Broforce is ana absurd and delightful train wreck :)

Been my experience that a good shop vac to pull out most of the water really helps prevent any issues from upholstery staying wet. You’ll never get it all that way, but minimising what stays deep in the padding lets the outer layers wick more out than they otherwise would. Air flow helps too, more than trying to keep temperatures up since higher temps are never enough to kill mold and mildew.

Aquaman needs a tan

I hate to agree with a billionaire, but he’s right. Currently steam is not a monopoly at all, and hasn’t yet gotten so dominant that it amounts to one.

But they are the single most dominant outlet, and are in the first stages of having an ability to control the entire market in unfair ways to the point of crushing competition. It won’t be long before they do have that ability completely. And we can’t just trust the billionaire because he’s shown an unusual degree of user focused choices overall. Even if he’s perfect, he ain’t immortal, and as soon as he’s not in control, there will be fuckery

The taint, obviously

I’m not sure this qualifies as food porn, but I often wish for a third hand too

Damn, I love learning new bits of info like that :)

Thank you for the response

You could run that in a mower without it damaging the motor? I’d never have guessed!

Yeah, that makes it a difficult proposition for sure.

Then again, at least you get to see such things, so the lack of chickens is worth it!

I mean, there’s a whole essay out there on how he isn’t a womanizer, and it does a good job showing that it isn’t the case

Edit: https://strangehorizons.com/non-fiction/columns/freshly-rememberd-kirk-drift/

There’s also a reddit post that summarizes it, but I ain’t linking that

Backyard chickens?

Yeah, but he only had seven of them

9? What a noob

This is why I said I wouldn’t debate the issue. Nothing new can be said about it. There’s no fresh ideas to bring up, and it all eventually comes down to it being a fundamental right or not. I’ve never seen anyone convinced to switch their opinion based on a debate. I strongly suspect I never will because nobody that’s willing to debate it in the first place lacks a strong opinion.

Edit: I will say that there’s a difference in terminology here. A fundamental right is one that all people have, whether or not it is enumerated. An enumerated right may or may not be fundamental as well.

That may or may not be word usages formalized for discussion of rights, but it’s the terminology I use to point to why debate is never going to amount to anything. Once something is considered a fundamental right, laws cease to matter because even if those laws abrogate or suppress a right, it remains a right that is being suppressed. And, again, doing so should always require the highest possible standards to occur, and should only be done on an individual basis, not writ large

Piss in them to mark your territory

Whew. Careful with all that straw, don’t drop any matches

Need?

Who cares about need.

When it comes right down to it, nobody needs more than one of most things.

But in reality, there is a limit to how much “you” (as in someone that is trying to limit someone else’s access to something) should be allowed to limit said thing without both due process and significant cause. When something is a fundamental right (and anyone with multiple firearms is definitely of the mind that firearms are a natural extension of fundamental rights, so long as they exist at all), you, me, the government simply shouldn’t be able to declare that anyone has to show need to exercise that right.

To the contrary, suppression of rights has to be done only under extreme and unusual circumstances.

Now, from your comment, I doubt you consider the right to defense as extending to firearms. That’s fine, I’m not debating that by this comment (and won’t, it bores the fuck out of me because nobody ever has anything new to bring to the debate). I’m just saying that if something is a right, placing your idea of need on it simply isn’t acceptable.

A dozen, a hundred, a thousand, it doesn’t matter. All that matters is that the right exists. And, in the US it is a specifically enumerated right. There’s wiggle room on when rights can be curtailed, suppressed. We do it all the time. But it can’t be done lightly, and shouldn’t be based on some arbitrary, ill defined standard of need.

That being said, the role of a handgun vs a shotgun vs a rifle at least points to three use cases that can’t be met by the others. Since different calibers of ammunition have discrete properties, it can also be said that significantly different rounds would fulfill different roles (you shoot a squirrel with a .50 cal, you ain’t scraping up enough to roast). Just based on that concept, it would be easy to point to at least six different firearms being “needed” to fulfill roles.

If you have multiple people using the firearms, you can need different ones for each person.

So twelve? It really isn’t that many. I’ve seen hunters that will regularly use at least twelve different rifles in a year, sometimes more, depending on how often they can find time to hunt. Ignoring any debate about hunting being something you or I support, it is a use case that is common enough to merit the term need when it comes to the tools used to do it.

Now me? I don’t need that many. Not a hunter, don’t compete in shooting sports, don’t even target shoot as a regular hobby. But you sure as hell don’t get to decide what I do and don’t need. Nor does anyone else without the application of due process and just cause.

Ikr? Not even a hint of subtlety

I did, and what I saw was an uncomfortable chicken.

They tend to have a lot of difficulty with things that hold their feathers in a given position. Even things designed for them to have on for extended use can take some time to get used to.

But, they have tails. And this would not only annoy most chickens, it would throw them off