I'm a little more optimistic - I think the narrative is pretty well set that the shutdown belongs to Donald (you're not moving the true believers on either side much, anyway) - I suspect he loses unless he can get things going again.

MM MD

https://twitter.com/eorden/status/1087837102090436608

I wonder if judges and clerks will be paid. Likely not.

Don't get me wrong, I'm for stronger gun control laws, but this smacks of the 'ol "OK, guns are legal but ammunition isn't" strategies of working around the 2A. If it's legal to own a gun it should be legal to move it from one residence to another or from where it is kept to where it's going to be used. If you don't want people to use the weapon en route so it doesn't turn into a concealed carry situation, change the law so it has to be in a gun case with a one of those locks that prevents it from being loaded or fired on it.

If I'm reading the article correctly, the law prohibits transporting the weapon anyplace other than from your home to a firing range. Not to any other venues.

I agree with Kerowo though. It is a stupid law. Just because it regulates guns (sort of I guess?) doesn’t make it sensible or reasonable.

If people want to deal with the issue it is issuing permits at all. Pretty arbitrary boundaries on what shooting ranges they can be transported to accomplishes nothing.

Thread on Trump's recent adventures of live-tweeting Fox, but the OP illustrating how Fox's JAQing off translates into direct assertions by Trump is pretty great:


https://twitter.com/MattGertz/status...95085179977728

So what? It wasn't clear that it was legal, period, to own a handgun under the 2A until Heller in 2008, and if you have to grant that you can't bar someone from owning a handgun, why not try restrictions on how you can transport it?

The right didn't respond to Roe v Wade by saying "oh, ****, guess we have to let everyone get abortions now", they responded by hacking away at abortion rights at the state level with cut after cut until states like Texas and Mississippi, in many parts, have de facto bans in place by chasing out all the providers.

Seems tactically poor to bring bipartisanship and civility to their knife fights. Challenge them on everything.

I don’t want to be premature but as a skeptic I was thinking the same thing.

reminds me a bit of current brexit shenanigans. there are many interesting and subtle maneuverings going on in parliament right now which are designed to achieve a goal while maintaining the high ground

they've left a very great impression on the 31 parliamentary historians, 25 journalists and 0 actual voting humans that are following along

Yeah you are misunderstanding the issue. Nobody is asking for anything more than being able to transport firearms for those same reasons.

If a Scandinavian country had a law that said you can only transport a firearm to a firing range in a village with no firing ranges but not the firing range 5km away, would you deem that as a reasonable implementation.

I don’t think any of us have reviewed the actual law or decision enough to get into the details. I am basing it solely on what was presented here.

Also the reason why it states this is a unique NYC issue is most other states they don’t have arbitrary geographical limits within the state where you can transport it, properly for licensed use.

Essentially it seems it would simply put them in line with the rest of the country and world which allow gun ownership and secure transportation to locations appropriate for use.

As far as I know NYC already has more restrictive ownership laws than many parts of the US. The law as written is ham handed and simply needs to be rewritten. A cynic might argue the seven shooting ranges who are on the acceptable list played a significant role in getting the legislation written like it was.

( twitter | raw text )

Help me figure out what acceptable terms for this bet with a real life ACist. Dude is insufferable, believes the Russia thing is a total fabrication, but TBH isn't a total ******.

What odds should I get on a determination by Mueller for collusion? Should I shoot for another win condition?

"[ACist friend] let's make a charity wager on the Mueller investigation.

You're seemingly wholly convinced there wasn't collusion of any kind, and to your credit you don't seem to believe the WITCH HUNT rhetoric about Mueller being a biased hack. So if he DID find evidence of collusion you'd not instantly discredit it.

So let's figure out odds and terms. Thoughts?"

You should probably be defining your terms pretty concretely because we've already seen that the campaign was in close contact with the Russians during the campaign. I believe the only link we're missing is evidence that Trump knew, approved, or directed Manifort isn't it?

Has this been posted? (buzzfeed)

trump's moscow plans

the details are kind of insane I didnt know the ****ing apartment for 50m was supposed to be in the gigantic tower that would be the tallest on the continent...


https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article...p-moscow-plans

Perhaps I'm stating the obvious but this is a negative freeroll since Villain is basically guarankeeed to welch.

"He found conspiracy, collusion isn't a crime!" Etc etc

If you define collusion as occurring between anyone on the Trump campaign and Russian foreign nationals, and including any communication/support/funding regarding the campaign/election/etc, you are basically 99% to win and any odds you can get are just gravy.

Arguing over the internet with people who do so in bad faith is much better than betting with them in real life. Anyone who's willing to put money up is either very cynical, or has drank so much kool-aid that they'd believe (and use it as an excuse to not pay out) whatever spin Kelly Anne Conway comes out with the day after the report gets released.

Oh look. The guy that never paid for a thing in his life and had free front row tickets to the Yankees for 10 years sitting with Rudy during their championship run loves Rivera. If only the rest of us could get some of that socialism. (And I say this as a Yankees fan. Go Mo!)

yeah just pass a law saying all handguns have to have a 20-foot-long barrel

you gotta define collusion, because they've already admitted they covered up contacts with russia about the campaign during the campaign (trump jr tweeting his tower meeting emails/manafort's sloppy redactions to the court about why he lied until he was reminded with evidence mueller showed him). maybe shoot for hidden financial links to oligarchs or organized crime if you don't want to seem like you're angleshooting for information that's already out there

just bet on whether or not trump will pardon manafort before jan 21, 2025

I like this.

kerowo is right and you need to do a lot of chezzing to make this bet a good idea.

However you define collusion there's a decent chance it will cause a problem later. Try to find matters of fact to bet on and if you can't just don't bet.

Buzzfeed release this afternoon getting surprisingly little attention.

Buzzfeed story is a lock to be right