looked great on Military Arms

also hate the tavor but that's just because it looks like a discount halo gun

@Beemann
Then you're whole upper torso will explode, as will the the bulkhead behind you.

But muh backpack

@Beemann lots of old timers have a bolt action .308 squirreled away somewhere. My dad's got two. Great rifle.

Reminds me I really should drop a few hundred $ on a newer optic for mine.

Ya, your backpack will catch *some* of your guts.
Remember, the .5Ø BMG was originally developed as *an anti-tank gun,* and still has some efficacy in degrading tank capabilities (how much is luck and how much is skill we'll never know because they dropped the entire building after that)...

anti-aircraft*

It's funny, because CA banned .5Ø BMG's because *"ZOMG, YOU CAN SHOOT DOWN A PLANE WITH ONE!"* even though outside of WWII that's never happened (and those were Kamakazi runs), but in so doing, they created another (**REAL**) problem (Barrett Arm's president Ron BARRET has refused all sales, *even by proxy,* to CA law enforcement) and, to get around the ban, Barret Arms created the .416, which is debateably better (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5mxFhfCzt2M).

they banned all .50s, so no .50 AE, no s&w .500, no .50 beowulf

im betting because they watched some hollywood movie with a .50

An open letter to <@347570795767398400>

Hey Matt,

I was just thinking about the caller from last night, PiusXIII, asking whether the legal system should reflect the culture. My thoughts on this is mostly yes and no. The way I think it works is the culture sits on top of the legal system while simultaneously feeding/building it. We discussed it briefly in discord and he gave the analogy of culture being people on the roof of a building and the legal system being the guard rail around the edge keeping people from falling off. It’s a good analogy but he believes the culture should be the constant and the legal system being changed to suit the culture. I don’t think this is entirely accurate. The culture is in constant shift due to the circumstances of reality e.g. the advances in technology, medicine, sciences in general, and so on. The culture must interact under these new circumstances in order to find the best mode of being in such a state. From this information we define what is acceptable and unacceptable behavior. Come to think of it this might be how we arrive at religions. If you create a legal structure that is sound and the rules it creates can be applied universally then this might be how you get to self-discipline to follow certain religious rules that are tried and true. Still trying to work this out in my mind, would love to hear your thoughts on it.

@Legalize I think atheists do have a point of you can't ignore the fact that scientific development will continue to occur as long as nothing restricts it. I think the problem with the religiously inclined that aren't up to date with all the advancements haven't figured out how these advancements should be utilized in relation to natural law/morality. A prime example of this is birth control. Since its creation, we as a society don't yet understand how to morally exist with it being so prevalent.

@Ragglefraggle07 I disagree with that. For the most part, technology only achieves what’s already been done faster. There really isn’t anything explicitly new. With the birth control example, it’s already apparent how it should be used. It should be used by married couples to delay pregnancy or to prevent pregnancy after the total number of children wanted/can afford is had.

There is no morally sound reason to use birth control otherwise

to prevent over population (only cuz cannibalism is illegal sadly)

@Salacious Swanky Cat Except that's not its most common use

@Ragglefraggle07 doesn’t matter. The point is that the morals of how it should be used are known.

It’s not unknown

What's the point of making a rule if no one follows it?

Just the same what's the point of knowing what is moral if you aren't gonna act in that manner?

People do follow it and morality is inherently an ought. The real issue is that people argue that extra marital sex is acceptable.

Which the pill enabled the left to undermine.

Ok. So what? This doesn’t address my point. People choosing to be immoral doesn’t move the goalposts on what is moral.

Morality must be maintained in society anyways and I argue that it’s the position of the church.

Back to the original point, laws can’t govern all morality because everyone would end up being fined or jailed. It’s not feasible.

To the first point, I'm in agreement that it doesn't move the goalpost but many have argued that it does because part not acting moral is negative consequences. The pill all but absolutely mitigates pregnancy which was considered the greatest negative consequence of sex outside of marriage. To the second I also agree that it's not feasible to have laws govern morality because it works the opposite way. Laws are derived from morality.

Right. Laws are derived from morality. I totally agree with that

Intruding on that last point without reading any context. Many laws are derived from/for corporations.

🙄

To further my point on the pill. It is difficult to convince people of the virtues of living morally if living immorally yields little to no consequences.

^^^^ THIS

very true

It also doesnt pay to be anything but totally honest about the pros and cons of both

There are cons to sleeping around. There are cons to celibacy

It largely depends on the context and person, and what timescale youre working off of

and what you're looking for long term

@A. Spader Agreed

It doesn't help that every criticism of the pill I've seen is anecdotal.

You would think hearing someone say "I think people shouldn't be on the pill because it fucked me up" would be more compelling, but nope.