partial_accumen

“Leadership has kind of another level of responsibility for trying to guide and direct that culture,” the instructor reportedly told attendees. “But at the end of the day, it’s us as the people on the ground that are the reflection of the culture.”

“Sure, we’ve had a history of sexual and racial discrimination of our workers by other workers, but if you are a woman or a person of color thats no reason to have low morale. Yes, our CEO did back-to-back Nazi salutes on live television while he had abandoned his responsibilities here at the company. Why is that a reason to feel down? Okay, so our company brand is a social pariah at home with regular weekly protests at our stores and people burning the cars you make. Also around the globe largely because our CEO has been invading the privacy of all Americans through the power of government and pushing far right political ideology in other nations and here. Is that a reason to let it affect your work? No. Workers, this is all your fault and its time you changed your attitude.” - Tesla corporate instructors probably

Musk may be more valuable as a scapegoat to trump with all the pending fallout of DOGE costs and the coming recession.

Sue for defamation that Youtube are alleging he is promoting criminal activity of piracy.

He must have been on his way to one of those famous MS-13 league volleyball games. /s

Every couple weeks or so I seem to find myself behind someone that’s always either accelerating, or braking, with the brake lights repeatedly flashing on momentarily for no apparent reason.

In many EVs and Hybrids the “letting off the accelerator” engages the regeneration drag which slows the car. A number of vehicle makers with particularly aggressive drag (which gets higher regen rates) automatically illuminate the brake lights. So if you’re behind one of these it will look like they are braking when they may have no foot on any pedal (brake or accelerator).

It takes 5 minutes to change a 10 round magazine into a high capacity one

Any magazine that can be changed in 5 minutes to hold more than 10 rounds likely doesn’t count as a legal magazine even with only 10 round capacity at that time of sale.

Here’s an example from the text California law with a piece on the 10 round magazine limits and exceptions:

“With limited exceptions, California law prohibits any person from manufacturing, importing into the state, keeping for sale, offering or exposing for sale, giving, lending, buying, or receiving a large capacity magazine.1 (A “large capacity magazine” is defined as any ammunition feeding device with the capacity to accept more than ten rounds, with exceptions for any .22 caliber tube ammunition feeding device, any feeding device that has been permanently altered so that it cannot accommodate more than ten rounds, or any tubular magazine that is contained in a lever-action firearm).2” source

Ukraine removing a significant portion of the Russian nuclear threat? trump didn’t even say ‘thank you’.

I agree with you, which is why I think that element of the law is effective.

What is your definition of your proposed “ban semi-auto rifles”? In other words, what is a rifle that is not semi-automatic?

Not $200B no. Here’s the list of total dollars, but no data on effectiveness. Notice Bill is already on this list while alive in the #2 spot:

source

That seems like an awfully fringe and roundabout improvement for a law that ruins the fun for everyone else.

Ruining the fun? That seems to be an incredibly weak argument for gun proliferation. I can see an argument for strong 2nd Amendment proponents as the Constitution grants rights and freedoms, and restrictions on those granted in the Constitution could be a pathway to a bad place. However, I can also see an argument that the evolution of firearms has outpaced our society’s safe use of modern firearms and that the freedom of victims of gun violence are also having their even stronger Constitutional rights restricted and spirit of our nation with the Declaration’s “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”. In this conversation I’m not advocating a position either way, but I can see the valid arguments on both sides.

In neither one of those is “ruining” the fun" even a fraction of a thought to consider. You do you though.

Have a good night.

You’d think that if someone was about to slaughter as many people as possible they wouldn’t really be to worried about a 10-round mag law.

You’re missing the point of these laws entirely. No one is saying that passing a law like this is going to remove every possible avenue for someone to get the most destructive gun on the planet and do the most damage possible.

What these laws are intended to do is make it less likely someone will have access to the most destructive gun on the planet. If someone plans multiple years ahead, they can go to the far ends of the Earth to get the most destructive gun possible. However, if they got pissed off at their boss that morning and decide to commit this kind of crime they’ll only have wants available to that morning. If they were a legal gun owner when the day started, that means they’ll only have 10 round magazines at most. Even if they drive to the local store nearby, they’d only be able to buy more 10 round magazines.

Lets even say that higher capacity magazines are available in the next state over. That may mean hours of planning and travel just to get to the other state to get the high capacity magazines, then all the time it takes to get back home to commit their crime. That’s a lot of time for someone to consider what they’re doing, the impact it will have on others, and even their own lives.

Will some still do it with all of that planning and bother needed? Yes. Will everyone? Doubtful.

It doesn’t ban the model. It bans a whole bunch of criteria that the model has, and many other guns do too. I’m not saying its impossible to skirt this one legally, but reading the law I’m not seeing a way to have a legal gun that is equally lethal.

So this just bans that “style” of rifle? Someone can just go buy some other semi-automatic rifle that doesn’t look as imposing or whatever but will still kill a person just as dead?

According the language of the actual law the answer is either “no” or “not really, no”. The law calls out a couple dozen aspects of firearms that precludes most of the “style” concerns. The biggest one is a limit on magazines only containing a maximum 10 rounds. While, yes, 10 rounds can still do lots of damage, it requires more frequent reloading, more chances for error, greater amount of encumbrance of the shooter. Assuming a shooter was using a gun that complied with this law, it would allow more opportunities to intervene or for people to get away.

“assault weapons” are a nebulous concept. that law sounds like it was closely tailored to match the AR-15 and its clones, since that’s the closest definition anyone can agree on. but it’s not like thumb position, stock design etc. make the AR-15 more lethal than other rifles.

I think you missed the point of my post. The law is the opposite of what you said. Its NOT the nebulous concept. In the language of the law (which I linked) they have all kinds of criteria that apply to lots of guns that aren’t and don’t look like the AR-15 platform.

why don’t they just ban semi-auto rifles?

Honestly, that legislation is what makes more sense to me if thats what they’re going for. I’d modify your language slight to be “single action”, instead of non “semi automatic”.

I’ve heard statements before the “assault weapons” bans are pretty weak in their description and can easily be skirted with mild modifications rendering a gun no longer meeting the definition. I got curious what Maryland’s law text said. I found it here: link

I’ll say that the law as written is very detailed with its criteria for what is banned including even minor items like have a threaded barrel such as one would need to mount a flash suppressor. They also go through many iterations of descriptions of magazine size, detachabilty, and thumb hole position.

Just curiosity in the spirit of my original question (guns that would be legal), but still likely run afoul of the spirit (but not the letter of this law), I found this one:

Franklin Armory F17

Its rare apparently, but “the Franklin Armory F17 is the only semi-auto 17 Winchester Super Mag available today.”

that well-maintained plants

I get it, but I wouldn’t want the existence of my house to depend on my neighbor’s grounds keeping skills and fidelity. Or even more realistically, their house depending on mine.

Yep, I don’t disagree. Welcome to the short attention span of 2025.

Anyone who doesn’t want to be oppressed in the US can just get a tattoo. It seems to work.

My understanding is that that is the old guidance. If you don’t have a tattoo, they’ll simply claim you do and when badgered for evidence they’ll pull out a sharpie and mark up a photo of you to crudely indicate you have a tattoo.

That would result in many/most Americans likely returning to US soil. trump would be quite happy with all American citizens forced back inside our borders. That means those that oppose him are easier to oppress/silence.