krayj

Draft dodging piece of shit tries telling me, a left leaning veteran of the US Marine Corps, that I am vermin...on veteran's day. Yeah, get fucked, asshole.

Please define your new take in the interpretation of the word "sole".

The actual sole purpose of what most people refer to as an "assault rifle" is just to be a modern, reliable, modular platform that can be customized to fit the needs and use cases of the owner. It's good at that, and so it's good at being customized for a lot of different uses.

The hunting argument you make is dumb. You would need to turn around and argue that any advancement of any produce anywhere that allows it to perform even marginally better than absolutely necessary needs to be undone. The fastest posted speed limit in the united states is 85mph, and yet every modern vehicle can exceed that by a lot...some of them by double. It doesn't mean the sole purpose of the car is to break speed limits.

If you break it down by time used for any one specific purpose, then the primary use case of an assault weapon is to be stored in a box or a case, unused (that is what the vast majority are doing the vast majority of time). I would argue the primary purpose is synonymous to the use case of an insurance policy (something you have in case you need it but don't actually ever use it). The next most common use (by time spent performing in the role) is to exist solely as a show-of-force without even being fired -and that seems to work pretty well because just imagining the appearance of one tends to get people upset and agitated. For the rifles that actually get used regularly, practice is another common use (using it to maintain proficiency with marksmanship skills) and also shooting for fun (which isn't always/necessarily practice) is a common use case. In the past, I have used mine for both hunting and for protection against potentially dangerous wile animals while hiking through the vast wilderness of the pacific northwest - I personally don't like the idea of having to mess around with a clumsy bolt action in the event I might need to fire multiple shots.

From the gun manufacturer's perspective, the 'sole purpose' of "assault rifles" isn't to "kill people as fast as possible", it's to: sell weapons and make profit. The "sole purpose" of a thing is defined by the user...and at least in the united states that means a lot of things other than killing people.

Hey, you're right. I also use my butter knife for a lot of things other than butter, such as: brie, jelly, jam, nutella, spreading mayo, cutting my over-easy eggs, etc. Yeah, it turns out it's useful for a lot more than just butter. It's almost as if it's a multipurpose tool that has many different and acceptable uses. I think you're on to something.

The sub-headline of the article claims there is no purpose for "assault weapons" other than killing people.

each designed with a single purpose — to kill lots of people as fast as possible

Is this article trying to tell me I'm using mine wrong? Because I use mine only for things that don't involve killing people.

Yeah, this was predicted by everyone, long in advance. The surprising thing here is how long they've managed to cling to life. I expected them to be deceased by now. I didn't think they'd last another three years, let alone five.

There were two races in my local school district that I just voted on. I don't even have kids of my own, but it's important to me that the next generation gets the best education possible. Since I didn't know any of the candidates, I was digging up their backgrounds and endorsements and a couple of them were proudly affiliated with "Moms for Liberty"...and that is an automatic 'nope' from me. That group is a toxin with a carefully chose name to sound reasonable. They aren't.

I don't even understand why there is a burden on the part of the insured to have to make a written request for this.

If you have a claim that is denied, the insurer should be required to provide the full details and reasons for the denial automatically at the time of the denial.

State population of California is roughly 39 million. State population of Florida is roughly 22 million. That alone covers 18% of the US population.

For California: see California Family Code, Chapter 2, Section 6250, Paragraph (A) here: https://studentaffairs.fresnostate.edu/survivoradvocate/documents/CA Victim Protection Statutes.pdf

Excerpt from the 'requirements' section:

a person’s allegation of a recent incident of abuse or threat of abuse

For Florida: see 2023 Florida Statutes, Title XLIII (43) Domestic Relations, Chapter 741, Section 740.30. http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0741/Sections/0741.30.html

Relevant excerpt describing the requirements and process:

(a) Any person described in paragraph (e), who is either the victim of domestic violence as defined in s. 741.28 or has reasonable cause to believe he or she is in imminent danger of becoming the victim of any act of domestic violence, has standing in the circuit court to file a sworn petition for an injunction for protection against domestic violence. (f) This cause of action for an injunction shall not require that either party be represented by an attorney.

In both states, all it takes is the unsubstantiated claim of the accuser on a sworn petition to 'claim they feel afraid'. Funny that you lead with "I'm an attorney" when the process doesn't even require an attorney in Florida. I'm not going to waste my time looking this up for each and every state, but I'll assert that Florida is not alone on the lack of requirement for an attorney to file the motion. I'll also assert that neither California nor Florida are alone in the fact that neither require any evidence beyond the say-so of the accuser claiming they feel threatened. But since you do claim to be an attorney, I invite you to read those state statutes, tell me I'm wrong, and assert that the process cannot be weaponized by the accuser just to make life a living hell for the accused. When was the last time you even heard of someone suffering any consequences at all for filing a falsified petition for restraining order? I'll bet never. I've witnessed several instances of this happing with zero consequences, not against me, but against friends and family) and even after being proven false later in an actual court proceeding, there were zero consequences for the falsified petition even when the financial and reputational damage caused to the accused was substantial.

If you really are an attorney, you must practice in a jurisdiction with stricter requirements. Lucky you. The topic we are discussing is a national issue, not a local-to-you one, so you must consider the reality that not all jurisdictions are like yours.

Sadly, the value of a thing is what the market will pay. You shouldn't be mad at blizzard, you should be mad at all the more-money-than-brains people that can't get in line fast enough to throw their money at blizzard. If it weren't for them, blizzard couldn't get away with that kind of pricing.

What do you even mean? Preponderance of the evidence is the standard used in most jurisdictions.

You're wrong.

or put someone in fear of imminent serious physical harm.

What do you think the legal test for this is? It's nothing more than someone claiming they are in fear.

Most jurisdictions will issue a restraining order solely on the claims of the filer. But if you want to save yourself some time verifying this, just look up state of California (biggest jurisdiction in the US). Word of the accuser is all it takes. Then go look up the state of California guide for bench judges which requires judges to also revoke gun ownership rights for anyone who is the subject of a restraining order.

The restraining order process can be (and regularly is) weaponized, without evidence, by people who just want to make life a living hell for their ex who pissed them off, with no repurcussions for false accusations.

Some people actually believe you shouldn't have your rights trounced without due process of a trial.

The democratic party thought it wasn't relevant in 2015/2016. Turns out they were pretty damned wrong about that.

So yeah, I'd say it's very relevant.

In 1000 years from now (if humanity survives that long, which is increasingly unrealistic), historians will look back on this time period and study it as the largest scale mass occurrence of Stockholm syndrome the world has ever ever seen.

The people supporting trump have somehow been convinced to fall in love with their oppressors. It's mind blowing to be witness to it.