to cling to the conspiracy(i.e. collusion)/obstruction narrative. For the Republicans: Not enough evidence to bring charges on conspiracy/obstruction (caveat on the whole no way to indict a sitting president)... i.e. exoneration. The circus continues...