Everything in that anecdote just screamed poor life choices. It read like someone pouring their life savings into buying lotto tickets.

Like most other minimum wage schemes, a small number of people will benefit from an increase in wages/benefits, while the majority will suffer. You really think Uber and Lyft are going to keep everyone on that’s currently “working” for them if they have to classify them as actual employees rather than contractors? How…

Cutting off your nose to spite your face: Fresh from the finest* socialist minds around!

Because then it wouldn’t be loaning them the gun. You’d have to transfer ownership. It would be like if your friend wanted to borrow your car but first you had to sign the title over to them.

A friend of mine was concerned about someone prowling her neighborhood who had tried to get into the house where her and her boyfriend live. They could both pass a background check no problem but don’t have the money to buy a gun without it being a major unplanned expense. I considered loaning them a handgun until I…

You’re forgetting the part where you punish gun owners somewhere in there. Without that, such obvious improvements to our gun laws will never happen.

That you think personal freedom and small government are somehow “conservative” issues is amazing. It’s the whole reason we have to call that kind of ideology classical liberalism. Because today’s liberalism is clearly all about big government and centralized control.

Seeing as how it has happened, I wouldn’t be all that surprised.

I mean, not having ever actually bought a gun at Walmart, I can’t even conclusively say if that’s their practice across the whole chain. Based on the article it does sound like Walmart has probably tightened up their policies over the years to go above and beyond what’s required by law.

Tax breaks that cover 100% of the cost of purchasing a gun safe, with proof of purchase. Doesn’t punish anyone and rather actively encourages people to go out and buy them. Leftists will never go for it though because it doesn’t discourage gun ownership or “hurt the right people”.

But, obviously, as a weak and dumb woman, you aren’t expected to know how to use a gun or prevent yourself from having it taken away from you since men have bulletproof fists with which to pummel you. Obviously I’m being sarcastic, but that’s essentially the argument the gun control crowd makes whenever someone…

I mean, I’m also pro-choice and pro decriminalization of most drugs and an atheist, so how “conservative” am I really?

60+ years ago, you could literally buy guns from a magazine and have them mailed to your house at the same time everyone was drinking leaded water, breathing air polluted by leaded gasoline, and painting their houses with leaded paint. The fact that we weren’t killing each other Purge-style back then is nothing short…

Many Dreamer kids didn’t want to sign up for DACA without a guaranteed path to citizenship because they believed that once the government knew who and where they were, they would try to deport them to countries in which they hadn’t lived in years or sometimes decades, didn’t necessarily speak the language, and had…

You might not, hell even I might not under the right conditions, but do you really think it would behoove anyone currently calling for this for it to be at a “reasonable” rate? They very clearly aren’t concerned with it actually paying out for damages, they simply want a financial barrier to entry when it comes to…

Actually, if you ever fill out a 4473 to buy a gun, it asks you if you use marijuana, so if you answer truthfully and say yes, that’s a disqualifier. If you answer no, you’re lying on a Federal form and have just committed a felony. I wish I was joking.

I mean, that was the entire point of the $250 tax stamp for NFA items. Back when it was enacted, that was a prohibitively large amount of money for basically anyone that wasn’t in the 1%. Having not been tied to the rate of inflation nowadays it’s not as cost prohibitive, but thanks to subsequent laws the majority of…

Many poor people simply drive in violation of the law because they are left with no choice. Any time you encounter someone driving on a suspended or revoked license, or someone driving without insurance, for example. I’m not sure that’s the direction you want to go with gun laws. They tried that with so-called…

How is that functionally different from a poll tax?

Here’s a neat little thought experiment I’ve been wanting to try out. Let’s replace the phrase “well regulated” with what you think it means, and with what I think it means, and see which makes the most sense in context: