The grill doesn't sound like fireworks, but using it reminds this human of holidays that are associated with both meat cooked over an open flame and fireworks. 4th of July in the US is what the meme is talking about.
rockstarmode
joined 11 months ago
I guess I was trying to address the parts of your comment where donations cost calories and time. They certainly aren't paying me for my blood, but personally I feel like it's a fair exchange, and I get to feel good about doing someone I'll probably never meet a potentially life saving favor.
Your point is valid. As a counterpoint, when I donate (6-7 times a year) I get snacks and drinks during the donation, and a $5-10 gift card for a local fast food spot to fuel up later. I'm also very lucky that I can take most of my meetings using a headset, so I don't have to miss work, and the donation truck is at my office, so there's no travel time to or from my appointment.
I love when CHLA emails me to say they'll be downstairs in the coming week. I feel good about donating, and get free In-N-Out 😀
It's pretty clear to me given the cops shooting, then shouting orders, and Mr. Pink saying he's been shot, that he does not in fact get away.
I know there's theories on the Internet about this, and he may not have died, but at the very least he's been caught and does not keep the diamonds.
None of the thieves got away at the end of Reservoir Dogs.
This is not to say that "good" triumphed at the end either.
Those people panic sober too.
I know this is a privacy community, but I'm not sure I'm onboard with the outrage on this particular one. If you rent/lease or go on a payment plan for the device you're using, then it isn't yours, it belongs to the entity you borrowed it from.
If I don't make car payments, the bank can repossess my ride. If I dont pay my mortgage or rent, I can be evicted by my landlord or bank.
If I don't make my phone payment, the company should have recourse to prevent me from using their device.
This could open up the ability for bad actors to disable my device, and I agree that's a horrible prospect. But the idea of a legitimate creditor using this feature to reclaim their property is not something I find shocking.
I'm going to get all kinds of negative votes for speaking up here. I'm not attempting to defend the various positions I outline below, just to explain why the gun folks see the current situation as the least bad alternative. If gun people in the US actually had their way the laws would be MUCH more permissive than they already are.
Again, I'm not attempting to defend the various positions, only to lend some context (and in the case of domestic abuse, to correct) the talking points above.
If the second amendment is explicitly designed to allow normal citizens to defend themselves against a tyrannical government, then allowing that same government to compile a registry of gun ownership makes no sense. Registration inevitably leads to confiscation, see Australia and New Zealand for recent examples.
(Note; It's highly suspect that non-military ownership of small arms could effectively fight the US military. Years of attrition in Afghanistan might be the counterpoint here.)
The CDC was examining gun violence statistics in the past, but then ventured outside of the realm of science and into political speech. Most gun people are ok with making science based recommendations determined by facts. But they're worried that a government entity funded for the purpose of science but controlled by unelected anti-gun bureaucrats will push policy based on politics.
(Note: Any gun policy has some base in science, the question is whether the policy controls the science, or whether science leads the way. Counterpoint: national COVID policy was marginally effective at great cost, both in lives lost and economically)
There are measures to keep "known" domestic abusers from purchasing or possessing firearms. If "known" means "convicted" or under indictment, then those folks are legally prohibited from firearm ownership or possession. This was recently confirmed by a notoriously pro-gun Supreme Court in United States v. Rahimi, by an overwhelming 8-1 majority. Even a restraining order for domestic violence is enough to prohibit purchase or possession.
(Note: enforcement of gun confiscation from prohibited persons is spotty at best, but it's arguable that this is a problem with policing as the laws are already on the books. The counterpoint here would be the ability in many states to conduct private party transfers without the involvement of a licenced firearms dealer or the requisite background check)