chiliedogg

It depends on the organization.

I'm part of the Texas Municipal Retirement System. I put 7% of my salary into TMRS, and th city double-matches that, so I've got 21% going into the pension annually.

When I retire, the pension pays me according to what I put in and what I make the last 5 years of my career. Each member city that I've worked at contributes to my pension until I doe according to how long I've worked there.

The biggest thing to understand about a pension versus a 401k is that you can't cash out on a pension. When I retire, I'll get paid the rest of my life and even get raises, but I won't have a huge pile of money I can pull out or give to my heirs.

On the flip side, I don't run the risk of outliving my savings.

Because you'll get delayed again. I knew someone who got delayed every time, and it never came back within 30 days. He eventually got a license to carry because having one allows the dealer to skip the NICS check.

I do not know and will never try to find out.

Buy them now.

I wouldn't be surprised if Patel starts quietly adding registered Democrats to NICS (federal background check database). Even worse would be them making Dems get a "delay" response instead of a "deny" or "proceed".

A delay is supposed to be used when more research is required, and happens for things like having a common name (e.g. "John Smith" or "Jose Sanchez"). When you get a NICS delay, the gun can't be sold, at that time. You can sell a gun on a delay after 72 hours if it doesn'tcome back as a deny, but most chains have a policy to wait for a proceed. The thing is, lots of times the proceed takes more than 30 days, at which point the background check is invalid. They're only good for 30 days from the initial request, not the response.

Why is a delay worse than a deny? You can't appeal a delay or research why it happened. Since you aren't actually on the prohibited persons list, you can't be removed from it.

He's also about to fire all the JAGS, so they can court-martial anyone who isn't a loyalist and pardon war criminals who are.

The thing is, we can't control for who is bad most of the time. People get murdered with guns every day, and it's all by people who passed background checks or who acquired them by buying them on a secondary market.

They can also dismiss you for saying you intend to declare guilt no matter what.

A juror deciding a verdict before hearing the case should be dismissed.

So which is it? You can't have guns and not have them be accessible to people at the same time.

Whether a gun is good or bad depends on timing and perspective. All else being equal, a gun at home is way more likely to kill a member of the household than an assailant. But things aren't always equal.

I live alone, and don't have kids over. I ain't killing myself, and I have decades of experience in firearm safety. So the odds of someone in my household getting hurt by my guns are very low. At the same time, I do live in an area with 40+ minute police response time, so if there is a violent situation, I'm on my own. Guns increase my safety.

But someone with no training, small kids in the house, and in a safe area isn't in the same situation, and firearms make them less-safe.

We need it to be far enough out they can't just blame the prior administration.

It's totally allowed. It's why citizen juries exist instead of professional jurors, and a jury's right to determine the law is established in Article I, Section 8 of the New York Constitution. It's specifically discussing libel cases, but that doesn't necessarily limit them.

You still shouldn't say it, because you'll be removed anyway, but jury nullification is the legal system's last line of defense against unjust just laws.

The second time was their easiest out. He wasn't President, he had just lost an election, most of the country was disgusted with his antics post-election or at least just tired with it all.

They could've kneecapped him right then and barred him from running again. He would have left Washington a pariah. Most Republians hated the man, and this was their chance to shoot the rabid dog, but they were afraid of getting primaried over it. Which itself is ridiculous because most of the GOP senators were 3-5 years from their next primary.

That was when the GOP was fully-captured.

Yes. And they're the ones with the guns.