Gun Control III - the Gunnening

[Grinning Dragon]

But if it's legal to make those investments, then fiduciary responsibility should overrule morals.

Why? Not everything is about profit. And if you're failing to gain $11 million on a fund of $360 billion then it's hardly an expensive decision.

It's still 11million that would otherwise be available, it's an illogical stance to take.

[Fartsniffage]

Why? Not everything is about profit. And if you're failing to gain $11 million on a fund of $360 billion then it's hardly an expensive decision.

It's still 11million that would otherwise be available, it's an illogical stance to take.

From your point of view.

Some people have different sets of priorities from you. It's a thing.

[The Two Jerseys]

But if it's legal to make those investments, then fiduciary responsibility should overrule morals.

Why? Not everything is about profit. And if you're failing to gain $11 million on a fund of $360 billion then it's hardly an expensive decision.

To put it simply, when their job is to increase my retirement fund, they have a responsibility to make it as large as possible.

[Grinning Dragon]

Why? Not everything is about profit. And if you're failing to gain $11 million on a fund of $360 billion then it's hardly an expensive decision.

To put it simply, when their job is to increase my retirement fund, they have a responsibility to make it as large as possible.

This.
So I can buy more firearms and ammo when I'm retired.

[Fartsniffage]

Why? Not everything is about profit. And if you're failing to gain $11 million on a fund of $360 billion then it's hardly an expensive decision.

To put it simply, when their job is to increase my retirement fund, they have a responsibility to make it as large as possible.

Not if you invest in a retirement fund that has rules saying they don't invest in certain industries.

[The Emerald Legion]

To put it simply, when their job is to increase my retirement fund, they have a responsibility to make it as large as possible.

Not if you invest in a retirement fund that has rules saying they don't invest in certain industries.

The thing is, people invest BEFORE those rules come into place. And then don't get the money they want, because some small portion of their investors get upset.

[The Two Jerseys]

To put it simply, when their job is to increase my retirement fund, they have a responsibility to make it as large as possible.

Not if you invest in a retirement fund that has rules saying they don't invest in certain industries.

Which I'm okay with if my investment manager makes that clear up front and I'm voluntarily investing in that fund.

These people are public employees who have money taken out of their paycheck and have no say on where it's invested, the fund managers have a duty to maximize their investment.

[Fartsniffage]

To put it simply, when their job is to increase my retirement fund, they have a responsibility to make it as large as possible.

This.
So I can buy more firearms and ammo when I'm retired.

Well go shout at Pete Wilson. He took $1.6 billion from the fund to pay off state debt. Again, $11 million is a pittance when compared to this fund.

That's about $3.14 billion in today money.

[The Two Jerseys]

This.
So I can buy more firearms and ammo when I'm retired.

Well go shout at Pete Wilson. He took $1.6 billion from the fund to pay off state debt. Again, $11 million is a pittance when compared to this fund.

All the more reason to be making that extra $11 million!

But yeah, politicians who "borrow" from the pension fund are complete cunts.

[Fartsniffage]

Well go shout at Pete Wilson. He took $1.6 billion from the fund to pay off state debt. Again, $11 million is a pittance when compared to this fund.

All the more reason to be making that extra $11 million!

But yeah, politicians who "borrow" from the pension fund are complete cunts.

During the last Labour government in the UK they imposed a 40% one off tax on profits of all private pension funds. It upset a few people....

[Grinning Dragon]

As many of you now know by now, U.S. Senator Bob Menendez wants to outlaw suppressors nationwide, and for the life of me the reason he and other dipshits have espoused are no where logical nor factual.

“We were reminded how dangerous silencers can be a few weeks ago, when a gunman used a .45 caliber handgun fitted with a suppressor to kill 12 Americans in Virginia Beach. What first sounded like a nail-gun ended up being gunfire,” said Sen. Menendez. “The sound of gunshots is what tells you that your life is danger, and that it’s time to run, hide, take cover, call the police and help others save themselves. At the end of the day if you can hear a weapon you might just save a life.”

A suppressed .45 cal is much louder than a nail gun, does this halfwit menendez even know anything about suppressors? I'm thinking not.

“The only people who could reasonably oppose a ban on gun silencers are criminals trying to avoid detection by law enforcement or mass murderers trying to hurt as many people as possible,” Sen. Blumenthal said. “Whether a firearm is being used in a mugging or a massacre, the sound of a gunshot is a warning that helps bystanders get to safety and allows law enforcement to track and apprehend the shooter.”

And here we have stolen valor blumenthal pipping in. I'm thinking this biological mistake has seen one to many movies.

I'm one of the many people who think suppressors should be an ordinarily off the shelf firearm accessory, that hardly makes me a criminal or want to avoid detection, since suppressors do no such thing. But as we have known for a very long time, anti gunners and their ilk don't care about facts, data or reality, they only know one thing and that is to lie, live in a fantasy world because somethings get their knickers in a twist.


Federal HEAR Act Would Outlaw Silencers Nationwide

[Aclion]

Alternative proposal: States that ban suppressors should be liable for damages related to hearing loss caused by unsuppressed firearms discharges in those states.

[Paddy O Fernature]

As many of you now know by now, U.S. Senator Bob Menendez wants to outlaw suppressors nationwide, and for the life of me the reason he and other dipshits have espoused are no where logical nor factual.

“We were reminded how dangerous silencers can be a few weeks ago, when a gunman used a .45 caliber handgun fitted with a suppressor to kill 12 Americans in Virginia Beach. What first sounded like a nail-gun ended up being gunfire,” said Sen. Menendez. “The sound of gunshots is what tells you that your life is danger, and that it’s time to run, hide, take cover, call the police and help others save themselves. At the end of the day if you can hear a weapon you might just save a life.”

A suppressed .45 cal is much louder than nail gun, does this halfwit menendez even know anything about suppressors? I'm thinking not.

“The only people who could reasonably oppose a ban on gun silencers are criminals trying to avoid detection by law enforcement or mass murderers trying to hurt as many people as possible,” Sen. Blumenthal said. “Whether a firearm is being used in a mugging or a massacre, the sound of a gunshot is a warning that helps bystanders get to safety and allows law enforcement to track and apprehend the shooter.”

And here we have stolen valor blumenthal pipping in. I'm thinking this biological mistake has seen one to many movies.

I'm one of the many people who think suppressors should be an ordinarily off the shelf firearm accessory, that hardly makes me a criminal or want to avoid detection, since suppressors do no such thing. But as we have known for a very long time, anti gunners and their ilk don't care about facts, data or reality, they only know one thing and that is to lie, live in a fantasy world because somethings get their knickers in a twist.


Federal HEAR Act Would Outlaw Silencers Nationwide

Fully agree with every point here.

[Nea Byzantia]

Can you imagine if these wastes of sperm and egg existed back then? The constant handwringing over American rugged individualism, shit never would have gotten done as too many people would be still suckling from their momma's tit.

They probably existed, but if the movie Braveheart is even the slightest bit accurate, they likely got thrown from the castle window for insubordination.

Sorry America, you ain't the exception. It happens to all the great Empires, at one time or another; the only that prevent such things is a constant exposure to danger and risk, the moment a Nation or Empire becomes too secure and too prosperous, it begins eating itself; this is why America is decaying from within - its had its Peace and Prosperity for too long, and is slowly self-destructing from within, though one could argue the Empire is rotting at an increasingly quick rate. The end of the Empire doesn't necessarily mean the end of America as a whole; it just means America may not be the World Hegemon, as it has been since the Fall of the Soviet Union.

It almost seems as though the looming possibility of mass-violence must be tolerated as a necessary evil.

France had its reign of terror, Soviet Russia had their Gulags (and later, squatting gopniks)... America has a slightly more anarchist take.

An anarchist take ironically well aligned with America's ideals of individualism and self sufficiency.

[Grinning Dragon]

Alternative proposal: States that ban suppressors should be liable for damages related to hearing loss caused by unsuppressed firearms discharges in those states.

Perhaps such a lawsuit against the state would piss off enough of that states taxpayers to demand suppressors are made available, since it's going to be the taxpayer that is footing the bill for the judgement.

I also find it interesting in other countries where firearm ownership is highly restrictive and yet suppressors are readily available and encourage their use.
After all isn't noise pollution a thing? One would think all of the people here in the US are for reducing all types of pollution they would get behind the use of suppressors.

[Aclion]

Alternative proposal: States that ban suppressors should be liable for damages related to hearing loss caused by unsuppressed firearms discharges in those states.

Perhaps such a lawsuit against the state would piss off enough of that states taxpayers to demand suppressors are made available, since it's going to be the taxpayer that is footing the bill for the judgement.

I also find it interesting in other countries where firearm ownership is highly restrictive and yet suppressors are readily available and encourage their use.
After all isn't noise pollution a thing? One would think all of the people here in the US are for reducing all types of pollution they would get behind the use of suppressors.

An excellent point.

States should also be liable for reduction in property values related to noise pollution near firearm ranges.

[Grinning Dragon]

Perhaps such a lawsuit against the state would piss off enough of that states taxpayers to demand suppressors are made available, since it's going to be the taxpayer that is footing the bill for the judgement.

I also find it interesting in other countries where firearm ownership is highly restrictive and yet suppressors are readily available and encourage their use.
After all isn't noise pollution a thing? One would think all of the people here in the US are for reducing all types of pollution they would get behind the use of suppressors.

An excellent point.

States should also be liable for reduction in property values related to noise pollution near firearm ranges.

From all of the 40+ years of shooting various calibers and wearing ear protection, I still ended up with hearing damage and ringing in the ears, some days are better than others.
I often think back on what a difference it would had made if a suppressor was used in conjunction with hearing protection, I'm thinking it would had made a world of a difference.

[Grinning Dragon]

SCOTUS: Extra Penalties for Having a Gun While Committing ‘Crimes of Violence” is Unconstitutionally Vague
I agree with this ruling, seemed odd that during a violent crime if the tool being used was a firearm would garner additional penalties vs any other tool, seems bigoted imo.

“In our constitutional order, a vague law is no law at all,” Gorsuch wrote. “Only the people’s elected representatives in Congress have the power to write new federal criminal laws. And when Congress exercises that power, it has to write statutes that given ordinary people fair warning about what the law demands of them.”

“Vague laws transgress both of those constitutional requirements,” he added.

Gorsuch wrote that the law in question “provides no reliable way to determine which offenses qualify as crimes of violence and thus is unconstitutional.” And he said that if the justices were to side with the government in the case, “we would be effectively stepping outside our role as judges and writing a new law rather than applying the one Congress adopted.”

[Tarsonis]

SCOTUS: Extra Penalties for Having a Gun While Committing ‘Crimes of Violence” is Unconstitutionally Vague
I agree with this ruling, seemed odd that during a violent crime if the tool being used was a firearm would garner additional penalties vs any other tool, seems bigoted imo.

“In our constitutional order, a vague law is no law at all,” Gorsuch wrote. “Only the people’s elected representatives in Congress have the power to write new federal criminal laws. And when Congress exercises that power, it has to write statutes that given ordinary people fair warning about what the law demands of them.”

“Vague laws transgress both of those constitutional requirements,” he added.

Gorsuch wrote that the law in question “provides no reliable way to determine which offenses qualify as crimes of violence and thus is unconstitutional.” And he said that if the justices were to side with the government in the case, “we would be effectively stepping outside our role as judges and writing a new law rather than applying the one Congress adopted.”

It’s worrying that it was a split decision. With the liberal justices being the ones to strike it down, along with just Gorsuch. This should have been a 9-0 call

[Pyta]

SCOTUS: Extra Penalties for Having a Gun While Committing ‘Crimes of Violence” is Unconstitutionally Vague
I agree with this ruling, seemed odd that during a violent crime if the tool being used was a firearm would garner additional penalties vs any other tool, seems bigoted imo.

It’s worrying that it was a split decision. With the liberal justices being the ones to strike it down, along with just Gorsuch. This should have been a 9-0 call

Firearms enhancements are extremely popular with right-wingers. It means the cops can put a drop gun on someone and get them twenty years for shoplifting or the like.

[Telconi]

It’s worrying that it was a split decision. With the liberal justices being the ones to strike it down, along with just Gorsuch. This should have been a 9-0 call

Firearms enhancements are extremely popular with right-wingers. It means the cops can put a drop gun on someone and get them twenty years for shoplifting or the like.

[The Chuck]

It’s worrying that it was a split decision. With the liberal justices being the ones to strike it down, along with just Gorsuch. This should have been a 9-0 call

Firearms enhancements are extremely popular with right-wingers. It means the cops can put a drop gun on someone and get them twenty years for shoplifting or the like.

Speaking of firearms crimes, y'all hear about the man who executed the St. Louis police officer? What a bastard.

[The Lone Alliance]

Well good news, apparently the Oregon walk out partly helped to kill the AWB in the state from coming to vote because the GOP at this point no longer trusted the Democrats when they said they weren't going to attempt to pass it.

[Gig em Aggies]

Well good news, apparently the Oregon walk out partly helped to kill the AWB in the state from coming to vote because the GOP at this point no longer trusted the Democrats when they said they weren't going to attempt to pass it.

at least the SCOTUS is firmly in GOP hands so it would have been struck down anyways.

[Pyta]

oh shit this is one of those threads where y'all think the bump stock ban was sensible and that trump wanting to ban suppressors isn't such a bad idea, huh.