You don’t have to serialize firearms you make* for your own personal use. You also don’t need to register them either*. In fact there’s restrictions on the federal government’s ability to keep a registry of guns. 18 USC 926(a)(3). From a policy perspective it’d just be creating another possession based crime that’s almost impossible to enforce. Because you could just pop a “1” on the side and claim that you sent in your registration paperwork but the government screwed up.

*True for title 1 firearms (most handguns, shotguns, and rifles) not certain other classes like those that machineguns or silencers fall into.

https://www.atf.gov/firearms/qa/how-does-person-register-firearm-or-remove-name-firearms-registration

Never heard of beggars night. People seem to find Halloween a satisfactory name where I’ve been.

Where I’m from Halloween you go around and ask for candy, the historical implication being you’d vandalize the property of or otherwise harass in costume anyone who refused. Which followed Cabbage Night, where you would TP people’s houses under the cover of darkness.

I’ve watched a few of his videos and they’ve all been very interesting. I’d recommend some of his coverage on Native American/Indian issues.

He also did good job showing the border situation from the lenses of people from every side of it (migrants, cartel coyotes, local sheriffs, & cities hosting the migrants). It highlights how dogmatism of politicians is hurting ordinary people.

Big win for consumers, at least in the US. People tend to do better in courts here than they do in arbitration (where one side pays the judge(arbitrator)).

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.

If you’ve heard the term ‘high explosives’ that refers to thoses that are supersonic while ‘low explosives’ are subsonic.

Continent are fairly subjective. Some favor strictly connected lands (joining Eurasia). Others do it by the tectonic plates. Other by culture barriers drawing a line between Europe and Asia.

For the purposes of the post I simply meant to convey that the NA v SA distinction is widely accepted to be at the thinnest point between them. Which would include Central America w/ NA.

As others have pointed out:

We’ve also got the right not to be tried twice for the same offense which could of saved him from resorting to trial by combat.

Blue People Avatar is pushing it on their distinction with Good Avatar with these elemental names.

Haven’t played '06 but the '17 had the best first hour of any game I’ve played.

They are completely unrelated. They just had a really cool name they didn’t want to lose.

The site it self isn’t satire. They’ve got a YouTube channel w/ 3.5 million subs.

one of the arguments you used.

It decidedly is not.

I don’t think characterizing them as all being far right hacks is very accurate.

I didn’t contend that if you follow a linear political view they’d be on the right side. I argued with the notion that all of the 3 justices were far right.

My contention was that they are all radicals. Not that the three are conservative leaning.

The fact that it doesn’t always line up left right doesn’t change the fact that these did.

Unless you consider Gorsuch, Thomas, and Roberts left wing those three cases didn’t. Which I consider you don’t given this comment. 30% of the time opinions are 9-0. If you think most of the cases fit a partisan line go through the cases count how many follow partisan lines. They list them all here.

If you group the justices in two partisan groups Thomas and RBG & Roberts and Sotomayor certainly wouldn’t be on the same sides.

I’m not even sure why you’re bringing it up.

I explained this in the first sentence of my comment.

On most of these cases, the left side has voted one way and the right the other.

Inorder as above:

NG, JR, RBG, SB, SS, & EK v SA, CT, & BK

NG, RBG, SB, SS, & EK v JR, SA, BK, & CT

NG, RBG, SB, SS, BK, & CT v SA, JR, & EK

That’d only be true if you consider Gorsuch, Roberts (for him fair), and Thomas as swing votes siding with the left.

I don’t think characterizing them as all being far right hacks is very accurate. Gorsuch for example wrote Bostock v Clayton County (Stopping people from being from being fired for sexual identity or orientation), McGirt v Oklahoma (Upholding a long ignored treaty with the Creek nation), and Ramos v Louisiana (Killing a Jim Crow law designed to disadvantage minorities in criminal trials). They just abide a different judicial doctrine.

I think that case was rightly decided on both a policy and law basis. But after the law was enacted, the agency had interpreted the law to have an understanding on how they should enforce it prior to the judicial interpretation.

So the agency did interpret the law as including bees as fish, correctly. Had the not done so the court case wouldn’t have happened because no one would have been advocating for that interpretation.