Onion.
Shoot a = horrifying
Shoot at = stupid, but potentially not horrifying depending on why (scare the puppy out of the street perhaps?)
what in the actual fuck 
It’s comeback time for Jeff Foxworthy.
“If your first instinct upon seeing a puppy is to shoot at it (but accidentally shoot your own child), you might be a redneck.”
2 Likes
Was the puppy black?
4 Likes
Good guy with gun shoots other good guy:
Let he who has never shot a child while attempting to shoot a puppy cast the first stone.
9 Likes
In the opening to his ruling, Judge Benitez wrote: “Like the Swiss Army knife, the popular AR-15 rifle is a perfect combination of home defense weapon and homeland defense equipment. Good for both home and battle.”
He said current California legislation banned “fairly ordinary, popular, modern rifles”.
“This case is not about extraordinary weapons lying at the outer limits of Second Amendment protection. The banned ‘assault weapons’ are not bazookas, howitzers, or machine guns. Those arms are dangerous and solely useful for military purposes,” the ruling said.
1 Like
Remember when that guy killed 20 people at a concert with a Swiss Army knife?
Fucking insanity
When was the last time a swiss army knife was used in an act of war? 100 years? 150?
https://twitter.com/nycsouthpaw/status/1401549086080344066
Just umpires calling balls and strikes over here
9 Likes
I would have bet the farm on that being a Trump judge. Turns out it wasn’t. WAAF.
Wtf
What is his definition of a machine gun
What does COVID have to do with interpreting the law?
“Even if a mass shooting by assault rifle is a real harm…”
Yes as the following phrase will make clear, this highly dubious assumption doesn’t matter!
https://twitter.com/mjs_DC/status/1401914470973292550
Listening to Amicus and this reminds me of the purposeful Dory from Finding Nemo routine Conservatives often take. With Citizens United it was, sure we’ll let money in because transparency will be the counter. It’ll be ok if Big Money spends in campaigns because you’ll know that it’s them spending it.
Now a few years later and the courts are getting ready to say that by knowing who’s spending money it opens them up to boycotts and threats so it might be better to allow political spending to be completely anonymous. It’s like “wait weren’t you just saying a few years ago that transparency is the only reason you’ll letting big money in, in the first place?”
2 Likes
Let’s just go back into isolation.
2 Likes