The problem there is that if you create a system where we *need* to know what that church was teaching in order to reach a conclusion, then the conclusion will be subject to the whims of fashion.
Now, I agree, if it's causing actual physical harm to the child, then that's actionable abuse.
But...
What Trump could have done would have been to simply not defend the indefensible before SCOTUS.
He doesn't have the power to remove the NFA, true.
But what people were asking in this case is when people brought the challenge to SCOTUS, just don't fight them.
When GOA et. al argued before...
It's like inflation.
Nothing is actually going to get better until we burn the whole place to the ground.
The best you can hope for is 4 years where it doesn't get much worse.
I'd take the Ar pistol over nothing for self defense, but I've literally got a dozen or more better choices. Probably anyone with a toy like that does too.
I'd take that 50bmg pistol over nothing too.
If I was down to choosing one or the other of them for self defense, I'd go for the AR...
I've never fired a .50bmg pistol, but from what I know about the interior ballistics, I'll not sure it *would* have massive recoil.
More than a 9mm for sure, but might not be too much worse than a .44mag.
It would be a very heavy pistol, no doubt about that. That would help with the recoil...
It's a toy.
I have some guns that also fall into that category.
I can't complain about a .50bmg pistol when I have a 5.56 pistol with a 7.5" barrel. Neither of them have a practical use other than bringing a smile to your face when you pull the trigger.
Yes, they are essentially at the mercy of the Isreaiis who would dog walk them in an actual war.
I was just pointing out that if that idea keeps them up at night, they should bear in mind what happens if the US decides they are too much of a detriment to our interests.
Sort of a "don't think...
I don't disagree.
But do we really want the government deciding what topics are dangerous brainwashing ?
What if it's the father who is trying to trans the kid here and the "dangerous brainwashing" from the church is just that there are only 2 genders, and you don't get to pick yours ?
There...
I fire my carry gun often enough that I feel reasonably proficient with it.
But I would not shoot it anywhere near as much as some of my other guns. So the shooting I do with the other guns also raises my proficiency with the LCP.
You are way better off shooting 30 rounds with the LCP and 500...
2 ? I have like 20.
My carry gun is optimized for ease of carry. But I don't just own guns for defense. I own them for fun too.
Just like I have 4 registered vehicles with only 2 drivers in the house. I don't want to drive the Deuce to Tucson for dinner, and I don't want to try to haul...
If it's not criminally endangering the kid, then the judge has no business interfering.
Let's say it's a real fire and brimstone church, and they're preaching that some aspect of the father's life is sinful and he's headed for eternal damnation. Is that really something the government should...
Fuck diplomacy. It has it's place, but not here.
If it brings down a friendly foreign government, then so be it.
If it utterly destroys some allies, then so be it.
If it causes a fucking War, then cry havoc.
Because the problem is a lot bigger than just a few kids. The fact that those type...
If the church is really a danger to kids, just telling one mother she can't take her one kid there is *not* the answer.
So, either this is bullshit, or the Judge is OK endangering dozens of other kids.
This needs to be either nothing, or a full blown criminal investigation. There is no...
That is literally what Epstein meant in the email when he referred to Trump as "the dog that wouldn't bark".
It's also likely why Trump's name was mentioned so many times.
Epstein was trying *very* hard to suck Trump into that scheme, but he would never take the bait.
The real question people need to ask is why would exposing any of the pedophiles on epstein island be a national security concern to the US ?
And if it is, WTF are people doing in the name of our national security ? There is *zero* room in the law to allow any part of our national security...
I'm sure they're scared of that.
But the fact that we carried out our strikes from within *our* borders on the other side of the world has to have them absolutely terrified. They have missiles they can lob at Telaviv. They can't even attempt an attack on Montana.
And the fact that we blew up...
It's NY, they can make whatever ridiculous rulings they want and get away with it. I could see a dipshit prosecutor arguing the bathroom isn't part of the dwelling because there's a door between that and the bed.
But the plain language of the statute says the entire structure is a dwelling if...
Perhaps a citation of the precedent of "shoot, shovel, and shut up" would be in order.
Depending on the jurisdiction, and assuming the "shoot" part is justified, that might not even be technically illegal.
I would not want to have to defend that last point in court though.
Right, the structure is occupied in part (the house), but that makes the entire structure a dwelling if even part of it is occupied.
As long as the garage and the house are the same structure it's all one dwelling.
To say otherwise would be to say my kitchen isn't part of the dwelling, because...
'"dwelling" shall mean any building or structure or portion thereof...'
House itself is clearly a dwelling. An attached garage is certainly a portion thereof of that structure.
That depends greatly on what county you live in.
The laws may be identical, but the application varies drastically.
Which is a sign of a failed justice system IMHO.