A man owns the most advanced private air force after buying 46 F/A-18s

Post by mirimir » Sat, Apr 11, 2020, 3:40 AM UTC

stardek wrote: post #270

t0mas88 wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see that more and more recently, English spelled phonetically. Like "their" instead of "they're" and the example above. Very curious whether it's an American thing or foreigners writing a non-native language.

With the most common North American accent "would've" and "would of" sound very similar. My suspicion is that the error tends to arise in people that have learned language more from speaking than reading.

Post by StillBored » Sat, Apr 11, 2020, 3:45 AM UTC

throwaway373438 wrote: post #99

ausbah wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Guns rights" for minorities in America has rarely ever been about personal protection or what not, it has been about keeping those in power in power and keeping the. Large swaths of American history of American history are likely being ignored with assertion like "gun ownership could prevent a lynching". Take pre-Civil War laws making gun ownership of African Americas (free and enslaved) illegal, the continuation of…

I agree those are examples of maintaining (often racist) power systems. But what you're providing aren't examples of gun rights, they're examples of gun control initiatives -- which are the opposite of gun rights. This extends beyond such obvious examples as the Mulford Act (California's foray into gun control, banning open carry in response to armed protest by Black Panthers). Gun control often focuses on removing a…

Post by angry_octet » Sat, Apr 11, 2020, 3:53 AM UTC

anigbrowl wrote: post #166

0xff00ffee wrote: post #17

I used to have a single shut-down in 2nd amendment arguments. When my opponent would claim that the 2nd amendment gives civilians the power to overthrow a government, my favorite response was to compare poorly armed and trained americans to essentially the Taliban, and follow that up with: and then the US would drone/bomb you to oblivion with their air force superiority, like how Israel dominated the no-air-force Mid…

Besides which, the Taliban has arguably won in Afghanistan by virtue of simply continuing to exist. Hostile military occupation is unsustainably expensive, doubly so when the terrain in question is unfavorable. Anyway, you'll probably see the same thing play out here in the coming years.

Post by OJFord » Sat, Apr 11, 2020, 4:24 AM UTC

blakesterz wrote: post #8

His company buys these things and then has a contract with the Navy for when they do training. So IF I'm reading this correctly, it's not just some random dude buying all this stuff for fun, it's his company and they have a very clear business purpose for doing this. "He was also one of the early pioneers of the then-fledgling, if not wholly experimental, adversary air support market. In the early 2000s, he joined fo…

Post by pensatoio » Sat, Apr 11, 2020, 5:21 AM UTC

xnyan wrote: post #151

TechBro8615 wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Do something about it" like what? The 2nd amendment specifically says the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. If some nutjob wants to hurt people, he can figure out a way to do it with some household chemicals and gasoline. And if we're truly worried about that, shouldn't we be addressing the mental health problems that would cause somebody to drive a tank through a mall? I know it's a cliche, but guns don't…

Have you ever killed someone without a gun? Not trying to be metal, but I was in a self defense situation many years ago and and something terrible happened. Shooting a gun vs using "household chemicals and gasoline" to attack someone, to say nothing of knives or bare hands, are so apart from each other that I know for a fact that you have no experience with violence or how much easier it is to do violence with a gun…