If you're calling bullshit on my "armchair psychology" then I suggest you look in the mirror. You are speaking with absolute certainty regarding how you would have reacted in a hypothetical scenario.

Good luck with your grasp of reality, Freud.

Yes, pretty much the only hope is a legal challenge, but what are the odds that will work?

Basically the law is written to allow the agency to decide whether to forbear on banning this ammo. In an Office Space-type move, ATFE "fixed the glitch". Thanks to civil service, we can't exactly directly vote to recall the bureaucrats making these decisions.

As for legislation, in this case the shoe is on the other foot for the Republicans. There aren't enough to override a veto.

They could try to tack it into must-pass legislation, but Harry Reid is all too willing to use brinksmanship over shutdowns, as demonstrated by the Homeland Security funding/immigration debacle. That is "irony" given how much they whined about these tactics when they were majority.

Oh, I read what you wrote just fine. You were just being overly dramatic. Because if you truly had sufficient rage to murder someone then you wouldn't have cared that your pencil was an apparently insufficient weapon or that you might have to walk 10m to obtain another improvised weapon.

None of this has anything to do with whether it's a wise idea to issue handguns to school kids. I'm just calling bullshit on your distorted assessment of your emotional state.

Hey, shill, remember how all those other firearm restrictions implemented in the US were immediately enforced with no grandfathering? Like when the Clinton AWB was passed and they suddenly required everyone to turn in all the "eeevul black rifles", standard capacity mags, and so on?

Oh wait, no, they grandfathered everything in circulation because Feinstein (who through stereotypical liberal hypocrisy has a CCW permit for herself), et al, couldn't summon the votes for a retroactive ban.

Same thing applies here: what's in circulation will be allowed to be sold.

What, are you 12? I presume you can grok the implication of a forward ban. Hell, you probably bought the ammo with the intention of scalping it once the supply dries up.

You are a failed pedant, and now you resort to moving the goalposts?

Fact: Obama promised to continue doing everything in his power to combat gun violence through executive action.

Fact: The ATF, a department of the executive branch, is banning commonly used sporting ammo.

Yet here you sit and shill, trying first to argue that Obama didn't use "executive orders" (which isn't what the poster said anyway), then you claim Obama didn't promise to try to implement gun control via executive action (which is either odiously disingenuous or ignorant of you), and now you are trying to claim that the stuff Obama did as part of his attempt to implement gun control... wasn't an attempt to implement gun control.

Check.

You're a shill.

"After the legislation failed, Mr. Obama vowed to take whatever steps his administration could through executive action. He later issued 25 executive orders intended to tighten the rules for gun ownership."

NYT

BTW, the post you replied to said "executive action", not "executive order", you doubly-failed pedant.

Oh good lord. How pedantic are you trying to be?

Obama promised to implement as much gun control as he could without involving Congress, later, ATF issues new decision reclassifying commonly used sporting ammunition in order to ban it. Would you be happy if the technically incorrect term "executive order" were replaced by "Presidentially-directed regulatory policy alteration"?

I'll remind you that executive orders aren't in the Constitution, but are derived from an implicit constructive reading of the law. So, be careful how far you push the pedantry.

My personal perspective on armed schoolchildren aside, I can only imagine you spent significant time in juvie for your repeated vehicular, IED, knife, sharpened pencil, metal chair leg, brick, and rock assaults on your peers.

You know, because as you said, not having access to a firearm was the only thing that prevented you from using that kind of weapon to attack people.

Hopefully you were able to keep your juvenile criminal record sealed, though.

No, that's too obvious. He will suddenly contract aggressive, terminal cancer. And, when his DNA is analyzed, it will show he was genetically predisposed to this through a de novo mutation.

He will be too ill for trial and won't live long enough in any case. Bad luck, man!

That's okay. Eisenhower broke them over the 1956 Suez Crisis. The UK, in particular, was taught a hard lesson about its new role in the world.

Interestingly, the major point of leverage against the UK was their debt held by the US government. Ike threatened to dump their debt, which would have destroyed their currency.

Which is why god invented passport cards. I never use my driver's license as an ID for precisely this reason.

So, around 10^32 kelvin?

We might be able to work with that, in principle...

You mean like this cyclic rat plague? If so, then no, I missed the last one and the next one isn't due for another 30-40 years.

I don't know if I can commit to that. I mean, I'm trying to taper off, but setting fixed targets just stresses me out.

As long as you believe in fairy tale technology like microstamping, why not just require every crime lab have a CSI-type "enhancing" microscope? That way you could code a GUI in Visual Basic and then have the computer tell you who committed the crime.

For those who are uninformed, read about how cartridge microstamping (doesn't) work in practice, and even if it *did* work, think about how trivial it is to defeat. The microstamping system is supposed to use a rather weak force to stamp a tiny serial number? Nope, I can't see how that could ever be trivially defeated, even if it *did* work in the first place.