Glocks are among the most popular handguns, period. That’s because they work, and they work consistently, even with poor maintenance and cheap ammunition.

If you try running your expensive Staccato 2011 without cleaning it every few hundred rounds, you’re going to be guaranteed to have jams. A Glock? You can get about 3000 rounds at a range between cleaning.

Kids die more often from gun-related deaths than car-related deaths.

Note that this is mostly suicide. You know how else you can reduce youth gun deaths? Improve mental health access.

Partial disagree.

Everyone should have the right, even if not everyone should exercise that right. Same with speech.

If you are going to say that some people shouldn’t have that right, then it’s no longer a right.

The fact that you need to make an encyclopedia to present a conservative point of view is just so, so telling. Just presenting facts should be sufficient, but facts are notoriously liberal, so…

AFAIK, no one has rights based on political beliefs. But in the US, people have religious liberty granted to them under the constitution, within some fairly loose limits, and discriminating against people in employment based on their religious requirements is not legal. There’s the issue of ‘reasonable accommodations’; if I’m Muslim, then a company denying me the ability to pray several times each shift is almost certainly religious discrimination.

Yes, I agree that we should view religion as a choice rather than an inherent quality, but that’s not the way the constitution is.

…Which is why I specified US. (Yes, I know where NB is.)

Most of the people here are arguing from a US perspective, esp. since the original source largely reports on US news, and reports on news from a US perspective.

Jesus christ, no, she can’t argue that it’s self defense. What is the imminent risk of physical harm to the mail carrier here? Self defense only applies to cases of immediate physical harm, and that’s just not this. At best there’s an argument to be made for very, very indirect harms.

This is every bit as dumb as arguing that someone waving a Nazi flag means that you can self-defense them to death because they’re going to hurt someone eventually.

It’s not my job to pull down Nazi sticker crap or clean it up, but I do.

Good, and you should. But that’s you acting in your personal capacity, not as an agent of the gov’t.

People with strong religious beliefs believe that it does. They believe that even allowing people to see that LGBTQ+ people can be accepted leads to an acceptance of sin, and risks condemning a soul to hell. Even if it’s bullshit, they still believe that real harms are being done.

Yes. Exactly. But that’s the original point: you accept the job with the understanding that, if you find a particular aspect of the job to be against your morals, and you refuse to perform your job due to your morals, that you may be disciplined and/or fired.

The wrinkle here is that pharmacists have some degree is 1a protections (in the US) because their objections are on religious grounds rather than humanist ones. That makes firing them difficult, because it can be argued that it’s religious discrimination. An obvious solution would be to require them to refer the person to another pharmacy, so that they aren’t violating their religion, but pharmacists are arguing that’s compelled speech that still violates their 1a rights.

Under US law, there is absolutely no “hate speech” exception to the 1st amendment. This has been ruled on repeatedly.

And this is covered by freedom of the press.

Their freedom of the press isn’t what’s in question. Their ownership is. They are welcome to continue operating as long as they are not owned by a Chinese company based in China and subject to Chinese national security laws.

But, even if it’s really, truly, a 1A issue, no rights are absolute. You can not, for instance, publish classified information, and then claim that it’s a free speech issue. National security interests can, and do, outweigh individual and especially corporate rights to free speech.

especially when the justification seems to be about the speech on that app

But that’s not the justification. The justification is first, access to data, and second, manipulation of that data. The gov’t is arguing that TT is hoovering up massive amounts of data on users, and then is manipulating the content that is shown to them in order to unjustly influence international policy, and all done with no transparency at all. It’s on-par with Russian election interference, although perhaps a little longer lasting and more subtly done.

…That does not, in fact, make it any better.

That makes it even more terrorism.

Not a war crime; terrorism. Hezbollah is a political organization.

After all its not hard to make a corporation in the US

…A US corporation is subject to US laws.

ByteDance is subject to Chinese laws.

If TikTok wants to do everything that it’s currently doing, but under US law and under US scrutiny, they’re more than welcome to do so. But they’re currently evading any serious scrutiny. Hence the reason to shut them down if they refuse gov’t oversight.

National security interests are the interests of the people though.

The fundamental issue is that, assuming I’m not leaking national security information, I can say nearly anything I want on Facebook, Twitter, etc. (as long as I’m not in violation of their terms of service). The US largely does not censor people using the power of the gov’t. If I am an authoritarian communist, I’m more than welcome to spread these views on any American social network that I choose without gov’t interference. I can spread anti-vax and Q nonsense if I wish, and the worst-case scenario is that my neighbors will stop talking to me. I can attack the very foundation of the country if I want, as long as I’m not spreading military secrets.

This is not the case in China. Spreading pro-capitalism and pro-democracy messages can quickly get you arrested. Trying to share accurate information about what really happened in Tianamen Square in 1989 can result in you disappearing. Words and phrases are actively censored by the gov’t on social media. The Chinese gov’t takes a direct role in shaping social media by what it promotes, and what it forbids. Anything that’s perceived as an attack on the political system of the country, the party, or any of the leaders (remember the internationally famous tennis player that abruptly disappeared when she accused a local party leader of sexual assault?) will put you at risk.

This isn’t a case of, “oh, both sides are the same”.

The Constitution doesn’t only protect American citizens, it protects everyone

Uh, no. It doesn’t protect everyone, not by a long shot. The US constitution doesn’t guarantee Chinese citizens, living in China, the right to freedom of the press.

…And this isn’t about which speech they’re allowing. This is about who controls the platform, and how they respond to gov’t inquiries. If TikTok is divested from ByteDance, so that they’re no longer based in China and subject to China’s laws and interference, then there’s no problem. There are two fundamental issues; first, TikTok appears to be a tool of the Chinese gov’t (this is the best guess, considering that large parts of the intelligence about it are highly classified), and may be currently being used to amplify Chinese-state propaganda as well as increase political division, and second, what ByteDance is doing with the enormous amounts of data it’s collection, esp. from people that may be in sensitive or classified locations.

As I stated, if TikTok is sold off so that they’re no longer connected to China, then they’re more than welcome to continue to operate. ByteDance is refusing to do that.

Trust me when I say that you must understand the principles of machining before you try to do CNC. And unless you are good with CAD/CAM, you’re going to have to program in G-code too. If the only thing you’re doing with CNC is loading a part, and changing tools, no, you don’t need to know much. But if you want to mill an existing 3D model, you’re absolutely going to need to be a good machinist in order to program CNC.

eBay does not allow the selling of ammunition components, but you can buy some gun parts. I can’t say for certain, but I strongly suspect that powder, brass, primers, and projectiles are all tightly regulated in countries that have strict firearm regulations.

Reloading isn’t particularly tedious unless you’re using a single-stage press. A progressive press moves things along pretty well; once I have my brass prepped (cleaned, sized, trimmed, crimps removed, etc.), I can usually load 100 rounds in 15 minutes or so. Pistol ammo is faster, since I don’t have to spend as much time worrying about trimming or removing primer crimps; it’s just clean and go (decapping/sizing is the first station in the progressive press). Does it save money? Absolutely. I’ll save about $.01-.02/bullet on 9mm, and about $.1/bullet on 5.56x45mm. BUT I’ve spent well over $1000 on reloading equipment (!!!), which means that I’d need to reload 10k 5.56x45mm bullets to break even.

deleted by creator

Under $100? You won’t find one that doesn’t need a ton of work. If you go up to the $1000 range, you’ll probably start finding small, old ones that are in useable condition, without tooling.