and it's glorious. So when hundreds of Muslim parents, upset at gay porn in the school libraries, showed up to a school board meeting in Dearborn, Mich., and it devolved into shouting and chaos with board members running away and gay protesters being chased to their cars, the fallout was absolutely hilarious. The headline in the Detroit Free Press after the event went haywire was “LGBTQ and Faith Communities Struggle for Unity.” BAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Can you imagine what the headline would have been if it were a Baptist church chasing gay protesters to their cars? “Fascist White Supremacist Book Burners Bash Gay Man in Parking Lot,” or “Rabid Religious Zealots Terrorize Gay Man Defending Right to Read,” or something equally terrible. I don’t know about you, but I’m enjoying this disaster.
I wonder if the Usual Suspects are going to call them 'domestic terrorists'?
The National Education Union’s trans and non-binary network has proposed that anyone who expects trans people “to participate in discussion or debate about their rights and/or identities” is transphobic.
Ladies, there is now a more important(to the wokesters) minority out there, so you're screwed.
Under 'How It Should Be Done',
The district’s response was immediate.
The response was a letter of notice that he inappropriately communicated with district staff. He was placed on administrative leave and is not permitted to communicate with ANYONE in the district.
Nor was that all. When the school board met on October 5th to discuss the issue, more than four hundred people showed up, almost all of whom were in support of Cusato. Of the 40 who spoke, most demanded his reinstatement, to loud applause.
four out of six almost one big hole. The problem I ran into was that when fired without a suppressor, it would not cycle the bolt far enough to pick up the next round. With the can it did, but not far enough back to lock the bolt when the last round was fired. This rifle had a adjustable gas block, I'd imagine that opening it up a click or two would take care of that.
Four of the five in one big hole, not bad, and a little higher point of impact than the S&B. To me it sounded a touch sharper/louder, and it did cycle the action with no problem.
By the way, 'sharper/louder' doesn't mean much, according to a guy outside both were quite quiet, I'd say outdoors you could've fired both with no ear protection.
Did one more test, this on the Strike Eagle scope on the rifle. It has a dot as the main aiming point with several stadia lines below. The S&B, using the first line below the dot, was on a 30 yards.
So: both were quiet through a suppressor, the powder seems to have different burning characteristics, both capable of good accuracy at this range. The S&B might require an adjustable gas block, depending on your firearm. I'd like to have more of the Sig to test, and I'd like to try both at longer distance.
Tulsi Gabbard quits the Evil Party, burning that bridge behind her. She's way too leftist for me to vote for, she does have some good points. For one thing, she was the only one on the Democrat debate stage with the balls to call Kamala Harris on her truly sorry prosecutor/AG record.
Brought to you by the same people who insist you shouldn't be allowed to own a firearm.
A report issued last year by the watchdog group Open The Books, “The Militarization of The U.S. Executive Agencies,” found that more than 200,000 federal bureaucrats now have been granted the authority to carry guns and make arrests – more than the 186,000 Americans serving in the U.S. Marine Corps. “One hundred three executive agencies outside of the Department of Defense spent $2.7 billion on guns, ammunition, and military-style equipment between fiscal years 2006 and 2019 (inflation adjusted),” notes the report. “Nearly $1 billion ($944.9 million) was spent between fiscal years 2015 and 2019 alone.”
When asked about the need for such lethal materiel, agency officials typically speak only in general terms about security concerns. Agencies contacted by RealClearInvestigations from HHS to EPA declined to provide, or said they did not have, comprehensive statistics on how often their firearms are used, or details on how they conduct armed operations.
Over in Brit territory, another case of multiple rapes of a girl by, apparently, radical Amish or something. Not listed is how many times someone may have contacted the authorities and been turned away because 'racism' or something.
Not as fully as I'd like, but still a step.
..."In essence," Suddaby says, "New York State has replaced its requirement that an applicant show a special need for self-protection with its requirement that the applicant rebut the presumption that he or she is a danger to himself or herself, while retaining (and even expanding) the open-ended discretion afforded to its licensing officers. Simply stated, instead of moving toward becoming a shall-issue jurisdiction, New York State has further entrenched itself as a shall-not-issue jurisdiction."
Suddaby's TRO also applies to New York's requirement that applicants supply information about their social media accounts so that licensing officials can decide whether they have said anything suggesting they lack "good moral character." As the gun owners who challenged the new regulations saw it, that demand violated the right to freedom of speech as well as the right to bear arms, making the latter contingent on how applicants have exercised the former.
Suddaby also blocked enforcement of New York's requirement that carry-permit applicants meet in person with licensing officials for an interview, saying "the
Court finds that no such circumstances exist under which this provision would be valid." He likewise said the state had failed to justify its demand for the "names and contact information for the applicant's current spouse, or domestic partner, any other adults residing in the applicant's home, including any adult children of the applicant, and whether or not there are minors residing, full time or part time, in the applicant's home." Suddaby deemed that requirement "far more invasive and onerous" than the requirement that an applicant supply four character references, which he let stand.
Amazon lawyers have allegedly told parents that the online retailer had a right to sell these so-called “suicide kits." The kits are described in the lawsuit as bundled items that Amazon suggests buyers purchase together, including a potentially lethal chemical called sodium nitrite, a scale to measure a lethal dose, a drug to prevent vomiting, and a book with instructions on how to use the chemical to attempt suicide. The online retailer’s lawyers also allegedly said that it would be “unfair and inhumane” to hold Amazon liable for the teens’ deaths.
I haven't read the whole thing, will finish it tomorrow. The part I've read, if accurate and true...
And their current defense is "That shouldn't have been in there!" Well, bullcrap. I can't imagine a change like that not being run through the lawyers and bigshots before they did it; what this really means is "Holy shit, almost EVERYBODY is pissed! And we've lost how many accounts? Come up with a cover story and pull it, right now!"
After all the crap they've pulled, and all the yelling about that, you'd think they'd know better. Apparently the bubble they live in prevents enough oxygen reaching the brain.