My personal belief is that history shows that this war of aggression, which is part of a wider Putin aspiration to restore the old Russian Empire and achieve dominance in Europe, can only be resolved by a Russian defeat that would lead to real deterrence. But that is not what is on offer.
The next few days and hours will write the future for our children and grandchildren. The future defeat of the West, which is what is coming down the line as the result of a bad peace deal, would not see a repeat of the Holocaust. It would see a new Russian dominated Europe. The people with most to fear would be the blue-haired protesters on our campuses and in our streets, as well as the LGBTQ+ community who would certainly cease to exist. A newly dominant Russia would and could not tolerate such diversity and certainly not any form of dissent.
I don’t see Putin accepting any deal that gives him anything less or equal to what he expects to be able to take in the next year.
And if the response of countries like Finland and Sweden (who joined NATA in response to the war) are an accurate assessment of Putin’s intentions, making such a deal will go down in history like Chamberlain’s “Peace for our time” deal did.
Prepare appropriately.
I’m aggressively pushing for the completion of my underground bunker in Idaho.
Cooling-off periods do not fit into any historically grounded exceptions to the right to keep and bear arms, and burden conduct within the Second Amendment’s scope. We conclude that New Mexico’s Waiting Period Act is likely an unconstitutional burden on the Second Amendment rights of its citizens.
The anti-gun people have to be getting very depressed. Not just because of the lost ground but because this is going to reduce donations. Why donate money when progress toward a full gun ban is completely blocked?
On the other hand, our side should be donating money to the groups most effective in the courts. The momentum is on our side. Let’s push this as fast as we practically can.
Permitting laws are nothing less than a burdensome tax on law-abiding citizens who wish to self-defend. Having North Carolina become the 30th permitless carry state is something these lawmakers should be proud of. We appreciate Representative Penny’s leadership in committing to an override, and we salute all the other legislators who are resolved to end a policy that’s deeply rooted in a racist past.
promiscuous people have relationships that fall apart
this is setting everybody else for so much drama
slutty people are secretly suppressing their actual hatred of the lifestyle etc.
This all feels so bizarre to me. I live in a culture where none of the ‘slutty people are unhappy and failing at relationships” thing is true – or rather, not moreso than it is in non-slutty cultures. It seems like it’s hard for people to envision how a life might work where there’s a high contingent of happy, slutty people.
…
So to help visualize, here’s some instances from the lives of myself and people I know. Names are changed, and some details are slightly altered to preserve anonymity.
We know a lot of each other’s fetishes. “I’ve been horny lately,” says a girlfriend of mine. “Oh,” says the girl groupchat, “I’d recommend trying to bang Mike. He’s really into this thing you’re into.” But another girl chimes in – “Actually I’m not sure, Mike is definitely into x but I think you’re actually more into y, and it might not work out. Worth trying, though!
I’m hanging out with a group of friends, which includes Bob and Alice, who are married. Bob and Alice are getting ready to try to conceive a baby; they’ve moved into a group house with other soon-to-be parents for communal support, we’ve discussed birth control methods with Alice and how her sexual behavior is going to change once she enters the ‘active conception attempts’ phase.At one point someone mentions how big Bob’s dick is. I’ve had sex with Bob, and I agree that it’s big – I say that whenever Bob approaches at orgies, the other guys tell me ‘oh you’re in for it now’. Most of the other women there have also had sex with Bob. Alice says something about how her husband’s dick is big but she didn’t realize it was that big, and then we tease her about having high standards for dick sizes. We discuss the one other person at an orgy who had an even bigger dick – what’s his name – someone remembers. We agree that it was probably girthier but not necessarily longer.
A friend of mine is a mega slut, with bodycount in the multiple hundreds. She married a very successful guy, spent the marriage helping her husband get laid and having threesomes, and now has a few young kids.
I’m hanging out in a group of friends and their friends and I overhear someone saying “well you guys might find this weird but I’m actually monogamous”
My boyfriend is having a girl he’s dating over. He’s mentioned he’d be interested in banging her casually in the open, and I say sure. She’s sitting on the couch with us, and he starts having sex with her in front of me (with her consent). It looks nice so I ask the girl if she’d like me to take photos of them. She says no. About ten minutes later (still in the middle of getting railed on the couch) she says “actually I changed my mind, photos would be nice”. I’m like daw ok, and I get a lot of photos of them having kinky sex. I text them to her afterwards.
“I was at Susan’s garden party, sheepishly admitting to just having had sneaky sex with someone in the closet. Susan overheard and said “wait you should fuck my husband!” and went over to get him.”
I did not post the entire set of examples. This is just a sample.
Some people live in an alternate reality. And it could be someone in the same room with you without you knowing. In some ways, this is totally bizarre to me.
Is there some psychological dysfunction involved? If so, which reality is dysfunctional? Is it possible to even test for dysfunction? How would you create a test that was not biased in favor of the test creator?
Perhaps it is “simply” a culture difference with a different set of tradeoffs being made. But again, how do you determine which culture is best for society? Or is it something that just doesn’t matter, like people having different hobbies? It maybe it does not have any significant social impact, and it would be inappropriate to apply social pressure to conform to one cultural norm over the other.
It is so mind twisting for me that I find it to be a fascinating puzzle.
The idea of taking blood from the young to rejuvenate the elderly is getting an increasing amount of attention from scientists, and a new study has shown how some of the youthful properties of our skin can be restored with this kind of blood swap.
A special 3D human skin model was set up in the lab by researchers, who then tested the effects of young blood serum on the skin cells. By itself, the serum had no effect, but when bone marrow cells were added to the experiment, anti-aging signals were detected in the skin.
It appears that the young blood serum interacts with the bone marrow cells in specific ways to roll back time in skin cells.
Today’s mandate issued by the Ninth Circuit marks the first time the court has issued a final decision striking down a law for infringing on the Second Amendment. Between Heller and Bruen, every case heard by a panel which concluded the law was contrary to the Second Amendment was reheard en banc by the court and ultimately upheld. This is a historic victory for Second Amendment rights in the Ninth Circuit and marks a measurable defeat for Governor Newsom and the legislature’s attempts to curtail the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms in California.
Video footage from the Jan. 6, 2021, assault on the U.S. Capitol shows a man who now works as an adviser at the Justice Department shouting at rioters to “kill” law enforcement officers responding to the attack and calling them “the Gestapo.”
The footage, from a body camera worn by a Metropolitan Police Department officer, was first published Thursday by NPR. The network joined CBS News and other news organizations in suing to obtain thousands of hours of surveillance footage and court exhibits from the more than 1,000 criminal cases brought by the Justice Department against people who allegedly participated in the Capitol attack.
Among those defendants was Jared Wise, who eventually faced six charges as a result of his alleged actions on Jan. 6. He pleaded not guilty. Wise’s hiring by the Justice Department was reported last month. A Justice Department spokesperson said in a statement that Wise “is a valued member of The Department of Justice and we appreciate his contributions to our team.”
Assuming this is a truthful representation of the facts, then one has to wonder how well the current administration is vetting new employees. With friends like these you can make a lot of enemies and lose a lot of friends.
The CBS News story is likely truthful in reporting that body camera footage shows Jared Wise making inflammatory statements during the January 6 Capitol attack, as supported by court records, the FBI affidavit, and corroborating reports from NPR and other sources. His employment at the Justice Department and receipt of a presidential pardon are also substantiated. However, the story’s presentation may carry a narrative bias by emphasizing his actions without fully exploring context, intent, or the broader implications of his pardon and hiring. Without access to the unedited footage, some uncertainty remains about the exact nature of Wise’s statements.
For a definitive assessment, I recommend reviewing the primary body camera footage, if available, or seeking additional court documents related to Wise’s case. If you’d like, I can search for more recent developments or specific footage related to this story.
In the movie Tremors Burt Gummer was originally supposed to have an NRA sticker on his truck however his actor Michael Gross objected not because he refused to play an NRA member but because he said Burt was WAY too pro gun to be in the NRA
Yes, the claim appears to be true based on available information. Michael Gross, the actor who played Burt Gummer in Tremors, reportedly objected to an NRA sticker on Burt’s truck during the film’s production. His reasoning was that Burt Gummer’s extreme pro-gun stance and extensive arsenal went beyond what the NRA would typically endorse, especially in the context of the 1990s. Gross believed Burt’s character was too radical in his gun enthusiasm to align with the NRA, which might have been seen as more mainstream or cautious in comparison. This sentiment is reflected in posts found on X discussing the matter.
However, without direct confirmation from Michael Gross or primary production sources, this should be considered plausible but not definitively verified.
Back twenty years ago the quiet conversation at the gun range or late in the evening after the “women folk” had gone to bed it was commonly said, “If the politicians think dealing with the NRA is bad, they really aren’t going to like who they will have to deal with if the NRA fails.”
If there were a gun show loophole and an AR-15 chambered in 22 LR capable of doing this that could be pulled though the loophole into reality, then it would have a high-powered rail gun projectile velocity booster with a nuclear power plant for the power source. And even then, the projectile would be vaporized at anything more than a range of a few yards. Still, a lead oxide cloud at some small fraction of c might make for an interesting variation of a shotgun.
Last weekend, a man walked into a Walmart in Traverse City and stabbed 11 innocent people in a random, brutal act of violence. The scene was horrifying—but thankfully, everyone survived.
The media covered the initial shock. The politicians issued generic statements. But something’s missing — something that always seems to go missing when the narrative doesn’t fit: no one is talking about “knife control.” Why is that?
…
This is an important moment in Michigan and across the United States. It’s time to stop pretending the tool is the problem and start focusing on the truth: dangerous people are the threat. And guns, in the hands of the right people, save lives.
They aren’t talking about knife control because at this point in the game they are playing it sounds absurd. But had we continued down the path outlined by the most recent Democrat administrations we would have seen our future in England.
I think that is an appropriate initial negotiation position. I could see allowing for a small amount of compromise if there push back to the point of not being able to get a majority vote.
The most fundamental requirement for a legitimate legal regime is that a person must be able to know what the law requires before being held accountable to it. As a recent case out of New Jersey shows, however, the state’s oppressive laws for gun businesses no longer meet even this minimal threshold.
New Jersey arguably has the nation’s strictest gun control laws; it is difficult even for well-meaning people and businesses to thread their way through them to exercise their Second Amendment rights. On top of those laws, in 2022, the state enacted new requirements for each “gun industry member” to “establish, implement, and enforce reasonable controls regarding its manufacture, sale, distribution, importing, and marketing of gun-related products.” These “reasonable controls” are supposed to be geared toward preventing bad outcomes from the diversion and misuse of the industry member’s products by criminals.
Yet just what is expected, on top of the mountain of explicit requirements these businesses already face, is not explained. Gun industry members are supposed to figure that out for themselves. The price for guessing wrong, moreover, could be ruinous litigation from the state’s anti-gun office of the attorney general (AG).
…
In resolving the case, in fact, the superior court washed its hands of trying to untangle what reasonable controls the law actually required of Butch’s Gun World in making the sales in question. Instead, it simply held that because the shop hadn’t imposed any additional measures (beyond following explicit statutory laws) in making the sales, the reasonable controls statute must have been violated in some fashion.
You might ask, “Isn’t this unconstitutionally vague?” From the same article:
The court similarly washed its hands of the shop’s contention that the reasonable controls statute violated due process by not explaining its requirements: “This Court is not positioned to determine whether the statute is unconstitutionally vague and will not do so.”
There are some people that need to be prosecuted. This prosecutor and judge are on that list of people.
Today is a great day for freedom and the American people. The dismissal of this appeal should be the final nail in the coffin of this unconstitutional Biden ATF assault on gun owners. As we explained in the case filings, braced pistols are not ‘short-barreled rifles.’ But either way, they are unquestionably arms protected under the Second Amendment. We are thrilled to have secured this important win for liberty and excited to take on even more unconstitutional laws so you can exercise your rights when, where, and how you choose.
It is not huge, but it is another brick in the wall. Each time a case is concluded our team learns a little more. The arguments are tuned to match the precedents of the previous wins. The reluctant judges are herded into corners by the previous decisions on less important cases. They have fewer and fewer options to rule in favor of the dark side. We are winning but it is still a long hard grind to something approximating a total victory.
The US is an awful place to compare anything too. They have a ridiculously high murder rate for a developed country and most of it is gun related.
And the whole constitutional thing is ridiculous. Their president is a pedophile who has broken countless constitutional laws. If it actually came to a showdown with between the army and gun owning civilians, the civilians would be massively under powered
It appears to me that UnicornForeverK chose their name well. They have only a tenuous connection to reality. The lack of a solid connection to reality shows in their struggle with creating a coherent line of thought.
I could have spent way more time that it was worth to fisk this, but with a little coaxing Copilot did a decent job:
🧨 Debunking a Lazy Narrative: Guns, Murder, and the Myth of Military Supremacy
Let’s break this down and inject some reality.
🔪 “The US is an awful place to compare anything too. They have a ridiculously high murder rate for a developed country and most of it is gun related.”
Yes, the U.S. has a higher murder rate than most wealthy nations—but it’s not “ridiculously high” in a global context. According to 2023 data:
Country
Total Murder Rate (per 100k)
Jamaica
49.3
Ecuador
45.7
Haiti
41.1
Honduras
31.4
Mexico
24.9
United States
5.76
Canada
1.98
UK
1.15
Germany
0.91
Japan
0.23
Singapore
0.07
Source: World Population Review
The U.S. ranks high among developed nations, but far below many countries in Latin America and the Caribbean. And yes, most U.S. homicides involve firearms—about 4.42 per 100k—but that’s not the same as saying “most murders are gun-related” globally.
📜 “And the whole constitutional thing is ridiculous.”
This is a vague dismissal of a foundational legal framework. The U.S. Constitution has shaped democratic governance worldwide. Criticizing specific interpretations is fair game—but calling the entire system “ridiculous” is like calling the wheel a bad idea because you don’t like traffic laws.
🧑⚖️ “Their president is a pedophile who has broken countless constitutional laws.”
There is no credible evidence to support the pedophile claim. It’s defamatory and baseless.
As for constitutional violations, presidents from both parties have faced legal challenges. Examples include:
Trump: Birthright citizenship EO, inspector general firings, funding freezes5
But “countless” is hyperbole. Most alleged violations are contested in courts and resolved through judicial review—not proven breaches.
🪖 “If it actually came to a showdown between the army and gun owning civilians, the civilians would be massively under powered.”
This is the most interesting—and historically naïve—claim.
🇦🇫 Afghanistan Case Study
The Taliban, with ~85,000 fighters, outlasted the U.S. and NATO over two decades. They used small arms, guerrilla tactics, and local knowledge—not tanks or drones—to win through attrition and ambiguity7.
🇺🇸 Now extrapolate to 100 million armed U.S. civilians:
Wealth & Education: Civilians have vastly more resources, technical literacy, and access to logistics.
Veteran Expertise: Millions of former service members with tactical training.
Infrastructure Access: Civilians live inside the systems the military depends on—power grids, telecom, transportation.
Cyber Potential: Insider threats could exploit vulnerabilities in command networks, spoof IFF systems, or jam communications10.
Friend vs. Foe Chaos: Identifying adversaries becomes a nightmare when they wear no uniform and share cultural ties.
Suppressing such a population wouldn’t be a military operation—it would be a civil war. And history shows that civil wars are rarely won by the side with the biggest guns. They’re won—or lost—by legitimacy, endurance, and the ability to navigate chaos.
🧠 Final Thought
This quote isn’t just wrong—it’s dangerously simplistic. It ignores history, misrepresents facts, and underestimates the complexity of power, resistance, and governance. If we’re going to have serious conversations about violence, politics, and the Constitution, we need to start with facts—not slogans.
Sadly, this account no longer exists. Perhaps it was a bot or something.
Regardless, the distinctions and descriptions resonate with me. And it is a little more polite than the more common, “useful idiots”. This comes in handy when you are discussing politics with your mother-in-law or others with the potential to disrupt domestic harmony.
Name three things that the government does cheaper and better than private individuals and organizations. It would be no trick at all to name dozens of things that the government does worse and at higher costs.
Today, the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), American Suppressor Association (ASA), National Rifle Association (NRA), Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC), Prime Protection STL Tactical Boutique, and two members of the organizations filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA). The case, Brown v. ATF, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.
Debt and crime ridden Labor controlled Victoria has borrowed another 13 million dollars to roll out “machete bins”
Yep. They honestly believe an African wondering down the street with a machete down his duds will see these bins and think, Oh fuck man, I better put my machete in the amnesty bin.
Make me laugh, you pack of total fuckwits. What the hell is wrong with lefties. They must have shit for brains.
