Shooting at Las Vegas casino

If their newsletter is anything like American newspapers, that's just a wraparound ad for Mandalay Bay.

 

People you might call "professional" gamblers are pretty good at finding the video poker machines that approach (perhaps exceed) full pay. If you can find 'em, there are actually some of those that have a 100.76% average payout. Throw in the fact that for heavy players casinos rebate a certain percentage of play AND they comp lots of stuff, you can plunk along and make a living. BUT ... You've gotta have a fat bankroll to ride out the swings (basically you're playing and playing waiting on the occasional royal flush), you've gotta be prepared to strike when you find the right machine, and then you've gotta play a long, long time to make it work.

 

Why? Agreeing with a ban on bump stocks, an accessory which is a dead solid sure thing to banned, is great PR and costs them basically nothing.

It does not touch the type of weapons or their availability in any way. If it were high capacity magazines I might agree with you, but pink pigs will fly out of my butt before that happens. If those are restricted it will be after a huge fight with the NRA, because hunters and guys shooting cans *need* a sixty round clip.

 

Fuck them, trying to blame Obama and everything but what they have done to get these types of guns and attitudes about needing them into everyone's hands.

 

But Planned Parenthood ...

 

And them being a "single-issue advocacy organization" doesn't give them a blank check.

In theory I could call myself the "First Amendment Association," and argue that I should be able to take a shit on the President's desk during the State of the Union address in the name of free speech.

 

OK then.

 

The point I'm making is one you should engage with.

Your response to whatever the NRA advocates is, "Hey, man. Single-issue advocacy organization. Whatareyougonnado, amirite?"

That's not a defense. It's a force field.

 

I think his argument is that the NRA is being surprisingly accommodating (w.r.t. the bump stocks thing) given that it's a single-issue advocacy organization. I don't know that I'd call it that -- I'd call it strategically accommodating -- but still ...

 

"Additional regulations" but not "banned" or "subject to the same regulations that already exist for Class III firearms and silencers."

 

Yeah, he keeps saying they agreed to a ban. They did not.