zer0vital

@yurilowell @IGN People keep making this joke but cable is typically $120-200 / month, on-demand content is limited if it even exists, and every channel is playing ads 1/3 of the time. The streaming service wasteland is still a night and day improvement over the old model.

@IGN It would be so nice if there was a box or service that consolidates all these different streaming channels into one service and invoice.

Everything’s getting more expensive, but that HBO Max price hike is a big F you to subscribers. ign.com/videos/hbo-max…

@redditSpacePorn You can make the moon look exactly like this with a telephoto lens from the right location Without something to compare to, the size of celestial objects in the background of a photo is pretty arbitrary

If Saturn were as close to the Earth as the Moon is, this is how it would look

@Asimpleman1981 @johndwick411 @ABC There is a legal process put in place for what you're talking about, and it isn't sheriffs do whatever the fuck they want. Again, elected legislature and elected Governor passed this law. That is the will of the people. A sheriff can't unilaterally defy the will of the people.

@zer0vital @johndwick411 @ABC In fact our constitution allows for the thing the sheriffs are doing. When the government enacts unjust laws, it is the right of the people to abolish these laws and institute a new form of government for the people and by the people...

Just days after Illinois became the ninth state to ban assault rifles, the state has already hit a roadblock to implementing the law: defiant sheriff's offices. trib.al/7iM5kju

@Asimpleman1981 @johndwick411 @ABC The Governor (executive branch) signed the bill that state congress (legislative branch) passed. The sheriff (executive branch) is sworn to uphold the law. If a law is unconstitutional, it gets challenged in court and evaluated by judges (judicial branch). Sheriffs aren't judges

@zer0vital @johndwick411 @ABC Where does it say the governor can enact an unconstitutional law?

@BigMortar1 @Rensontwitts @ABC It is not within the rights of a sheriff to usurp the power of all three branches of government and act unilaterally according to an unqualified personal interpretation of the law. You even stole my cosplay insult, do I have to have both sides of this argument for you dude? 🤦‍♂️

@reconzar @DrJMan007 @ABC Correct. As an executive branch member, the sheriff enforces the code of laws enacted by legislation. By declaring a law unconstitutional and defying it based on personal interpretation, the sheriff is trying to usurp the power of the legislative and judicial branches.

@johndwick411 @ABC I don't know how you go from talking about how the government is planning to disarm the population and then two comments later dismissing any possibility of a military coup. By what reasoning do you suppose people are entitled to possess deadly weaponry if not gov tyranny?

@zer0vital @ABC What's laughably stupid are people believing the military will turn on Americans and disregard the constitution they swore a oath too

@Dopeydopeman420 @ABC Nobody forgot it, but southerners / conservatives have abused the states rights argument so much to defend their despicable beliefs that it's become a heavily sandbagged concept.

@Sourdough777 @ABC If you have to pretend that being asked to confiscate weapons and being asled to commit murder are somehow equivalent scenarios with the same degree of urgency, then it's no wonder that you're so morally clueless and I have no interest in trying to pull you out of your delusion.

@zer0vital @ABC So if the military os ordered to commit war crimes and kill innocents they should just do it and challenge it in court later?? Nah. Great work by police in this scenario

@Dopeydopeman420 @ABC It means that law can be challenged and defeated in court. It doesn't mean the cities of Illinois are free to rebel against their state government and run local anarchies because they are sore losers.

This is the worst receiving I've ever seen in an NFL game

@johndwick411 @ABC Show me one that sells tanks or assassin drones or any legit military tech. The idea that having an AR-15 or not enables a citizen to fight back against an oppressive government is laughably stupid and childish in 2023. It's a boys with toys issue, nothing more.

@zer0vital @ABC Idk show mean a gun that gun stores sell that fire nukes 😂😂

@johndwick411 @ABC So my right to keep and bear nuclear arms shall not be infringed? Where do we draw the line? The government can kill millions in the blink of an eye so each and every citizen needs the same or our democracy will die right? Just admit this is about boys having hard ons for guns.

@zer0vital @ABC The deliberately left it at "right to bear arms" because they knew technology would advance over time, they also knew the government would eventually try to use advancing tech to try and disarm the population

Thompson shows up to play and his receivers literally dropping the ball all over the place 😅

@johndwick411 @ABC The Founders had no opinions pertaining to 21st century weaponry that they couldn't possibly conceive of. But they did include "well-regulated" which doesn't mean "any dumbfuck with a Rambo fantasy can horde as much weaponry as they want".

@zer0vital @ABC The right to keep and bear arms is supported by hundreds of years of English common law and by the beliefs of the framers of the U.S. Constitution; the Second Amendment grants the right to own guns and also clearly prohibits gun control.

@reconzar @DrJMan007 @ABC No, they are not elected to pick and choose which state laws to follow, which to ignore, or which to make up based on their own personal whims. Stop arguing and go buy a 2nd grade civics textbook. You need to learn about the three branches of government and their functions.

@BigMortar1 @Rensontwitts @ABC Yeah it is awkward, which is why neither the Federal nor the state constitution allows locally elected sheriffs to unilaterally interpret and enforce the law as feudal lords. It shouldn't be this hard to explain the US govt to a bunch of cosplay patriots but here we are.

@johndwick411 @ABC It's not in a sheriff's authority to unilaterally interpret and enforce the Constitution as he sees fit as if he's King of the County There is a democratic process to determine the law, and the sheriff takes an oath to uphold the law, not stand in defiance of it like a tyrant

@zer0vital @ABC It allows the people to bear arms with fear of government trying to take them. The sheriff is enforcing constitutional law as it was written

@LaundryGuy1945 @ABC Passing a law through state congress in a Constitutionally-defined process is tyranny? You don't understand or respect anything about the Constitution, freedom, or democracy. You're a child with a gun and a god complex.

@zer0vital @ABC No. The second amendment gives citizens the right to bear arms. Any officers enforcing a law that breaches that amendment, or any other one that gives rights, is a tyrant that should be fired.

@S30167368J @ABC The Constitution literally defines the remedy but you'd rather have anarchy. That's what drives me nuts. You pay lip service to the Constitution but you don't actually understand or respect anything about it. It's cosplay patriotism via ignorance and tribalism 🤷‍♂️

@zer0vital @ABC A law that is unconstitutionam cannot be fought in court if you have corrupt judges and lawyers. Pritzker, Newsome and the biden administration are current examples. Should I add Hillary Clinton in there as well?