Sounds to me like he decided to be dry firing post facto.
Sounds to me like he decided to be dry firing post facto.
The 320 had a recall earlier in its life for drop safety but they did a redesign of the interior since then. I think today it’s more of a poor excuse for negligence.
Respectfully submitted,
United Nations
It isn’t just as your previous comment on if Elon filed for eminent domain wasn’t because that wasn’t the subject that comment was addressing.
The comment I originally addressed was on them buying land to stop it from being used. Which CAH did to prevent a Trump admin from building a border wall. I was pointing out how that their actions in that matter didn’t suit their intended purpose because of the governments ability to seize private land with compensation for public use.
No I was talking about the base idea of buying land on the border to prevent Trump from building a wall while he was in office.
Yeah I thought the same thing. With how much people reveal about themselves online these days with just OSINT pretty much anyone dedicated enough or facilitated by ai could create a similar effect.
The thing here that lent significant credibility is the shared phrases predated on the other site.
The US federal government could simply file for eminent domain on the land (pay the holder what they (feds) deem fair value) and build the wall CAH planned to disrupt.
Thank you for sharing this clear and succinct comment. Looked through the article and didn’t see it formated so clearly.
Possibly a rule 2/6 (opinion) issue. Not sure if you guys care on an article by article basis or just by source. Headline alone is pretty charged language.
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’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.
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.
But nobody got convicted so the investigation doesn’t count!
The Due Process Clause will do that.
Local affiliates and independent papers tend to be much better.
This was a motion to dismiss a fairly standard thing for a judge to rule on before a trial. The only effect of this ruling is that the case wasn’t dismissed. And if it was dismissed at this stage it likely would have been done without prejudice. Meaning that they could just refile elsewhere.
That is patently not what I was arguing. If they don’t raise the price past $60 they’ll just be incentivized to get it through predatory micro transactions.
And by arguing a business practice is unsustainable I’m not saying that entire industry pays employees in an equitable way.
This would get you reprimanded in court at best disbarred at worst. Utilizing the right to remain silent can not be used against you in a court of law. If it could it’d defeat the entire purpose of it by making silence become an admittance of guilt.