>>> But the root of gun violence is not what we think it is. Both the Left and Right, despite their heated disagreements, share an implicit assumption about gun violence: That before anyone pulls a trigger, they carefully weigh the pros and cons beforehand. That gun violence is a deliberate, rational act.
If it's just a drawing of a mouse, then anyone can create the same value by just drawing a different mouse. Of course, you can't because of the millions of dollars that have been pumped into that particular mouse. That investment is what the copyright laws are protecting.
I would say that if something doesn't get published when there is a guaranteed, government-backed monopoly in place, then it's even less likely to get published when there isn't.
I don't think it's common for stuff to go unpublished when no one can find the copyright holder. In that case, just publish it and wait to see who complains.
That's fair enough but it's an arbitrary place to draw the line. If you pay tax in the US then you build weapons. If you live in a country that doesn't either build weapons or pay someone else to build them for you, then you'll soon be getting told what do by some country that does, and building weapons is one of the things they'll probably tell you to do.
Exactly. How is this so called problem even possible without the restaurants allowing it? If they don't like it, stop allowing it. If they don't care, then why should the public care?
>> I wanted to understand what Trump voters liked and didn’t like about the president, what they were nervous about, what they thought about the left’s response so far, and most importantly, what would convince them not to vote for him in the future.
I would really like to understand why he considers this last question to be the most important.
The most amazing theory I ever read was from The Second Messiah, which is totally fanciful and speculative, but even as a work of the imagination its strikingly impressive.
What they said was that it's not fake, but its not exactly real either, in the sense that its not Jesus. What we're seeing is the image of a man who was tortured the way Jesus was said to have been tortured, including the crucifixion. But the man was a crusading Knight, and the authors even think they can name him: Jaques de Molay, commander of the Knights Templar. After being tortured he was wrapped in his linen shroud (one of the few personal possessions that the template owned) and he recovered to be put on trial and ultimately burned at the stake. The shroud was folded up and put away and then he image formed slowly over years, by some chemical process which the authors explained but I can't remember.
This explains the carbon dating and the apparent mystery regarding the details of the crucifixion injuries: traditionally Jesus is depicted with holes in his hands but apparently that does not actually work. The wrists must be nailed instead, as seen in the shroud.
They also claim to have proven that the mans knees were bent as apparently this is the only way to explain the proportions.
I doubt it was a very scientific assessment but it was still fascinating to read.They even claimed that the shroud first appeared in the possession of someone who might have been a relative based on the name (can't remember the details now)
So what though? I don't know exactly the reasoning for standing requirements, but they clearly weren't intended to prevent suits over things that affect millions of people in exactly the same way. I mean, standing would prevent man from suing to overturn a ban on women voting, but that's clearly a bug, not a feature.
Does anyone else feel struck with a sense of shameful naivety when you discover (as I just did now) that your beloved local whatever store is actually a nationwide chain?
To ensure the natural advantage that strong people have over weak people, of course. Nature has ordained that the strong should subjugate the weak, and the equalizing force of firearms is thus an afront to nature, and is not to be tolerated!
>> The minority argued that if you are exerting constant pressure backwards
But that isn't how it works. The pressure on the trigger has to be varied for the gun to keep firing. She seems to think that keeping your finger in the same place constitutes "constant pressure" but that's simply not true. If there was constant backward pressure, then your finger would follow the trigger when it moves backwards in recoil. In that case, the bump system wouldn't work. To be fair I think she just genuinely doesn't understand this and the majority are partially to blame for overcomplicating it.
With a semi-automatic firearm, you must relieve the pressure/force on the trigger between shots and for that reason it cannot be "a single operation of the trigger". If this fits the definition of "single operation" then you'd only be allowed to fire a semi auto once. Firing it again the following year on your birthday would make it a machinegun.
+1 the OP hasn't offered anything resembling evidence for their position anyway. It's worth noting that 3 of the supreme court justices who voted to lift this ban were appointed by the president who ordered the ban. Is this an example of the famous "4D chess" we've been hearing about?
It's not on that basis that it was overturned though. It was overturned because the definition of machinegun requires that it fires more than one round with a single operation of the trigger. Everyone knows bump stocks don't do that, thus they're not machineguns. The president just ordered the ATF to pretend that they were, that's all. States will probably still be able to ban them by legislation though.
Show me one person who actually thinks that.