FireTower

When someone says someone is legally trespassing read it as "legally [speaking they are] trespassing". At least in most cases.

Pedantic tangent:

You could lawfully trespass on the land of another (with permission). There's 4 elements to the tort of trespass to land. 1) You act volitionally. 2) You intend to occupy that space, are substantially certain that will happen as a result of your actions, or you intend another intentional tort granting transfered intent. 3) But for your act their property wouldn't have been invaded. 4) Their property has been invaded.

In civil law a trespass to land doesn't consider whether you have permission or not to determine if you trespassed. They would determine that you did infact trespass but you have the defense of having done so with the privilege to do so granted by the owner. Meaning you did trespass but did so only in a manner appropriate under law.

Thank you for sharing this clear and succinct comment. Looked through the article and didn't see it formated so clearly.

BoR are the first 10/27 amendments. They were all ratified in 1791. Federalists thought that the structural elements laid out in the main document would protect people's rights but Antifederalists insisted on codifying specific rights and the BoR was a promise to get more people on board with the idea of the Constitution.

Last year, North Carolina Republicans introduced the REACH Act, an acronym for “Reclaiming College Education on America’s Constitutional Heritage.” The bill required undergraduates to take at least three credit hours in American government and read a series of major U.S. history documents, from the Declaration of Independence to Martin Luther King Jr.’s 1963 “Letter from Birmingham Jail.” They would also have to pass a final exam worth 20% of the final grade.

Per the article

I remember my college had a suicide awareness day where among other things they told people to tell their suicidal friends to call the hotline if they felt suicidal.

Now imagine you are that person and you reach out to a friend for help only to have them tell you to call someone else in a canned speech you were told to tell others.

I've seen designs that only have one metal component a nail. There's several 22lr designs that use entirely printed barrels. They won't last as long and need to be designed around the material qualities, but do function safely.

There's also a few designs that can be made with parts from hardware stores without any particularly expensive machinery (like mills or lathes). People can even rifle barrels at home through electro-chemical machining which isn't as complicated as it sounds.

As a other commenter mentioned machinegun is a legal definition in the US, for a firearm capable of automatic or burst fire.

Here the author is referring to Glock switches an aftermarket design that exploits the design of semiautomatic Glock pistols to convert them to be automatic.

My understanding is that typically most of them tend to be ones bought online and shipped from China in bulk then resold once in the states.

As an American who has been to the EU I can say with certainty that each one of those factors changes within an hour drive from my home. Making them a US v EU debate on an individual scale is meaningless. There's nice parts and bad parts of both.

It depends IMO picture or thumbnail with serious gore yes. Simply text or images in article no.

If people don't want to see posts about certain subject matters they can filter out keywords to avoid them.

Legislation on packaging should really be entertained as well. For many products a biodegradable form of packaging would be completely viable.

People don't like when you punch down. When a 13 year old illegally downloaded a Limp Bizkit album no one cared. When corporations worth billions funded by venture capital systematically harvest the work of small creators (often with appropriate license) to sell a product people tend to care.