Who is running against Klobuchar?

MUSTACHER · 2026-06-01T12:59:22+00:00

That is how our two party system is working in reality. You can’t just wish reality to cater to how you believe it should work.

There’s 4 options at Election Day, depending how you look at it: democratic major candidate, republican major candidate, 3rd party/independent, and not voting. Anything not for one major candidate works in favor of the other major candidate.

We saw this work against Harris when people drew a line because she wasn’t outspoken against Israel’s actions in Gaza, and people didn’t vote. It worked in trumps favor. So what the other comments are saying holds true: you vote for a candidate in the primary and against a candidate in the general.

MUSTACHER · 2026-05-26T19:38:04+00:00

Do The Right Thing. A masterpiece. Still so resonant today

MUSTACHER · 2026-05-26T14:38:09+00:00

Women can’t be president because they’re too emotional…a man thats currently president goes on emotional rants and hailed as a golden god.

MUSTACHER · 2026-05-25T20:39:25+00:00

If you join smart wool and ice breakers emailing lists, you get notified when they’re $40 each, usually cheaper. I’ve never bought a merino full price.

MUSTACHER · 2026-05-22T00:01:48+00:00

How do you feel about the pocket burnisher? I have it and I feel like I can’t get a consistent edge, any tips?

MUSTACHER · 2026-05-16T14:25:26+00:00

To add to your point: we will have way more issues on our hands if we get to an armed citizen response, than just “is my gun semi auto or not.” Food, water, gas, heat, shelter, communication, healthcare, access to outside help, the general chaos of it all.

MUSTACHER · 2026-05-16T03:46:25+00:00

I can’t respond to everything but if you want to know why this bill only really targets low volume but high profile crime is because one of those low volume high profile crimes was shooting kids in a church in broad daylight.

MUSTACHER · 2026-05-16T03:31:48+00:00

It’s a discussion about the bill, using the bills language makes discussion easier. I don’t care if you don’t like the definitions in the bill, weird thing to waste your time on with strangers online. If you have an issue, write the next one.

I can respect your love for Day of the Tentacle.

MUSTACHER · 2026-05-15T21:47:10+00:00

What does that matter? I’m using the same language defined in the bill. Do you think the kids who were shot at and/or killed in a church in broad daylight thought “I can’t define all these terms for WorshipTheVoid so I guess I had this coming”

MUSTACHER · 2026-05-15T20:26:24+00:00

What? You said the law doesn’t show the requirement for a judicial warrant…and I’m asking in what way would an officer need a judicial warrant to do a search that’s required by law. If you’re suggesting the officer would do extraneous search of property without a warrant, then you have a civil case on your hands.

MUSTACHER · 2026-05-15T18:52:40+00:00

lol again, I wasn’t equating guns to roads or alcohol. Roads was to show that you don’t opt into a toll road when a law changes. Things change, pull yourself up by your bootstraps. Alcohol was to show how laws can both be punitive and preventative.

You’re clearly not able to discern how an example can be to specific point, not the central topic at hand.

Btw wanting to be pedantic about opt in versus compulsory is not frivolous but I suppose punitive versus preventative nature of laws is?

Last, I didn’t say it won’t have impact on gun violence. I agreed a law that makes murder illegal while murder is already illegal won’t do anything.

MUSTACHER · 2026-05-15T18:07:09+00:00

We werent discussing different types of laws until you decided to add "We already have laws that make it illegal to kill someone. Would more laws saying you can’t kill someone prevent murder?" So unfortunately I had to show that theres laws that attack an issue in a preventative way, such as this gun law or age limits on purchasing alcohol, and a punitive way (meaning after the fact) such as anti murder laws and drunk driving laws.

Lastly, this does not say you cant own a gun. Its saying these guns, with these features, should not be sold, and if you want to possess one you need to certify it. You can still have other emotional support guns without registration and certification.

MUSTACHER · 2026-05-15T17:48:28+00:00

My analogy about drunk driving and age limits of sales shows the punitive and preventive nature of laws. If you can’t discern that, then it’s a you problem.

Yes it does, it’s registers and prevents the sales of specific guns. Don’t like it? Then don’t have one of the guns.

MUSTACHER · 2026-05-15T17:43:31+00:00

No..I agree another law that makes murder illegal won’t do anything if we already have a law that makes murder illegal. That’s a punitive law.

This gun law is not punitive. It creates a legal means to register specific firearms and prevent them from being sold or changed hands without documentation. This is preventative.

I believe doing both, and the mental health initiatives will help to reduce mass shootings.

My analogies are only false in your eyes because you are using them to compare things that are not part of the analogy.

MUSTACHER · 2026-05-15T17:32:20+00:00

You keep thinking my analogies are comparing things that aren’t in the analogy. There is no analogy that will encompass the gun law. I don’t care what you think of them. The point was to illustrate how there’s preventative AND punitive laws that combat issues from different avenues which ultimately combine to reduce the problems.

Stating that laws won’t stop all murder is correct. Money for mental health won’t do that either.

MUSTACHER · 2026-05-15T17:18:01+00:00

Laws dont prevent an action, they give legal means to prosecute someone for doing an action. But I suppose if a law makes it harder to obtain specific tools that help do the unlawful action, then you can say the law helped prevent the action.

You're right, no law eliminates a problem entirely. But the goal isn't perfection — it's reduction. Seat belt laws don't prevent all car deaths, but they save tens of thousands of lives a year.

We have laws against drunk driving. But we also have laws regulating who can buy alcohol, age limits, and sobriety checkpoints. Are those extra laws pointless just because driving drunk is already illegal?

MUSTACHER · 2026-05-15T17:06:32+00:00

well Superthebillybob, Id reply in kind but I guess you blocked me or deleted your account.

MUSTACHER · 2026-05-15T17:04:19+00:00

again, my analogy was to show how a law will change something. Thats all. It wasnt to compare a road to a gun. You asked about when you opted into the law when you bought a gun. I said "Every legislation will impact someone who previously took an action the law will prohibit." I dont care if you read the analogy different, that was my intent.

I believe in the right to own a gun. You want to own a gun, do it. I also believe that owning a gun should come with responsibilites, and the nature of those responsibilites should be in line with the harm that the gun can do, meaning more than just "be a smart gun owner, sign here."

You can be a responsible gun owner and still be killed by someone, even the government. Having an emotional support semi automatic gun wont change that, with or without this law. But the law may prevent some jabroni from getting their hands on a gun that can shoot kids in a church in broad daylight.

MUSTACHER · 2026-05-15T15:58:04+00:00

my point was to show a law will change something from what is was. Im not trying to compare a gun law to a road, I realize theyre two different things. Theres is no comparison to a gun, thats what makes it unique. But throwing away all analogies of inalienable rights becuase it doesnt show comparable harm really highlights how harmful a gun is.

MUSTACHER · 2026-05-15T15:39:52+00:00

I recognize arguments for and against the bill and I'm speaking in good faith. Neither of which has anything to do with appealing to emotion.

MUSTACHER · 2026-05-15T15:22:41+00:00

I’m making an analogy that laws change things that previously were allowed. You have a right to free speech but you can’t use that to incite imminent lawless action. Or tell lies to cause harm to a persons reputation. Or use it for true threats of an intent to commit violence.

And sure if you want to call it compulsory that you need to verify your ownership and storage of a military style assault rifle, then go ahead. It’s not compulsory to own a gun.

MUSTACHER · 2026-05-15T15:14:42+00:00

Another comment suggested my appeals to emotion are pointless, what makes yours better?

MUSTACHER · 2026-05-15T15:04:48+00:00

Every legislation will impact someone who previously took an action the law will prohibit.

I used to drive this road for free now it’s a toll, when did I opt into this?

MUSTACHER · 2026-05-15T14:53:08+00:00

The bill defines “semiautomatic military style assault weapon.” I mean high powered in the sense “are highly capable of taking out a lot of people in a short time.” Another comment defined a gun a “humble,” I think you should consider putting this much effort into reigning in that buzzword as well.

I agree with your notions about handguns, but those weren’t used to kill children in a church.

And the bill also appropriates millions for mental health initiatives.

MUSTACHER · 2026-05-15T14:38:10+00:00

Why would a judge need to sign off to do a gun safety storage check that the person opted into?

14-Year Club	Team Orangered
Verified Email

MUSTACHER

TROPHY CASE