America was good enough for him to stay and make millions. As soon as things aren’t perfect, he wants to run to where the grass is greener. That’s a good reason to be angry.

Because their “politics” usually involves everyone ignoring their grievances in favor of preserving celebrities’ comfort.

Fuck that. Get your able-bodied ass back here and help us fix this shit, you coward!

1,625 is hardly representative of a data set containing tens of millions

“Microsoft thinks it has social permission to burn the planet for profit” is all I’m hearing.

The “snowflake”, “facts over feelings”, and “anti-cancel culture” people don’t actually stand behind their beliefs?

Ugh, it’s honestly hard to pretend to be surprised anymore. Can we just change every headline about conservatives to say, “Giant pieces of shit are still shitty”?

“Wet” is a transitive property; here’s why.

How do you tell if something is wet? You take something dry (not wet) and touch it to the supposedly wet thing. Is the dry thing now wet? If so, the thing you touched with it was also wet.

Now, apply that same logic to water. If I take a dry towel and touch water with it, the towel will be wet. Therefore, the thing I touched with the towel (the water) is also wet (but now slightly less wet because of the towel).

It means “will do the same job for less money.”

It sounds like you and I are in agreement, we’d like to see fewer gun deaths and less gun violence in the US. At the end of the day, I think you’ll have a hard time finding anyone who disagrees with that sentiment.

It sounds like we also agree, whatever measures are passed, we’d like them to be effective at taking guns out of the hands of those who would do harm with them.

The reason I oppose a ban is, bans disproportionately affect law-abiding gun owners, and the overwhelming majority (over 99%) of gun owners in the US abide by the law and commit no crimes with their guns. Bans overwhelmingly succeed at disarming responsible owners who had no bad intentions in the first place, and overwhelmingly fail at disarming the criminals at whom the bans are targeted.

Additionally, there are about 5-6 guns per US gun-owner. The logistics of safely locating, safely confiscating, and safely disposing of all of those guns in a way that doesn’t end up with them on the black market, is not a problem I think anyone has a good way to solve currently. I assert, the logistics of addressing societal factors that contribute to violence are much simpler, better understood, and more achievable.

European countries also do more to address the root causes of violence, poverty, drug addiction, mental health, and homelessness.

I think the differences in the way these societal factors are addressed more than explains the observed difference in levels of violence.

I believe a much more effective means of addressing violence in a country involves addressing the root causes of that violence, as opposed to banning the means of violence.

Banning the means only prevents violence when no means exist; addressing the root causes prevents violence, despite whatever means may exist.

Read the fine print for the sign-on bonus to make sure. Either sounds like a worthy use of time, but everyone needs to decide for themselves what they’re willing to do for the resistance; don’t pick a fight just because some guy on the internet said it was a good idea.

Whatever your choice, you’re the only one who will suffer the consequences of it, so it only needs to satisfy you.

I’m guessing police don’t fall into your definition of “regular people”. Like I said, police-involved shootings count as “mass shootings”.

If a cop shoots and hits two bad guys, that counts as a mass shooting. If a bad guy wounds a cop and his partner kills the bad guy, that counts as a mass shooting. If two people attempt to mug an old lady and she shoots them both, that’s a mass shooting.

I think most people would agree, those three scenarios aren’t what comes to mind when the phrase “mass shooting” is used, and I think most people would agree, these aren’t the scenarios we want to be putting a stop to.

Ask your doctor about Viagra.

Failing that, buy a house with thick walls, far away from neighbors, play your game only when the house is empty, try not to hurt yourself, and happy tugging.

I’m gleefully imagining the Truth Social rant where he calls ICE woke

If the regime rises to power, commits atrocities, and you’re still an agent when it’s over, sure.

If you get in early, be part of the resistance, and help keep the atrocities from happening, then no.

Do it. Crime is legal now.

Everyone apply for ICE!

Either the system gets so bogged down they can’t recruit anyone, or we end up outnumbering them. Either way, we resist them.

To be fair, gun violence in the US has been declining year-over-year for over half a decade now.

The number of “mass shootings” continues to rise because the definition of “mass shooting” has been steadily expanded such that it now includes self-defense shootings, gang-on-gang shootings, officer-involved shootings, shootings that happen even though no crime has occurred, and many other events that don’t typically come to mind when one hears the term “mass shooting”.

Not so. According to the Federal Firearms Act (FFA), even as a private seller, you’re still responsible for confirming the person you’re selling to is legally eligible to own what you’re selling them. In fact, there’s even a number you can call to have the same background check done they do at gun stores, it just takes a lot longer to go through the process.

If that person is a felon, and if they get caught with that gun and if they trace it back to you, you’ll be investigated for illegally selling guns to felons.

Some states don’t even allow you to privately sell firearms; you’re required to pay an FFL license holder to do the transfer or use the state police as an intermediary to transfer possession.

Of course not. Where do you apply for your license to exercise your first ammendment rights?