Bass Pro Shops and its subsidiary Cabela’s last year quietly stopped internet and telephone sales of antique-style revolvers and muskets, closing what gun violence experts said had been a loophole for people with felony convictions to illegally buy firearms. 

Legally, those are not firearms. Can the intellectually dishonest stop tossing around the word "loophole"?  If something doesn't violate the law, it doesn't violate the law.  Legal activity are not "loopholes" unless you're the kind of Nazi piece of shit who wants everything banned and permission from the state for each individual action.

The restriction on what are known as black powder guns is another example of large U.S. retailers rethinking how easy they’ve made it for Americans to buy firearms, especially online, after high-profile or preventable shootings. 

Complying with the law is "retailers making it easy."

And in some places, black powder guns are also one of the few ways a person with a felony conviction can purchase a firearm. A 1968 federal law that otherwise bars people who’ve committed serious crimes from having a gun has an exception that allows for antique-style guns. State laws vary, with some states allowing felons to buy them while others, like Ohio, do not, a situation that authorities said has sometimes led to unlawful sales. 

Black powder weapons are not "firearms." That is the law.  

Cabela’s shipped the revolver to the neighbor by mail and did not require him to complete a background check

And since they are not firearms, it is illegal to do a background check, anymore than you'd do a background check for a scope or an air gun.  The Gun Control Act of 1968 specifies "firearms," which fire a fixed cartridge using a combustible propellant, and are made on or after 1 Jan 1899.

In court papers before the settlement, Cabela’s denied many of the allegations in the lawsuit, including that it had a duty not to sell black powder firearms to prohibited purchasers in states such as Ohio. It said the sale had legally taken place in Nebraska, not Ohio, because that's where its call center and distribution warehouse are. And it had asked the suit to be dismissed because of a 2005 federal law that generally bars lawsuits against gun sellers over criminal misuse of firearms. The judge, though, allowed most of the suit to proceed.

The judge was a cocksucker and ignorant of the law.  But Cabela's probably figured it was cheaper to pay off than fight it.

A jury in Ohio convicted Galliher’s neighbor, Paul Claren, of aggravated murder and illegal gun possession in 2017. He had argued self-defense. A state appeals court threw out the murder conviction last year, citing improper jury instructions, and a new trial is scheduled for as soon as August. 

Ah, so at present, this is entirely civil not criminal, and state, not federal.  And you're now complaining that not-firearms are not legally the same as firearms.  Just like bicycles are not motor vehicles.

Rampant idiocy, cowardice, and intellectual bankruptcy. Typical of American media  and liberals.  But I repeat myself. 





The racist piece of shit position here is that black people are just too stupid to know how to get an ID, and IDs cost money, and black people don't have money.  UPDATE:  Apparently, the ACLU "estimates" it costs $170 to get ID, between official copies of a birth certificate, bus fare, lost work (If you have no ID, I'm not aware of any employers that will hire you, because they can't fill out the W-4), etc.  Yes, I completely remember when I got my first ID, by walking into the BMV with a copy of my birth certificate and a piece of mail, and walking out.  And the $170 it didn't cost me.  That's a fucking retarded claim.

First of all, there are more poor whites than blacks.  The percentage among blacks is higher. The sheer numbers are whites.  But none of these racist pieces of shit complain about "poor" people, only about "black" people.  So obviously, they think black people can't do the same things white people can.

I don't hear a word about IDs being required to drive, to buy booze, to buy lottery tickets, to buy a gun, to get a library card.  All of which black people manage to do just as well as white people.

If by some miracle you don't have the ID or ability to do any of those things, you'd be part of a vanishingly small micropercentage of the population. There's a valid argument that regardless of skin color you're not actually participating in society and your opinion doesn't matter.  That's probably few enough people to not even swing Bush v Gore in Florida.  AND

You can get a free ID for the purpose.

The racist piece of shit response is, "But what if they can't get to where the IDs are?"

This is bending freductio ad absurdum into a pretzel and shoving its head up its ass.

As far as current events, voter ID is required in multiple states and most foreign nations. But MLB isn't boycotting Toronto.

So the only conclusion we can come away with from this is that liberals are racist pieces of shit.

Which we knew.

If you are a liberal wailing about "voter ID," and therefore a racist piece of shit, watch this, and see how actual black people wonder where the Candid Camera is, because your position is that fucking retarded.

Also, almost every civilized nation and most of the uncivilized ones require ID to vote, so apparently they're all racist as well. 

I keep seeing posts and comments to the effect of, "Holding an event at this time is asking for a lawsuit if someone gets sick!"

First of all, there is ALWAYS a risk of getting sick at an event. We even have the term "Con crud." The only person responsible for your safety is YOU.

Now, if you're the type of narcissistic, soulless piece of shit who'd sue someone because you got sick for a risk you knew existed and voluntarily undertook, DON'T GO. That is a 100% guaranteed way to avoid them getting sued. Because as a MORAL, RESPONSIBLE HUMAN BEING, I will not be suing someone for something I voluntarily risked.

As a bonus, I'd like to suggest you drink a quart of Drano, which is 100% effective in preventing future Covids infections.

While everyone is flipping out over Dr Seuss, who portrayed a "harmful stereotype" of "A Chinese man wearing a conical hat and eating rice from a bowl with chopsticks" sort of like this:


Which is common all over parts of Asia, actually, and is even featured in upcoming Disney movies...

Anyway, they ignored the image that could be considered to be very racist, with stereotypes of black people with what were then called golliwog lips, and the N word.  Of course, that was from a comic, and if you actually look at the comic, it was a commentary on linguistic weirdness and metaphors, which is a totally valid thing for a writer of his stature at the time to explore.  Was it offensive then? Yes, that was sort of the point, that these metaphors didn't make a lot of sense. (The comic was in the form of a store, where one could buy, among other things, "A wrench to throw in your works" with actual wrenches for sale, and "A nigger for your woodpile."  And yeah, holy shit that's offensive then, and more so now, and there's a perfect lesson to be learned by analyzing and commenting on that, rather than deleting it and pretending it never existed.

But none of the articles I've seen mention that. They obsess over "Chinese man eating rice from a bowl with chopsticks is racist!!" 

Gee, I wonder who'd be pushing a narrative that a perfectly innocent, traditional act is "harmful"?  Vs say an American in a baseball cap eating a hot dog?

And this is followed by all the shrieking about Pepe le Pew, and Miss Piggy, and...



One of the sitters my youngest had when a baby was a very competent, educated, older (50s) black lady, who was absolutely wonderful at playing, interacting, and entertaining the little girl.

One day I was sitting in my office, and I heard her singing, in a very sweet voice, "Ten Little Indian Boys."

I was amused, and noted, "Actually, Jess is Choctaw." (And Cherokee, but not enrolled).

The lady was apologetic, and I said, "It's not a problem, I'm just amused." (And so was Jess).  It was a perfectly common kids' song from when she and I were young, and before that, and there was no harm intended. (BTW, there's a version of the song turned into a mystery by Agatha Christie. Wait until the Wokies find out what THAT was titled.) 

Yeah, stuff that was acceptable in the past is offensive now, and the reverse would be true with the way "fuck" and "shit" are liberally littered through common literature.

Apparently, I'm not allowed to be upset about how Americans wear kilts and skirts that are called kilts, etc, even though I'm actually from Scotland. (Not that I actually give a shit, not being that sensitive and wimpy, but I use that as a repeated example.)  But present something from a different timeframe and all hell breaks loose.  

This fits my hypothesis that the Wokies are largely privileged and ignorant. "OMG! Can you believe how they used to treat/refer to people in the 1920s?!?" 

Um, yeah.

"NO, I mean it was SO OFFENSIVE!"

Yup.  Known about that for a long time.


Nope, just educated and understand the context between then and now.


They were people. People can be wonderful and horrible, and they are bound within their culture to various degrees.

Those cultures were different.  Studying them is useful and valid.  And losing your shit because their rules were not ours is juvenile.

Stop being George Lucas and editing the story to fit the newest narrative.