Pattern Ghost

Try shooting over a window ledge at a steep downward angle with that method. The fact is that bump stocks make bump firing far easier than other methods, and that the intent is clearly an end run around NFA regulations.

Lady Sif needs to come back, please.

Compared to Trump, what Nixon did was trivial. I'll restate my position on Warren, in case it wasn't clear: She gets my vote over Trump if it comes to it, but not my first primary choice. 

You know, that sounds quite evil and Machiavellian, but it's not exactly wrong either. I don't think either party is above taking advantage of a good crisis.

I'm going to break these down for the less gun-savvy folks so they know what we're talking about, and also express an opinion on each. (AKA, step one of how to start a fight on the Internet. )
 
The National Firearms Act (NFA): These are all references to NFA regulated items. Note that the NFA doesn't ban these things, and after a lengthy wait, a background check, and paying $200 for a tax stamp, anyone can own them. The NFA just makes it a bit more difficult. But not as difficult as, say, getting any gun in Canada or New  Zealand.
 
Stocks/Arm Braces: Short Barreled Rifles (SBR; barrels under 16"/overall length  under 26") are regulated by the NFA. Likely because of the Tommy Gun being a stereotypical gangster weapon, but don't quote me on that. Kind of a silly regulation, IMO. It's not likely to have any impact on mass murder, IMO.
 
Anyway, there are these things called AR pistols. Take an AR-15 or similar rifle, and remove the shoulder stock, and you'll find that it has a tube sticking out of the rear of the receiver. (It houses part of the recoil system) If you manufacture an AR-15 with no stock, and just the tube sticking out the rear, then it's considered a pistol and can have a shorter than 16" barrel. So, those were a thing for a while, but you couldn't legally shoulder the tube, and if you did, it was awkward. Along comes a company with a product designed to help a one armed person brace the weapon. This brace is kind of shaped like a stock. The ATF ruled that this device was OK, but that you couldn't shoulder it or it would make your AR pistol (or whatever rifle-ish pistol; they come in other flavors) into an SBR. Then they ruled that it was OK to shoulder them. Then they ruled that you couldn't shoulder them. And they're currently back to it being OK to shoulder a brace. So, the "brace" is functionally a stock, but not technically a stock. So, at the moment, you can have a SBR without ponying up the tax stamp money or waiting nearly a year for approval. Until one's used in a mass murder, then you can expect the ruling to change.
 
 
Sawed off Shotgun is a "Firearm." This is the same thing as the SBR/Brace deal. Due to the way things are measured, if you have a shotgun with a certain style of grip (not a pistol grip), and it has a certain overall length, then it's not a Short-Barreled Shotgun, it's just a "weapon" as far as NFA regs/ATF is concerned. These are basically novelties. They do let you have a shorter than usual shotgun, but they're unpleasant and difficult to shoot. They're a weapon for an expert, and most mass shooters or thugs wouldn't have the ability to use them to do any more significant damage than any other legal weapon, IMO. I think the things pose a greater risk to the shooter (creating hamburger hand by sticking your hand in front of the shorter barrel) than other weapons, so I'm not too concerned if criminals can easily get one.
 
 
Suppressors vs Ear Plugs. I won't bother to pony up the $200 for a tax stamp or pay the high price for a suppressor, but might get one if they were off the NFA. IMO, they aren't going to make life any easier for a mass shooter. They don't silence a weapon completely. They have a functional use outside of criminal activity. They're required in some countries which otherwise have strict gun control.  I can throw on some ear muffs if I have time, and my electronic muffs enhance my hearing as a bonus. But my wife won't have any muffs on. For people who live in the country and can shoot in their backyard, like Hickock45 in the video above, they can provide a respite for neighbors and livestock. Hunters who are doing pest control of various kinds that might involve making consecutive kills can benefit from suppressors. At the end of the day, taking suppressors off the NFA won't cause blood in the streets, IMO. But you can still get them relatively easily with a wait and what has today become a small fee. So, I'm kind of neutral on these.
 
Frankly, I think most NFA-regulated items are there for the same reasons as switchblades and Bowie knives being banned, and not really for any practical reasons.
 
EDIT: I should add that there's another perceived advantage to Braced Pistols: Legally, they're pistols. In many states, the concealed carry permit allows you to carry a loaded pistol in your car. A loaded rifle is pretty much a non-starter in most states I think. (Likely an anti-poaching measure more than public safety one.) So, a braced pistol lets you functionally have a loaded rifle ready for deployment in your vehicle with a concealed carry license. (And if that last sentence sounds a bit . . . off . . . to you, that's why I didn't mention it in my original draft. If I'm in a car, and I encounter a situation that requires a rifle, I'm driving away. Car > rifle.)
 
 

Try shooting over a window ledge at a steep downward angle with that method. The fact is that bump stocks make bump firing far easier than other methods, and that the intent is clearly an end run around NFA regulations.

I think the biggest problem with most weapons laws is that they aren't actually effective in addressing the issue they claim to be addressing, and lawmakers know this. I think for some, the goal is simply political currency. For others, particularly private organizations, the end goal is total disarmament, with incrementalism being the tool, so any regulation is good enough. I don't find either of these motives particularly savory.
 
Sociotard mentioned early knife laws, such as bans on Bowie knives. The thinking there is the same as the bans on switchblades: They're the weapons of thugs, so they need to be banned. I'm pretty sure that these laws have never actually reduced the amount of thuggery, but, hey, the government did something.
 
 

Loki has a show coming up on Disney+. What's that tell you?

No, the best thing about this thread is that no one's unhappy with the costume. 

So, what you're asking for is a "Explained Videos Explained!" video?

So, what you're asking for is a "Explained Videos Explained!" video?

So, what you're asking for is a "Explained Videos Explained!" video?

So, what you're asking for is a "Explained Videos Explained!" video?

So, what you're asking for is a "Explained Videos Explained!" video?

I had forgotten how lame that Hulk vs Thanos fight scene was.

The correct answer was "Yes, we know."

We can't waste people's time?
 
Great, there goes about 75% of my posts.
 
 
 
Ok, ok...90%.

That's some serious body odor.

Aside from making the stupid assertion that 40 year old white men aren't capable of critiquing A Wrinkle in Time*, I didn't find anything particularly offensive or targeted as anti-40 year old white male about the speech, taken in context. My takeaway was that she wanted to see more female critics in the mix, who approach movies aimed at women from a female perspective. And I think it's a valid point. My wife and I like pretty much the same kind of stuff, but when discussing different shows, it's very clear that she approaches stories from a completely different angle than I do. Things that bug me don't bug her and vice versa.
 
 
*A good critic can apply fairly objective criteria, and also take note that they're only providing one perspective. A Wrinkle in Time had some objective problems based on fairly universal storytelling principles. The real problem she's seeing is that most critics suck at their craft, and that Rotten Tomatoes frequently lists hacks who can't handle basic grammar in the "pro" column on their site. But Larson's main point was that she wasn't being interviewed by any female critics when on the CM press tour. Which is kind of silly, given that there are plenty of female critics, even if lesser known, who have good genre knowledge and might better represent the target audience for her movie.

Well, the dictum comes from sociologist Max Weber. I've never read his original explanation, but I assume he meant the former most of the time, with the latter included for special cases. Hence the inclusion of the word "legitimate." The former alone would be merely a monopoly of violence. Adding "legitimate" means the state can permit private violence -- but only in the modes and for purposes that it defines.
 
The monopoly on the legitimate use of violence is not sufficient for a decent society. (As per your sig, states can abuse that monopoly -- and too often do so.) But it is necessary, in that very few other social benefits are possible if other people can decide to kill you without fear of consequence.
 
Dean Shomshak

I, for one, am shocked and amazed to find poor writing on Supergirl. Shocked, I say!

Sometimes necessary, and should always be applied judiciously.
 
As for punching Nazis, sometimes it's necessary:
 

 
And sometimes not so much:

 
(The second is Richard Spencer getting sucker punched.)
 
I think you could make an argument that hate speech, and inciting violence are forms of violence, but you shouldn't be applying physical violence unless there's an immediate threat. No matter how satifsying it may be.
 
 
 

I'm a former Marine. If I stopped swearing when I spoke I'd be reduced to hand gestures and writing things on a chalk board.