Quickest link. Check opinion polling among conservatives over time. Like a light switch.

True party of sheep, by the numbers.

It's a cult.

Lol. I've seen some of your posts let's not kid people about what you're about.

Not a far leap. Dude talks like an anarchist. Must be 12 years old or developmentally stunted. That's solid reasoning, and I stand by it.

>They do care about their citizens.

Omg, you've been in a coma for the last year and just woke up. Let me fill you in on what's been happening to fighting age men in Russia and how little the oligarchs in charge of the country care about the people in it. Lol. What a joke.

>There would be consequences for their use which is why they cannot use them.

What are these great consequences that would punish Russia for using nukes, but not deter them from using in the first place?

>Us nuking multiple of their cities is not "great for them".

No of course it's not great. I meant the sarcastic kind of great. Again, because more than they care about a few cities, they care about their position as a world power. If they use them, they obviously think it will lead to a better position for Russia, despite what would happen to a few of their cities.

>There is zero chance we can prevent them from launching and I give it around a 2% chance to shoot down any incoming nuke. They are mirvs with decoys built to saturate defenses.

You don't know the limits of our defensive systems and I don't either. That's why I said I assume.

>Once again, none of this can be used because of MAD. Even if Putin gives the orders I highly doubt they would be followed as it's MADness.

Perimeter is automatic (that means it doesn't need an order).

Yeah you're right laws don't do anything and we should repeal them all and everything will be great. /s

I remember when I was 12. I guess some people never stop being childish.

See this dude, Republicans just openly support Russia now. Idiots, every last one of them.

E: That's how it goes when you're in a cult.

https://www.vox.com/2016/9/9/12865678/trump-putin-polls-republican

No matter of suicide.

Russia can use a limited number of nukes without fear of nuclear reprisal, in my opinion, because Russia doesn't care if tens of millions of its citizens die, so they get some tactical nuclear first strikes as freebies.

The reprisal by the west is the matter of suicide. Russia has the Perimeter dead hand deterrent system, by which a full scale nuclear attack on Russia, whether retaliatory or first-strike, triggers an automated full scale response.

So if Russia nukes Kiev to reverse the tide in Ukraine, and the west responds by nuking a couple Russian cities, that's great for Russia because they get to keep Ukraine and they brought the west to heel. If the west retaliates, it will only be a limited strike, which, again, Russia will readily accept, if it gets it something as prized as Ukraine.

There is zero chance Russia launches a first strike against the continental US. Russia likes to say it has the world's most advanced nuclear delivery system, with its hypersonic nuclear cluster bombs, but that's useless against the US unless Russia could get all our subs in one fell swoop, too, which it can't.

I assume the US has cyber warfare and space weaponry at its disposal that could prevent Russia from launching or that could neutralize incoming missiles, hypersonic or not. Obviously such capabilities are top secret and I'm only speculating.

Oh I get you, that doesn't sound as nefarious as the definition I read.

Sounds like they should be doing this on their own.

Retailers and growers getting together to decide and agree upon how much to grow and how much they'll buy?

How would that not be a price fixing conspiracy?

Federal law.

Hosmer is definitely better. It's sweet without any sugary syrupy texture because it's bottled in the land of swift running waters (the Willimantic River), which imbues every bottle with a sweet bite that you can only get from lead contamination.

Jk jk. The Willimantic River is actually pretty clean, compared to, say, the Naugatuck or Quinnipiac.

Food tastes good.

What redeeming benefit to society do guns offer?

Typical dumb conservative with a useless post.

I don't recall them replacing plates. New registrations got new plates. Old registrations kept old plates. That's why there's still some around on older vehicles.

I think it's just that in most places where pizza is just pizza there is no distinction.

You said not illegally.

What right, this one?

Louisiana Supreme Court 1856:

>[The Second Amendment] was never intended to prevent the individual States from adopting such measures of police as might be necessary, in order to protect the orderly and well disposed citizens from the treacherous use of weapons not even designed for any purpose of public defence, and used most frequently by evil-disposed men who seek an advantage over their antagonists, in the disturbances and breaches of the peace which they are prone to provoke.

North Carolina Supreme Court 1843:

>there is scarcely a man in the community who does not own and occasionally use a gun of some sort[,] a gun is an ‘unusual weapon,’ wherewith to be armed and clad. No man amongst us carries it about with him, as one of his every day accoutrements--as a part of his dress--and never we trust will the day come when any deadly weapon will be worn or wielded in our peace loving and law-abiding State, as an appendage of manly equipment.

South Carolina Grand Jury 1879:

>It is apparent to every good citizen and man of sense, that any gentleman would blush and feel deeply ashamed to be caught parading the streets on a public occasion, or, for the matter of that, on a private occasion, with a revolver swinging around his neck like a powder horn, or sticking vulgarly and threateningly out of his hip pocket, making him the picture of a pirate.

Tennessee Supreme Court 1840:

>A man in the pursuit of deer, elk, and buffaloes might carry his rifle every day for forty years, and yet it would never be said of him that he had borne arms; much less could it be said that a private citizen bears arms because he has a dirk or pistol concealed under his clothes, or a spear in a cane.

Four times between 1876 and 1939, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to rule that the Second Amendment protected individual gun ownership outside the context of a militia.

That's why Chief Justice Warren Burger was spot on in his opinion of gun lobbyists and extremist conservatives (and corrupt justices like Scalia, etc.,), with their deliberate perversion of the legal and historical facts of the Second Amendment:

>“A fraud on the American public.”

Have you ever worked with LEO?

Just thinking of all those parents I hear about every year whose kid goes over to someone else's house and then has to face the catastrophe of learning their kid was let by some other dumbfuck parent to play with a gun and is now dead.

Just happened the other day in Florida, a three year old shot himself in the face.

I've enjoyed your direct, logical rhetoric through this thread.

>Also, just because somebody does not have a permit does not mean they do not have a gun illegally.

I'm having trouble figuring out who you're talking about here. Like, someone with a fancy federal license (FFL)?

Can you elaborate on that last sentence?

You mean someone could physically do it, not legally do it; It would be contraband within this state, right?

As a lawyer I'm a little alarmed by what you're saying. You can easily look up who has a law license, here: https://www.jud.ct.gov/attorneyfirminquiry/attorneyfirminquiry.aspx

>LEO has easy access to info on REGISTERED weapons. Typically sane, sober and moral people are the ones taking their time to register weapons.

If they are typical people, they are only temporarily sane, sober, and moral. True in the strictest sense for everyone that's ever lived.