BrothelLife

I'm actually surprised that no one has posted about the proposed executive actions to curb the "national epidemic" of gun violence.





Rachel Varga
onlyfans.com/rachelvarga
rachelbomb.com
twitter.com/rachelbombx

I forgot.

There is no gun violence. The criminals commit the violence. And are the same people would want to defund the police,riot and destroy everything thing in The USA.

BTW  They call themselves Democrats....

Despite his caterwauling about ammo limits and removing "weapons of war" from the civilian population, I actually have little problem with his proposal.  The two that came close to infringing on personal rights were:

Ghost guns have to be registered:  I think someone was playing an April Fool's joke on Uncle Joe with this one because it won't do anything.  A person has to simultaneously say "I'm going to make a gun to avoid the legal process" and "I'm going to report myself to the legal process I just avoided."  Criminals gonna do crimes.

Red flag guidelines will be published for the states:  These guidelines are an invitation for abuse to grab guns.  If I don't like how my neighbor cuts her grass, I can (anonymously) report her to the cops and say something vague like "She's been looking really unstable lately and she yells at the neighborhood kids."  Then they can take her guns without due process.  But publishing the guidelines doesn't do anything.  Requiring or incentivizing the states to do it would be a huge problem, and a violation of the 4th and 14th amendments.

(This is also why I joined the NRA)

Note to Rachel (edit) - I repeatedly used the apostrophe by typing directly into the window in Chrome and it did not cut off my message.  Just FYI.

  I think some fellers are a little confused when it comes to gun rights and the constitution.    The right to bear arms doesn't mean any arms.  If so, The NRA would have already went to the Supreme court and had laws which prohibit  Assault weapons in certain states thrown out.  You would also see some fellers pulling armed missiles down the street behind their pickup trucks.

BTW: I'm not exactly sure what the answer is to all the gun violence but to do nothing and keep repeating "guns don't kill people, People kill people" over and over doesn't seem to be working.[/size]

His belief that you can build an AR from a ghost gun in thirty minutes is ridiculous. Even with an gen 3 easy jig it will take two+ hours to mill it and that is providing you have done it before. Then you need time to assemble it. So that 30 minutes is just bs.

You need:
The lower 125
The jig 300 (good one)
Router or drill press (depending on the jig)  200+
All the parts which run into 500 or more easily

Finally you need to know how to put it together. Sure the parts are fairly interchangable but it's not totally like Legos.

Lastly, if you can mill an 80/20 with a jig then you can mill a 100 lower with a jig if you had one. Where there's a will, there's a way.

I am from a communist country and I'm not going back to that bullshit.

As of 2012, there are an estimated 2.5

Btw I am not Republican or Democrat. I am me.

Rachel Varga
onlyfans.com/rachelvarga
rachelbomb.com
twitter.com/rachelbombx

I had some spare time tonight so I wanted to write about the actual numbers.  A "gun violence epidemic" is very dramatic but it's not very helpful in quantifying the problem or solution.  So I went here:

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/20 ... able-8.xls

Fact 1:
For 2019, there were (I'm going to round so math is easier, but I'm not being deceptive):
14,000 murders where 10,000 were by firearms

Conclusion 1:  About 30% of the murders did not use firearms and those methods are readily available, such as beatings and stabbings.  This is important because it shows that the murdering is not tied to the weapon and can easily be substituted by another weapon.  So even if a gun ban were effective, I don't believe it would change the amount of murder significantly because of the other methods already in use.

Fact 2:
In the U.S. there are around 2.5 million natural deaths per year, which is not surprising because our population is 330 million. (CDC)

Conclusion 2:
The 10,000 murders by gun are 0.4% of total deaths and 0.003% of the population.  This doesn't make it excusable.  But when politicians use emotionally laden language like "epidemic", it's important to have the facts.

Possible solution:  People are effective at killing others and a gun ban won't change that, especially since it wouldn't be effective.  The solution is to make people want to kill each other less.  It's impossible to legislate this, but what the government can do is make people dependent on their communities instead of the government.  When people get aid (welfare, child support payments, etc.) from a faceless entity, there's no need to connect with their communities.  As such, people are more likely to see others as "things" and more likely to hurt them.  If a person turns to others for help, though, they bond with them and are more likely to see them as people and less likely to harm people in general.

Rachel Varga link wrote: Btw I am not Republican or Democrat. I am me.

Rachel Varga
onlyfans.com/rachelvarga
rachelbomb.com
twitter.com/rachelbombx

  Can I ditto this Statement without sounding like I suckin up to Rachel cause Im not!  Im mean I value her as much as the rest of us do! But she is so correct....its crazy...so miss information..it catering to all these fear tactics! Cumm On Mann!

Can we save the politics for Twitter?  :o

Chicagobob link wrote: Can we save the politics for Twitter?  :o

Yeah, political talk blows

Phoenix link wrote: Yeah, political talk blows

Well, this is an "Off Topic" thread which is the appropriate place for a non-brothel topic.  And while I'm against Twitter behavior (i.e. "You suk, losr!  LOL LOL ROTFL SMDH!"), banning certain topics is no different than banning certain views.  And I can't abide that.

P.S.  I got off Twitter a few months ago, and typing a tweet again cost me a little of my soul.  Ick.

Rachel Varga link wrote: Btw I am not Republican or Democrat. I am me.

Rachel Varga
onlyfans.com/rachelvarga
rachelbomb.com
twitter.com/rachelbombx

My sentiments exactly.

Someone once interviewed Johnny Carson and asked him why he never took a political strand on his TV show.  Johnny used to laugh at both sides of the political arena.    As a matter of fact you would be hard pressed to know if he was Democrat or Republican.  When asked why he never talked politics, he said "Why alienate half your audience?"

Good advice Johnny!  :

It's a little political but it's in Off Topic. I really don't want anyone throwing shade at any specific person. You can disagree but not be personal.

JimDiGriz link wrote: Despite his caterwauling about ammo limits and removing "weapons of war" from the civilian population, I actually have little problem with his proposal.  The two that came close to infringing on personal rights were:

Ghost guns have to be registered:  I think someone was playing an April Fool's joke on Uncle Joe with this one because it won't do anything.  A person has to simultaneously say "I'm going to make a gun to avoid the legal process" and "I'm going to report myself to the legal process I just avoided."  Criminals gonna do crimes.

Red flag guidelines will be published for the states:  These guidelines are an invitation for abuse to grab guns.  If I don't like how my neighbor cuts her grass, I can (anonymously) report her to the cops and say something vague like "She's been looking really unstable lately and she yells at the neighborhood kids."  Then they can take her guns without due process.  But publishing the guidelines doesn't do anything.  Requiring or incentivizing the states to do it would be a huge problem, and a violation of the 4th and 14th amendments.

(This is also why I joined the NRA)

Note to Rachel (edit) - I repeatedly used the apostrophe by typing directly into the window in Chrome and it did not cut off my message.  Just FYI.

Funny, the problem thus far with the last two mass shootings isn't that red flag laws are too easily applied but too difficult to apply in time to make a difference.

In the Boulder shooting the family knew he was unstable. The kid bought the weapon and the mass killing occurred a couple of days later. No way they could report it, get it through the court system and get the weapon removed prior to the shooting.

In the Indianapolis shooting, the shooter had a weapon taken, but just went out and bought more prior to act.

Seems like there is a disconnect and no chance for the laws to work as currently constructed to stop these mass shootings.

BTW, the boulder shooting the latest is that he was sold magazines that exceeded the legal limit. So I'm guessing the shop owner is going to be charged as well.

georoc01 link wrote: Funny, the problem thus far with the last two mass shootings isn't that red flag laws are too easily applied but too difficult to apply in time to make a difference.

In the Boulder shooting the family knew he was unstable. The kid bought the weapon and the mass killing occurred a couple of days later. No way they could report it, get it through the court system and get the weapon removed prior to the shooting.

In the Indianapolis shooting, the shooter had a weapon taken, but just went out and bought more prior to act.

Seems like there is a disconnect and no chance for the laws to work as currently constructed to stop these mass shootings.

BTW, the boulder shooting the latest is that he was sold magazines that exceeded the legal limit. So I'm guessing the shop owner is going to be charged as well.

And I'm not insensitive to murders, but I want to reduce them overall instead of just the ones that get on the news.  I cited (about) 14,000 murders in 2019.  Of that, the number due to mass shootings (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_m ... tates#2019) is 115, which is 1% of the total.  Mass shootings are not the problem, and the government can pass all the laws they want but it won't make a significant difference.  Frankly, I don't think it will even reduce the number of mass murders because (1) it doesn't address the root cause which I addressed in my proposed solution and (2) there are simple ways around these laws.

Let me address (1) red flag laws and (2) reduced magazine capacity.
Red flag laws:  So the person's guns are taken away.  I've shown above that stabbings and beatings are used to kill at about 4,000 per year so they're an easy substitute.  And we have documented incidents where people just get in their car and plow into a group of people.  Taking the gun doesn't do anything against a person who's determined to kill.  (I might support something where a person who's mentally dangerous is held against their will for observation with proper safeguards, but I think those laws already exist.)
Reduced magazine capacity:  Almost always, the killer selects groups of people who can't fight back.  And in these cases the people are cowering in fear as they're being shot at.  So if the shooter has a normal size magazine and runs out of ammunition, he only needs to bring a few more with him.  It takes 3-5 seconds to eject the empty magazine and insert the new one, and in that short time nobody will know the shooting's even stopped because they're terrified.

Pointing out the flaws here doesn't make me happy, but people need to understand that better laws would be an insignificant improvement if there's any improvement at all.  We need to address the root problem.

Yeah, mass shootings are just a statistic till its your neighborhood grocery store, theater or school where the shootings occur. Then it becomes very real. All of those have happened locally here in Colorado over the last few years. So its no wonder that people here think this is out of hand and something needs to be done.

At least two of them had a history of documented mental illness, yet were able to legally buy the weapons used in the mass shootings. No way any of them could have killed as many people as there were able to do with a semi automatic weapon. And the school shootings have been kids taking their parents weapons. Which makes you wonder how well they secured them in the home.

georoc01 link wrote: Yeah, mass shootings are just a statistic till its your neighborhood grocery store, theater or school where the shootings occur. Then it becomes very real. All of those have happened locally here in Colorado over the last few years. So its no wonder that people here think this is out of hand and something needs to be done.

At least two of them had a history of documented mental illness, yet were able to legally buy the weapons used in the mass shootings. No way any of them could have killed as many people as there were able to do with a semi automatic weapon. And the school shootings have been kids taking their parents weapons. Which makes you wonder how well they secured them in the home.

So are you saying the proposed "red flag" laws are worthless?  Here are clear examples where the system couldn't keep track of known problems.

MrTShirt link wrote: So are you saying the proposed "red flag" laws are worthless?  Here are clear examples where the system couldn't keep track of known problems.

Red Flag laws could work if they were easier to enforce in my state. Right now, someone has to file a complaint with the police, who takes it to the DA who take it to a judge. If the judge approves, the guns are taken away for up to a year. At that point the DA can ask for an extension or the guns are returned to the owner.