Funny events in anti-woke world

[Thaluikhain]

*unboxes special pedantic hat*
I think the AR series is produced by Colt, so while the iconic weapons of the Old West (or the Dirty Harry movies) aren't being used, it is still a Colt weapon.

Eugene Stoner designed the AR-10 for Armalite, in 7.62, then scaled it down to 5.56 and called in the AR-15. Armalite sold both designs to Colt. Colt then was able to sell some AR-15s to the US Air Force, and then it became standard for the US military as the M16. Colt made loads of that deal, though they had to pay Armalite some of it.

Armalite then designed the AR-16 (in 7.62) and AR-18 (in 5.56) as cheap export weapons for countries that couldn't afford the proper M16. Then the US bought lots of M16s from Colt, and gave them away to the potential buyers as military aid.

The patent has expired, and I read that a freedom of information act made the technical data package of the M4 (the carbine version of the M16) public domain. Also heard that someone at, I think, the Pentagon also accidentally leaked the M16 technical data package. Since the patent had expired, people could make their own if they knew how, but the companies don't have to give all the details (tolerances and stuff), so it's not that simple, unless the data package is available.

So everyone makes versions of the AR-15 (that is the semi auto version of the M16, which is the US military designation of the original select fire AR-15), and it's legal (providing they are allowed to make semi auto rifles, of course). Interestingly, in, I think, California, AR-15s are banned if they contain parts made by certain specific companies, but not others, cause US gun laws are rubbish.

 

[Trunkage]

I don't care what you think of him, or how kind your post was relative to your actual feelings. I care that you are deliberately distributing misinformation. I swear you were once a reasonable person, but you're descending rapidly toward Seanchaidh levels of deception, posting links that you know are misleading hoping that people will just react without investigating.

Here: state what you think I think of him

Edit: Or maybe wrote in this case. Thinking might be the wrong word here

 

[Gordon_4]

*unboxes special pedantic hat*
I think the AR series is produced by Colt, so while the iconic weapons of the Old West (or the Dirty Harry movies) aren't being used, it is still a Colt weapon.

You're sort of right. Eugene Stoner developed the genesis of it with ArmaLite, and Colt later redesigned it I think after ArmaLite sold them the patent. So to be precise its an ArmaLite weapon, but morally it may as well be a Colt since they've owned it since 1959 and were responsible for most of the work that eventually made it into the M-16.

Why yes, I am subscribed to Forgotten Weapons, why do you ask?

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

Why yes, I am subscribed to Forgotten Weapons, why do you ask?

All praise Gun Jesus. May his Chassepot forever be clean and well-oiled.

 

[davidmc1158]

Eugene Stoner designed the AR-10 for Armalite, in 7.62, then scaled it down to 5.56 and called in the AR-15. Armalite sold both designs to Colt. Colt then was able to sell some AR-15s to the US Air Force, and then it became standard for the US military as the M16. Colt made loads of that deal, though they had to pay Armalite some of it.

Armalite then designed the AR-16 (in 7.62) and AR-18 (in 5.56) as cheap export weapons for countries that couldn't afford the proper M16. Then the US bought lots of M16s from Colt, and gave them away to the potential buyers as military aid.

The patent has expired, and I read that a freedom of information act made the technical data package of the M4 (the carbine version of the M16) public domain. Also heard that someone at, I think, the Pentagon also accidentally leaked the M16 technical data package. Since the patent had expired, people could make their own if they knew how, but the companies don't have to give all the details (tolerances and stuff), so it's not that simple, unless the data package is available.

So everyone makes versions of the AR-15 (that is the semi auto version of the M16, which is the US military designation of the original select fire AR-15), and it's legal (providing they are allowed to make semi auto rifles, of course). Interestingly, in, I think, California, AR-15s are banned if they contain parts made by certain specific companies, but not others, cause US gun laws are rubbish.

*quietly cries over his tiny pedantic hat when he realizes Thanluikhain's is much more ornate and bejewelled as well*

 

[Baffle]

*quietly cries over his tiny pedantic hat when he realizes Thanluikhain's is much more ornate and bejewelled as well*

Hey, man, don't be like that, you've got a lovely hat and it's very nice.

 

[Thaluikhain]

To be honest, I did have to double check some of that quickly, couldn't remember the model numbers.

I just like the story of how Armalite sold Colt the rights for a design just before it became massively successful, and their cheaper version didn't sell because the US was buying and giving away Colt's product. That must have been really annoying.

 

[Dalisclock]

It's a nice cat tho.

A nice cat that's had to put up with Alex Jones.

No cat deserves that.

Not even satan cat.

 

[Gergar12]

Section 230, the internet law that’s under threat, explained

The pillar of internet free speech seems to be everyone’s target.

www.vox.com

We need an age limit for public office. No more than 65.

 

[Absent]

Will a $1.6bn defamation lawsuit finally stop Fox News from spreading lies? | Margaret Sullivan

Advertising boycotts don’t restrain the rightwing network, but the Dominion lawsuit may succeed in holding them to account

www.theguardian.com

Reminder : Any news title phrased as a question can be safely answered with "no".

 

[Gordon_4]

Will a $1.6bn defamation lawsuit finally stop Fox News from spreading lies? | Margaret Sullivan

Advertising boycotts don’t restrain the rightwing network, but the Dominion lawsuit may succeed in holding them to account

www.theguardian.com

Reminder : Any news title phrased as a question can be safely answered with "no".

Might work if they removed the decimal point from the damages.

 

[Kwak]

He wasn't arguing in favor of children dying. He posited a hypothetical cost savings from a child dying to instigate a reaction, he wanted the person answering the question to say "there's no cost savings that would justify a child dying", so that he could say he agrees with that, rather than continue to talk about child abuse in economic terms, and then potentially segue to the topic of abortion where people actually do argue in favor of the economic benefits of abortion.

Eastman said: "I was pleased to hear ACT advocating against child abuse, but a child's value comes not from future productivity, but from the fact that every child is made in the image of God."

Your own source tells you this.

An elected Alaska Republican — and member of the Oath Keepers — was censured after asking facetiously if dead children are 'actually a benefit to society'

The anti-abortion lawmaker, who took part in the January 6 protests, appeared to be trying to make a point critical of reproductive rights.

www.businessinsider.com

"....But in a text message to The Washington Post, he said his comments this week were intended to mock pro-choice advocates, writing that "we hear regularly as pro-life legislators that there is an economic benefit to society when unwanted children are aborted."

The hearing was a presentation by the Alaska Children's Trust on preventing adverse childhood experiences, or ACEs, (such as abuse, neglect, substance abuse, or domestic violence). It had a section that explained the cost of adverse childhood experiences and how to prevent them through trauma-informed practices.

"It had zero — zero to do about supporting and saying that abortion is a way of preventing ACEs, saving money, or anything of that nature," ACT director Trevor Storrs told Alaska Public Media. "Abortion wasn't even on the table." ACT doesn't have a stance on abortion, per Alaska Public Media.

On Wednesday, every one of his colleagues agreed to condemn him, voting 35-1 to censure him, according to Alaska Public Media. "He has brought great shame on this House. It is incumbent on all of us to do something. We cannot allow such atrocious, indefensible language to go undenounced," Alaska Democratic state Rep. Andrew Gray said, the outlet reported.

The only dissenter was Eastman himself."

And tstorm apparently.

 

[tstorm823]

Here: state what you think I think of him

Edit: Or maybe wrote in this case. Thinking might be the wrong word here

He said "how would you respond to the argument that" the child dying would be a benefit to society. He specifically designated that it was not his stance.
You claimed he said "a child dying from child abuse would be economically beneficial to society".
You posted a headline claiming he "touts the benefit of children being abused to death."

Do you not see the issue?

 

[Terminal Blue]

He said "how would you respond to the argument that" the child dying would be a benefit to society. He specifically designated that it was not his stance.

I don't think that's the excuse you think it is.

The big problem here is that you seem to think that everyone should just accept that Republican policy is limited to what Republicans (those with media training who don't come across as completely deranged) explicitly say they want, which in this case is kind of like me saying "I don't want to kill anyone, I'm not a monster, I just want to set fire to that building full of people and block off all the fire exits, but my overall goal is to minimize the number of people in burning buildings."

If this was a person who actually believed that no cost reduction was worth a child's life, then the logical ending to that sentence is "..and that's why we should raise taxes". Talking about the hypothetical goodness of spending money to stop children dying doesn't mean shit if you aren't willing to ask anyone to spend that money.

 

[Chimpzy]

Behold the ultimate warrior

 

[Terminal Blue]

Behold the ultimate warrior

 

[Cheetodust]

Behold the ultimate warrior

... He has made multiple videos like this. Imagine someone that incredibly useless being completely assured of their abilities. That would be absolutely wild wouldn't it? Just think about it, someone with no experience, training, skill or know how utterly convinced of their own brilliance? Probably because they looked up a few videos on YouTube and think that's a substitute for real training and education. How could anyone's self image be so totally out of whack with reality?

 

[Chimpzy]

... He has made multiple videos like this. Imagine someone that incredibly useless being completely assured of their abilities. That would be absolutely wild wouldn't it? Just think about it, someone with no experience, training, skill or know how utterly convinced of their own brilliance? Probably because they looked up a few videos on YouTube and think that's a substitute for real training and education. How could anyone's self image be so totally out of whack with reality?

My favorite bit is where he startles himself randomly firing into the air.

 

[Gordon_4]

I think the main difference is, despite knowing academically what I'm seeing is a movie, if Christian Bale walked up to me with two guns and a spiffy long coat and that dead eyed stare of his I'd probably believe he could do that. Dip shit in the TikTok looks like he could be outwit by a decent brick wall.

How does the old DnD saying go? Put enough ranks in bluff and you'll never need a weapon skill.

 

[Chimpzy]

Can't get tomatoes? Let us eat turnips, UK minister says

Britons struggling to get hold of tomatoes, peppers and cucumbers as the nation faces a shortage that could last for another month might consider turnips instead, the minister in charge of the country's food supply said on Thursday.

www.reuters.com

For real tho, out of all the veggies her mind could of gone to, why turnip? And can one of the Brits explain why people actually listened, cuz

Turnips run out after Tory minister says eat them to avoid shortages

Turnips are out of stock in Waitrose and Tesco

www.independent.co.uk