Honestly, I don’t find it all that surprising. Men are wise to err on the side of caution when it comes to even the appearance of improper behavior and I could see how many might freeze up in such a situation, even if they knew CPR.
I remember a woman talking about how some kids were running around naked near their house and he had to call her, and she was kind of grumbling about how he wouldn’t just handle it himself. I had to explain that I would have done exactly the same. There is no WAY as an adult male I’d be accosting underage naked children and asking where their parents were, etc., unless they were in danger of freezing or other dangers. This woman was acting like her husband was being lazy and/or a wuss. He was just using his head.
You can thank our society for this bullshit. It is because we put women on a pedestal in our society and men have been relegated to being the butt of jokes or the quiet backbones of the working class who have no right to complain, and if they dare not fit into those two categories, they are then accused of toxic masculinity or something similar.
Don’t forget about all the poor idiots supporting them!
“They’re a business and they need to make money!” Funny how we don’t hear this as often anymore. The people who said it before were so gung-ho about it being an absolute truth with no nuance or exceptions.
So if the general who didn’t act as quickly as people expected should be hanged, what should happen to the Commander In Chief who started the attack then gleefully watched for nearly 4 hours without doing a single thing to stop it despite everyone around him begging him to do something.
So a spokesman posts on Twitter that he bought a gun and then someone has to delete the post and say it is not true? Sounds like amateur hour for his campaign but I thought he only hired the “best and brightest”.
"Miriam Adelson hopes there will be a biblical ‘Book of Trump’
Republican mega-donor compares US president to ‘prophets of antiquity’ in column asking why he doesn’t get more support from American Jews"
Do certain medications which are are strong as some and worse than many illegal disqualify someone from owning a firearm? Wasn't there pretty wide claims about Trump popping pills which would disqualify him from owning a firearm anyway?
In this case the crime would be purchasing a handgun in a state in which you are not a resident.
Handguns can only be purchased in your home state. It’s why California’s handgun roster is such a big deal. They simply refuse to allow new models of handguns to be sold there regardless of whether or not their features are illegal, and buying them out of state is prohibited.
With long guns, the gun’s features must be legal in both the state where the sale is taking place and the state in which the buyer lives. With pistols it’s simply illegal to transfer the firearm to someone from out of state.
If I was from Arizona and wanted to give a single-shot 22 plinking pistol to my Dad in Texas, I’d have to sell it to a local firearms dealer, have them transfer it to a Texas dealer, and have my Dad buy it there.
Ya, I live in a more restricted state and have purchased a handgun from out of state. It goes to a firearm dealer and they transfer it to you after doing whatever background checks your state requires. The gun isn’t sold to the dealer, they just hold it while everything clears. I don’t know anything about interstate private sales though.
One fun fact though is that you can buy an M1 Garand from the government and they’ll ship it to your door. So that’s pretty neat.
I am currently in Colorado, and person to person firearm transfers are prohibited, unless you have the appropriate license. I bought my Taurus .40 from a friend in South Carolina when I lived in North Carolina. It was perfectly legal without needing an FFL transfer.
Laws get weird in different states like the person above said, but in Colorado you can buy a rifle if you are from out of state but you must be a resident for a pistol.
I haven’t read up on any recent law changes about that though. Colorado just implemented a mandatory three day wait after a background check, so there is that.
It’s a question on a federal background check. For people who live in states where scheduled drugs are legal for recreation, it’s a grey area. The state wouldn’t care, but the feds do.
It’s basically boils down to “gotcha” requirements. If you get investigated for federal crimes and also own firearms but live in a state where some scheduled drugs are legal that you use, the fed can still just flag any future checks and charge you with lying on any previous background checks.
I am not a fan of that kind of legal fuckery, especially if a person happens to be charged with a crime they didn’t commit and still get investigated.
Hunter is most likely going to walk for good reason. What he was charged with are unconditional laws. If he walks, so will Trump. And that’s assuming you can pin Trump with unlawful use first.
DOJ knows they are getting crushed with Hunter. Even 2A orgs offered legal help to him. They know the laws can’t be upheld by an honest judge. So why hit Trump with the same charges that they’re losing their shit over with Hunter?
Y’know, I watched enough kids get shuttled to-and-from school in Chelsea tractors by their onni-present parents that I could actually believe this is a trend. Kids can’t develop resilience if you don’t give them any independence.
news
Hot
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.