Looking at recent decisions, it’s going to go badly for those of us who believe in the anti-establishment clause.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Congress shall make no law, this actually could be interpreted quite literally by the courts that it is perfectly acceptable for a state to not only establish a religion but to criminalize other beliefs.

I think this would be a 5-4 decision with SCOTUS. I think Barrett would be against it, because she is Catholic and would see that her beliefs may not be the ones promoted. Kavanaugh and Roberts could be a toss up.

caused “substantial harm to television program copyright owners,_

Maybe? People willing to copy and distribute this content will always be around and you will never catch them all. People willing to pay a discount or seek not and find said content will always be around. And there will be those who will watch a show or a movie because it is freely available, who would never pay a dime for it.

They will never end piracy and I’d argue it might actually be bad for business if they did.

I wonder how mass deportations would actually work. To me it sounds like seeking out undocumented or potentially undocumented people and detaining them until they are deported or can prove a legal status. It sounds like rounding people up based on some sort of identifying factor. How many people will get detained who shouldn’t be?

Tiny hands, tiny tongue. He barely noticed it.

Drumpf can’t even hold a glass of water, I’m supposed to believe her can hold anything to smoke out of? He’d probably put the lit end of a blunt in his mouth and bite.

The idea that either event would be featured in a textbook below a university political science course is a bit of a dream anyway.

But I can only imagine the exam confusion.

Excuse me sir is this about 1968 or 2024?

CDC released the statement on Wednesday and it looks like the AG likely made this public on Thursday, or that’s at least when arraignments were.

Isn’t it that the trigger is squeezed once and the recoil causes the crock to bounce back which results in another trigger action? Even though there is only one action by the shooter, it would seem to be multiple trigger actions.

They don’t need to ban specific parts, and in fact they shouldn’t. They could ban anything designed to accelerate rate of fire.

That’s exactly what they should do. But SCOTUS seems to think that the bump stock cannot be banned because there is no law about bump stocks specifically.

The ban on bump stocks was implemented using the Firearms’ Owners Protection Act of 1986. Which was signed into law by Reagan (funny how a failed assassination will change things).

The text at issue is

SEC. 109. AMENDMENT OF NATIONAL FIREARMS ACT. (a) Section 58450)) of the National Firearms Act (26 U.S.C. 5845(b)) is amended by striking out “any combination of parts designed and intended for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun,” and inserting in lieu thereof “any part designed and intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts designed and intended, for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun,”

IMO the majority in this decision is choosing to blatantly ignore the text of the act which was clearly chosen to future-proof for any advancement which would result in an effortless high rate of fire such as bump stock and super safety. Instead they are insisting that Congress must amend the law to include specific parts which of course is a losing battle as there will always be a new part that achieves an effortless high rate of fire.

Now where one could argue that this ruling is correct is the accepted definition of a machinegun requires a single trigger action.

26 U.S.C. § 5845(b)

Any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger

Personally I think the laws should be amended to define weapons and munitions by their result (high or continuous rate of fire) instead of their form or function. As it stands, someone could create a weapon that simply fires continuously but does not resemble a gun in any other way. Would such a weapon be a machinegun if it doesn’t even have a trigger?

I think the dissenting opinion was more inline with the intent of FOPA.

While the cop is outside after hitting update on the app.

Not saying it’s justified to bully anyone, but maybe the fruit has rotted with the tree.

A more hopeful part of me believes that she’s been saddled with a toxic family and has suffered for it. And now she’ll be able to escape and be free.

I’m in. I’ll eat a whole case. A butter dipping sauce out maybe just some buttercream frosting would go nicely.

I will now learn to speak this word fluently and use it often to announce my farts.

Excuse me, I must retire to the veranda to tune my bumbulum.

That is a chill-inducing phrase.

They don’t care if he did. I’d argue most of his supporters in the party (Mike Johnson for example) know that he is a horrible person but will support him because he has energized a dormant portion of the voting population that can help them to gain and hold power. Trump himself isn’t even that bad, he’s a useful idiot who gives immense power to far right organizations like the heritage foundation.

There are many people under the age of 25 who do not fully understand what happened on January 6. They are being inundated with news of genocide and how Biden is directly responsible. They do not fully understand what the first Trump presidency was. Only politics junkies seem to understand the threat of project 2025 and plan 47.

We have an entire generation who hate Biden and didn’t see the threat of Trump.

I had an LG and a Kyocera back in the day that could do that. They had some small non-connected games. Of course I couldn’t do much with the hotspot as this was on 3G.

There is a term for what you’re describing…

Can we get an uno reverse on this?

Any federally elected politician who does not school acknowledge the humanitarian crisis in Gaza and that that crisis is the direct result of actions taken by the Israeli government should also serve 6mo service in Gaza.

E: a word