511–520 of 645 posts
The streams are back up. Yet, this thread quickly devolved into a discussion about the grand conspiracy to censor instead of the repeated failure of automated tools and the ease at which they're abused.
It's very sad to see how people blame and thrash services like youtube instead of respecting the fact that all of it is provided absolutely free of cost.
The streams are back up. Yet, this thread quickly devolved into a discussion about the grand conspiracy to censor instead of the repeated failure of automated tools and the ease at which they're abused.
While I agree with your guess of "failure of automated tools", the streams being back up is only partially helpful; much of the damage is done, and it will further polarization because more people now feel persecuted.
If people react to a glitch that way, I'd argue that the damage had been done before the glitch.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Where's the legal definition of "assault rifle" == "machine gun" from?
the phrase comes from the unique German WW2 weapon "Sturmgewehr 44" (literally Assault Rifle 44). It was the first example of the Assault Rifle weapon type with the defining characteristics being an intermediate cartridge (between pistol round and rifle round) that allows controllable automatic fire at engagement ranges further than submachine guns. Most AR15s cannot be considered 'Assault Rifles' as although they ar…
The streams are back up. Yet, this thread quickly devolved into a discussion about the grand conspiracy to censor instead of the repeated failure of automated tools and the ease at which they're abused.
It's very sad to see how people blame and thrash services like youtube instead of respecting the fact that all of it is provided absolutely free of cost.
It is absolutely not free of cost. Google wouldn't be able to sustain if they were not receiving anything in return.
In this exchange, however, you don't know the value you're contributing; there is no clear value exchange: "I'll give you $x.xx for use of such-n-such." Instead you're expected to believe that what they provide you is fair for the value you provide them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
the phrase comes from the unique German WW2 weapon "Sturmgewehr 44" (literally Assault Rifle 44). It was the first example of the Assault Rifle weapon type with the defining characteristics being an intermediate cartridge (between pistol round and rifle round) that allows controllable automatic fire at engagement ranges further than submachine guns. Most AR15s cannot be considered 'Assault Rifles' as although they ar…
> The term "Assault Rifle" is more commonly associate d with anti-gun organizations as it has become a emotionally charged word Every game I've played where it is relevant uses the "Assault Rifle" term, and way more young people are familiar with game definitions than anything else. Here is roughly how weapons are defined in games: Submachine gun - Automatic pistol with large clip. Rifle - Single shot long barrel hig…
And afaik the usual distinction for a battle rifle is that it's larger caliber (e.g. as many cold-war standard-issue rifles were)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm talking about normal ice cubes. They can inflict bodily harm. With 'serious', does that mean you're suggesting a different definition from the one you quoted? > This is why someone can be charged for assault with a deadly weapon while trying to run someone over with their car. A car is at least in a medium category where it's not a generally safe object. Remember that my original objection was saying someone was…
> I'm talking about normal ice cubes. They can inflict bodily harm. If you used it as a weapon, it's a weapon. There aren't generally enhanced criminal charges for non-deadly weapons, however — that's usually just charged as assault. > With 'serious', does that mean you're suggesting a different definition from the one you quoted? No, I'm tying this question back to the actual law. > Remember that my original objecti…
That makes sense if they intended to use it as a weapon.
What if they didn't?
> This is very simple, well-established law.
Mens rea makes sense for certain crimes.
I would not say someone is 'armed' or 'not armed' based on intent.
> Google "mens rea". You're not going to beat a charge with the argument of "It was a little league baseball bat!".
> (II) A knife, bludgeon, or any other weapon, device, instrument, material, or substance, whether animate or inanimate, that, in the manner it is used or intended to be used, is capable of producing death or serious bodily injury.
A baseball bat at least is pretty dangerous when used as intended. So is a car. A skateboard isn't, and an ice cube isn't.
> You're treating the law like it's some sort of extremely idiotic expert system that implodes anytime someone grabs their child's baseball bat with the intent of murdering someone — or actually does so.
The legal system wouldn't implode if it was just 'assault'.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As opposed to falsely claiming he had an assault rifle and thinking that somehow strengthens the emotional/moral impact of an argument?
You are either being intentionally disingenuous or you are so deep in this that you don’t understand how other people think. To a lot of people, giant military-looking gun = assault rifle. And saying “actually it’s technically not an assault rifle” makes absolutely no difference. It’s not always a false claim; rather it’s a minor, irrelevant detail. Swatting it down doesn’t matter, except to the person swatting it do…
Words have meaning and details matter, especially when discussing legalities. It absolutely is always a false claim.
To a lot of people, any big Navy ship that is not an aircraft carrier is "a battleship". To a lot of people, anybody banging away on a keyboard from the command line = "hacking". That doesn't make either claim true. Specificity and clarity are important. To mutually work through a problem set we need commonly-understood definitions, and the lexicon thankfully isn't limited to the simplistic understanding of the uninformed masses.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What is an assault rifle?
To answer your lower question since I can't respond directly, the legal difference between a rifle and pistol is pretty much only barrel length. Overall length also matters, and whether or not the AR "started out" (at manufacture) as a rifle or pistol determine if it becomes a "short barreled rifle" after certain modifications, but that's getting into the inane and nonsensical world of ATF regulations. As far as what…
This is only half-true. The difference between a pistol and a rifle is whether it has a stock. The difference between a normal rifle and a short-barreled rifle is whether the barrel is 16" or not.
I'm not saying it makes more sense, but that is the classification the ATF uses. Never put a stock on any weapon with less than a 16" barrel, unless you're really, really, really sure you fall under some kind of exemption (i.e. that might not apply to black powder weapons).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Considering the streams are back up, this seems more like a failure of automation and reporting tools than a grand conspiracy.
Is this the same failure in automation that is keeping Rittenhouse from being searched on Facebook?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
GG is a interesting person. He was already convicted of home invasion and is therefore prohibited from carrying/owning/purchasing a gun. He had DUIs after this event but was let off There has been some suggestion that his ability to avoid prosecution suggests that he is a likely FBI informant in Antifa. GG isn't from Kenosha but no one makes any issue about him illegally traveling there to riot with a weapon
The reason that no one makes an issue of it is because he did not kill anyone and is therefore not the one on trial. If he had killed someone it is perfectly reasonable to bring this up. (Also as far as I know he did not illegally travel there or am I misunderstanding? )