yeah they care

because they're still immune from most of the consequences

they don't want everything blown to shit

they want people working

they are all completely broke ruling over an ash pile

that wasn't their goal

their goal was to stop the uprising and they made the wrong choice

jordan offered concessions and came out perfectly fine

syria shot itself in the head to cure a headache

I gotta go

🍿

@A. Spader there is a big difference between 1) requiring military or militia service of every citizen for some duration, and 2) requiring every citizen to carry an approved deadly weapon *at all times* in public on pain of fine or imprisonment. For the record I am somewhat in favor of the former. And I'm kind of on board with the Heinleinian civilian/citizen system as well--I think either system has its merits amd maybe ought to be tried at the state level. What I don't think is sensible is fining Grandma for not carrying her 9mm to the grocery store after she gets pulled over for a broken tail light, which is what Mandatory is proposing.

Hahahahahahaha @Mandatory Carry I just realized that nowhere in your bill does it explicitly state that you are required to carry. It only lays out what the penalty is for "failure to carry as required" but not once does it say what that means. There is a huge list of exemptions and definitions all referring to a duty to carry that is never once laid out in the bill.

Hahahahahahahahahaha...

Also, there is no requirement to have your firearm *loaded* or to possess appropriate ammunition. So you could comply fully with the law as written by carrying an empty pistol and keeping a rifle in your house with an empty magazine of 20 or more capacity.

Oh, how did I miss this before? So great....

I was too busy focusing on the silliness of the trees that I missed the clown forest...

I have to say, if this whole thing is a troll, epic, man. High effort.

Wat

That's a big oof

Here's the real question, would the concept of mandatory carry be more important if there were no police/military/law enforcement?

i just mean the concept, not the legal practice.

@Clive no, because far more people would carry voluntarily in that case anyway.

@Legalize "and use of terminology contrary to this act." Still in there in the Penalties section.

Oh is the Google Doc the standard version? I was using the Facebook page as reference.

Looks like Mandy is updating the Facebook version because he fixed the issue with long arm lengths.

Oh looks like a big one coming @Legalize

@Legalize
*"Should be easy considering your totally have a history degree and are highly intelligent.'*
Because it's not my job to dig you out of the hole you dug yourself.
*"The fact that he used to include a speech restriction was very telling."*
Indeed. You don't get to *terrorize the people* by lying anymore.
*"You'd think a* **totally real historian** *would know that speech restrictions are bad."*
*IF* you knew history, you'd also know what große lüge is.

@uncephalized
*"Hahahahahahaha Mike I just realized that nowhere in your bill does it explicitly state that you are required to carry."*
Ok, so a penalty for not doing a thing≠a requirement to fo the thing... ¿WaiTheFuck?
*"It only lays out what the penalty is for "failure to carry as required" but not once does it say what that means."*
Ok so... ¿?
*"There is a huge list of exemptions"*
Oh, you just *now,* mysteriously, noticed that.
Huh.
Like, maybe, you finally *actually* read it.
Thank you for that admission.
*"and definitions all referring to a duty to carry that is never once laid out in the bill."*
Title 1. Even Leag must have seen that.

*"Also, there is no requirement to have your firearm loaded or to possess appropriate ammunition."*
1, no. I very intentionally didn't put that.
2, ok. I'll fix that.
*"So you could comply fully with the law as written by carrying an empty pistol and keeping a rifle in your house with an empty magazine of 20 or more capacity."
As currently written.*
*"Oh, how did I miss this before?"*
You didn't read it.
Just like I said you hadn't.

@A. Spader
*"That's a big oof"*
Indeed. I will fix it. 😲

@Clive
*"Here's the real question, would the concept of mandatory carry be more important if there were no police/military/law enforcement?"*
No.

@Mandatory Carry no. Title 1, as phrased, is a statement of purpose and definition of terms. It does not state that this duty shall in fact be enforced, nor does it provide adequate explanation of its own meaning.

As for the ammunition, your claim is that you INTENTIONALLY left a giant loophole in the law that completely defeats its stated purpose? To go back to your seatbelts analogy, that's like requiring everyone to wear a seatbelt but not requiring that the seatbelts be made of a material strong enough to actually restrain a human body in the event of a collision.

LAWYER [in aristocratic Southern drawl]: Your honor, we argue the Ford Motor Company complied fully with the law requiring the installation of seatbelts in its vehicles. Nowhere in the law does it state said belts may not be made of dampened tissue paper and chewing gum. We thereby move to dismiss this lawsuit of wrongful death.

JUDGE [sighs reluctantly]: Case dismissed.

I'm not even going to start with you about whether I read the damn thing again. You know the truth as well as I do, so cut that shit out.

@uncephalized
Check pictures in about 6Ø seconds.

Maybe I should write a bullshit technical paper full of terrible grammar and spelling, written in pseudo-engineering jargon, and riddled with logical inconsistencies, require you to read it in full and then relentlessly call you a liar if you don't memorize it in its entirety the first time you go through it.

On the other hand that kind of sounds like a waste of everyone's time.

Your picture is just the text of Title I. Fine. If you think that's adequate for legal purposes, OK, you're free to disagree with me. We'd have to run it by a legal scholar to settle that issue.

The ammo thing is pretty fucking hilarious though IMO.

Catching up...

*"As for the ammunition, your claim is that you INTENTIONALLY left a giant loophole in the law that completely defeats its stated purpose?""
Uh, no, only the part about requiring to carry loaded.
*"Maybe I should write a bullshit technical paper full of terrible grammar and spelling, written in pseudo-engineering jargon, and riddled with logical inconsistencies, require you to read it in full and then relentlessly call you a liar if you don't memorize it in its entirety the first time you go through it."*
Go ahead.
And try.

Now I've got five people screaming at me, I need a nap, AND you're annoying me... Excuse me.
Oh, and seriously, write that paper.

"Uh, no, only the part about requiring to carry loaded."

So 'yes, Ceph, that is exactly what I did, 100% correct.'

"AND you're annoying me..."
Well thank God it's mutual. I might even stop if you admit you have no reason to call me a liar.

Go take your nap. I hope you feel better.

He's not stupid. Just irritating.

Congrats, you noticed the obvious @uncephalized, I delibrately wrote it that you don't have to carry loaded.
Wow.
Amazing.
And now you're lying to me, about me.

@Legalize
I insult liars, yes.
It's quite ironic, because someone got one over on me today... And I'm actually proud of him.
Because he didn't lie to me.

Did you get your nap, @Mandatory Carry?

"I deliberately wrote it that you don't have to carry loaded"

WHY?

That just makes the whole thing even more ridiculous than it was to begin with.

Is there a section that defines what an applicable firearm is? Or can I bring my licensed shoestring with me? :^)

@Beemann there are delineations and definitions of terms like "firearm" which includes laser guns and phasers btw, and "shotguns" and "assault weapon" etc

Idk maybe he meant Israeli carry (loaded but no round in the chamber)