Go get it when you get the chance. Mark IIs are extremely reliable, easy to keep clean, and highly desirable. If you don't get it yourself, you are potentially allowing some other, more opportunistic relative a chance at a very valuable windfall.Despite my enthusiasm for the 2nd amendment, I actually only own one gun, and I only got it a few years ago. It's a pump action shotgun, a Mossberg Maverick 88 with an 18.5" barrel chambered for 12 gauge. Well, technically, my father has also said that the Ruger Mk II target pistol (.22 cal) that I favored when I lived at home is mine for the taking whenever I want it, but I haven't gotten the chance to go get it (I'd have to drive, as I'd rather not try to get it through airport security). Anyway, I got the shotgun thinking it'd have worse wall penetration than a rifle or pistol (and I'd probably have gotten a .45 or a 380 if I'd gotten a pistol), so as to have a reduced chance of perforating neighbors if I had to nail a critter or a home invader, but it turns out 00 buckshot penetrates walls just fine. Whups.
The bull barreled ones go for an even higher premium, so yeah, you need to make that one yours. When contemplating the drive, pretend he's offering you $500, because he practically is. Just make sure you apply for the permit to purchase (or whatever they do in your state) prior to the trip, otherwise you'll have problems down the line.I'm his only son, and he's already verbally promised it to me But yeah, that thing is awesome. It's got the bull barrel so the balance is exquisite and the recoil is nonexistant, and all the other stuff you said too.
I considered "weapons," but that felt too vague.
This is my rifle, this is my gun . . . ?
I'm picturing a pistol getting down on the dance floor.And a Saturday Night Special 9mm that can't fire a full clip with out jamming.
Just a pistol that costs less than $100.I'm picturing a pistol getting down on the dance floor.
You got a new nickname for your gun!Just a pistol that costs less than $100.
And that'd be the Saturday Night Fever...
Before it was stolen, my father used to have a .357 S&W with a 2in barrel. Firing that thing at night was...impressive.Bright light! Bright light!
--Patrickbehind the scenes in recent weeks, the Silicon Valley tech giant has delivered [a] message to gun-selling retailers such as Camping World: Stop selling military-style rifles, or stop using our software.
I would argue that the Constitution does not prohibit a business choosing not to work with another business. The Constitution has nothing to do with it and no one's rights are being violated.STOP DOING THIS LEGAL THING OR WE WILL BE UPSET....
I am that weird liberal that believes in constitutional rights.
IIRC you're only prohibited from dealing with someone/thing if you were discriminating on protected grounds (race, sex, a few others). If you're saying "I don't like you because you did X that's unrelated to my business with you" then you're perfectly within your rights to refuse service. Hell, I think it'd be legal to refuse service to anybody wearing a Toupee, but probably prohibited to refuse service to somebody because they're bald. I may not be right on that one though.Software is a public service, it should be available to anyone that wants to use it and pay. Just like a lunch counter or bakery.
I know I said it before, but a corporation is, by definition, amoral. It doesn't care what it does or doesn't do, whether it even lives or dies.generally, a business can choose to do (or not) business with anyone they wish. That's one of the downsides of freedom - you have to let people do "bad" things, because the government policing everything gets darker a lot faster.
No, they don't, and this lie being told often enough that people now believe it fully is one of the reasons modern democratic capitalism is heading for a great big blow-up. It's exactly what bankers were saying prior to the Great Depression, and before the 2008 crash - and after that second, people apparently didn't learn.While technically all decisions a publicly traded company makes has to be about making more money,
You're damn right. I can't count how many times I've heard people say "the purpose of a business is to make as much money as possible", and that's absolutely wrong. The purpose of a business is the fair and equatable exchange of goods and/or services. If a business puts making as much money as possible over the practice of fair trade, then they're not a business, they're a scam.There's no reason why a company, publicly traded or no, should hold money as the one and only guiding principle.
I mean, there completely is a reason to do so, but that reason is (usually) that shareholders* demand that a company grow, Grow, GROW in order to maximize the return on their investment, consequences be damned. So still profit motive, just once removed.There's no reason why a company, publicly traded or no, should hold money as the one and only guiding principle.
Well, I wouldn’t say a “scam,” exactly, but I’d certainly agree a business that puts profit above people is not the sort of business that deserves my business (Looking at YOU, healthcare!), if I want that perception to change.If a business puts making as much money as possible over the practice of fair trade, then they're not a business, they're a scam.
If someone knowingly takes advantage of someone (i.e. They intentionally conduct what they know to be an unfair exchange of goods and or services), that's a scam. Scam: to swindle, cheat, defraud, to obtain by deceit. Put it however you want, if someone knows that they are unfairly taking advantage of someone else, they are a crook.Well, I wouldn’t say a “scam,” exactly, but I’d certainly agree a business that puts profit above people is not the sort of business that deserves my business (Looking at YOU, healthcare!), if I want that perception to change.
While this may be standard practice, I'm talking about ethics and morality, not legality. There are many things which are legal, but that still grossly violate ethics and morality.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiduciary
aka: Fiduciary responsibility, or Fiduciary Duty. The only reason to have "good" behavior is if reputation drives more business and money to you. Otherwise, fuck it. Anything else you're told about corporations is an outright lie IMO. It's all a means to an end, or else they aren't doing their job.
Pez, there have been legal cases by shareholders that sue boards and/or CEOs because they don't take their Fiduciary Duty seriously. And they WIN. The law is structured that way. The law can't compel you to break the law (IANAL, but pretty sure that'd be stupid), but anything and everything else is A-OK to the limits of public reputation, and its impact on profits.While this may be standard practice, I'm talking about ethics and morality, not legality. There are many things which are legal, but that still grossly violate ethics and morality.
Secondly, as you've stated it, such an idea of fiduciary duty would compel people to break the law to fulfill "fiduciary duty". It's an absurd notion that businesses should exist for the sole purpose of making as much money as possible, above and beyond all other interests. It's quite arguable that most businesses do pursue money to that absurd degree, but that's because most people have bought into the idea that such is the ideal form of business. Not only do I challenge that notion, but I firmly reject it, morally and ethically. It should never be accepted, it should never be repeated, and any suggestion that is is inevitable should be shouted down with all the fervor the human race can muster. We are not doomed to be thieves, and we cannot allow ourselves to resign ourselves to institutionalized greed.
We're arguing semantics here (Scam/Fraud = obtain by deceit, Monopoly/Monopsony = obtain by abusing marketplace position, Regulatory capture = obtain by changing the rules, etc), but it seems we are in agreement that businesses should conduct themselves in a manner that prioritizes not only their own well-being, but also the well-being of the ones who use the goods and services they provide.If someone knowingly takes advantage of someone (i.e. They intentionally conduct what they know to be an unfair exchange of goods and or services), that's a scam. Scam: to swindle, cheat, defraud, to obtain by deceit. Put it however you want, if someone knows that they are unfairly taking advantage of someone else, they are a crook.
Change the law if you want that to change, don't blame the people for following it.
I will fucking blame people for following unjust laws. Doing what is morally and ethnically right comes before obedience to the law, PERIOD. I'll sympathize with people who are afraid to break the law because they're not in positions of power, but CEOs are in huge positions of power, and they have crazy amounts of money and influence. They have the moral and ethical responsibility to challenge the law and do what is right.Pez, there have been legal cases by shareholders that sue boards and/or CEOs because they don't take their Fiduciary Duty seriously. And they WIN. The law is structured that way. The law can't compel you to break the law (IANAL, but pretty sure that'd be stupid), but anything and everything else is A-OK to the limits of public reputation, and its impact on profits.
To be clear, I'm not advocating for this corporate attitude, I actually agree that businesses should be more than that. But that is the law as it is right now. Change the law if you want that to change, don't blame the people for following it.
You'd think so, but "trickle down economics" is still a thing people fight to believe in. I try not to underestimate the number of people who are willfully ignorant, and the violent reactions they have to the truth being thrust upon them.I mean, you figure it would just be good business sense to ensure the existence of a customer base to consume the goods and services you provide, right?
Well, they’re wrong."trickle down economics" is still a thing people fight to believe in.
It's funny because that in no way tells you anything about the reference being salient or not...
But that was Pol Pot's law.It's funny because that in no way tells you anything about the reference being salient or not...
But do you think anyone would get it if i mentioned reporting people with glasses during the '70's...
The one on the right looks to be a 38 snub nose, which is a common "backup piece" for law enforcement.I regret that I have but one OMGWTFBBQ to give to that post.
Also...isn't having a handgun illegal in New York City? Maybe the one on the left was from a cop, but the one on the right doesn't look like it. I can't imagine you're allowed to take guns into the Pentagon either.
He's just protecting his God-given right to arms against federal overreach. This is the problem: these people will not accept any limitation on gun ownership, and will always feel vindicated and justified in doing so.
Well, a Good Guy With A Gun would have known better than to idiotically shoot randomly into the air in the first place.how is a "good guy with a gun" supposed to have prevented this death?
Or, I guess, by shooting the idiots before they could kill somebody with their dumb shit.Well, a Good Guy With A Gun would have known better than to idiotically shoot randomly into the air in the first place.
--Patrick
So Good Guy With A Gun let two people die on his watch.Uh, that guy who shot the shooter? He was part of the church's security detail.
...which is sad to even say.
Considering that he acted within 6 seconds, I think he did a pretty good job.So Good Guy With A Gun let two people die on his watch.
So..."Even a Good Guy with a Gun who acts quickly and efficiently can't protect you"? Well, gosh, it's almost like simply no guns for either good or bad guys would've been a better ideaConsidering that he acted within 6 seconds, I think he did a pretty good job.
https://www.wfsb.com/within-seconds...cle_e6e76407-16b8-5840-a0d8-c4387258d13e.html
Well, break out the magic wands that will eliminate 393 million guns from private ownership, making sure that they get every last one that someone with criminal intent might hoard!So..."Even a Good Guy with a Gun who acts quickly and efficiently can't protect you"? Well, gosh, it's almost like simply no guns for either good or bad guys would've been a better idea
A) I did specifically say "would've" - that ship has long since sailed for the good ol' US of A.Well, break out the magic wands that will eliminate 393 million guns from private ownership, making sure that they get every last one that someone with criminal intent might hoard!
And then we can get ready to REALLY bend over and take it in the ass from President For Life Donald J Trump, since there will then be absolutely literally nothing at all to stop him from really turning the US into the fascist police state you guys quaintly think he already has.
Lest you forget, HE was the only president thus far to actually advocate for taking all yer gunz.Well, break out the magic wands that will eliminate 393 million guns from private ownership, making sure that they get every last one that someone with criminal intent might hoard!
And then we can get ready to REALLY bend over and take it in the ass from President For Life Donald J Trump, since there will then be absolutely literally nothing at all to stop him from really turning the US into the fascist police state you guys quaintly think he already has.
It was more like, “Take away all your guns unless you’re one of us, then it’s totally covfefe.”Lest you forget, HE was the only president thus far to actually advocate for taking all yer gunz.
By shooting people who discharge their guns for fun?!Tell me, how is a "good guy with a gun" supposed to have prevented this death?
And then we can get ready to REALLY bend over and take it in the ass from President For Life Donald J Trump, since there will then be absolutely literally nothing at all to stop him from really turning the US into the fascist police state you guys quaintly think he already has.
Well, I mean, guns don't have to just be for rednecks. Nothing's stopping all the hippies and commies from getting all the AR-15s they want... for now.I really like the implication that the "2A people" would oppose those actions.
I feel like there’s an editorial cartoon in there, with a Hippie-type in a checkout lane complaining about “...all these ‘Gun-grabbers,’” and then behind him and in the other lanes waiting their turns are a bunch of Redneck and Jarhead types with their (red baseball caps and) carts bristling with long guns and ammunition.Well, I mean, guns don't have to just be for rednecks. Nothing's stopping all the hippies and commies from getting all the AR-15s they want... for now.
Well, when that dickhead in Washington said NeoNazis are good people, I bought an AR-15.Well, I mean, guns don't have to just be for rednecks. Nothing's stopping all the hippies and commies from getting all the AR-15s they want... for now.
As long as they're not black, amirite: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulford_ActWell, I mean, guns don't have to just be for rednecks. Nothing's stopping all the hippies and commies from getting all the AR-15s they want... for now.
Nothing California does should ever be mistaken for constitutional.As long as they're not black, amirite: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulford_Act
As a Californian, I...Nothing California does should ever be mistaken for constitutional.
“Extremists.”In other words, terrorists have threatened to take control of the government of the state of Virginia, and we're not calling it terrorism, or a coup, because they're white.
If I thought their motives were based around the good of the nation, and not the cause of racism, I might agree with you, but no. The 2nd Amendment was not put in place to allow a political minority with a morally abhorrent goal to take over the government. Make no mistake, if this group takes over the government in Virginia, they're not doing it in order to keep their guns. They're doing it to promote a white supremacist government.Well, to be fair... this possibility is exactly the intent of the 2nd amendment. The reason it's a crime and not a revolution is merely because it doesn't have enough actual popular support.
Well, to be fair... this possibility is exactly the intent of the 2nd amendment. The reason it's a crime and not a revolution is merely because it doesn't have enough actual popular support.
This would not be the first time this group has used the letter of a law to subvert the spirit of a(mother) law.The 2nd Amendment was not put in place to allow a political minority with a morally abhorrent goal to take over the government. Make no mistake, if this group takes over the government in Virginia, they're not doing it in order to keep their guns. They're doing it to promote a white supremacist government.
I don't think the "security of the free state" was ever meant to mean using guns to overthrow a duly elected governing body.Well, to be fair... this possibility is exactly the intent of the 2nd amendment.
If I thought their motives were based around the good of the nation, and not the cause of racism, I might agree with you, but no. The 2nd Amendment was not put in place to allow a political minority with a morally abhorrent goal to take over the government. Make no mistake, if this group takes over the government in Virginia, they're not doing it in order to keep their guns. They're doing it to promote a white supremacist government.
The motives are not specified, only the methodry.I don't think the "security of the free state" was ever meant to mean using guns to overthrow a duly elected governing body.
Hint: it's not a "free state" if you're military coup-ing elected officials.The motives are not specified, only the methodry.
Hint: It very much can be.Hint: it's not a "free state" if you're military coup-ing elected officials.
Then again, a lack of understanding obvious nuance is why the FF didn't want to give the masses the right to vote, innit.
Bullshit they aren't. "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."The motives are not specified, only the methodry.
No, it wouldn't.IE, Trump was elected. But if a thousand armed rabble stormed the white house... might could be said to be in the interests of a free state, yes?
Heh, even you know to put it in quotes when it pretty much ruins your argument...I don't need to remind you what other monsters of history were "elected."
You're overemotional, as you do tend to get in this sort of discussion.Bullshit they aren't. "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
That's the fucking motivation right there, and white supremacy shits on all of that.
So if you'd stop splitting hairs for a moment, you'd see you just admitted that when the system fails, the 2nd amendment is there to hit the reset button.No, it wouldn't.
There's already a system in place for that, and it failing to do it's job isn't because Trump got elected, it's because they've been shitting on it for decades.
But the second amendment is NOT there for terrorist groups to take over the government and institute a rule that is counter to the goals of the constitution. The constiution is not designed to allow fascist groups to take over. The second amendment very much cares if the people are virtuous or shitty. That's why you're allowed to ban felons from owning weapons. That's why you're allowed to arrest people for planning terrorist acts. That's why laws against treason exist. No matter how right you are that the government is supposed to be afraid of the people, the constitution also exists to keep people safe. "To promote domestic tranquilty." Vesting power in known bad actors is not domestic tranquility, and promoting the idea that a terrorist coup is "exactly the intent of the 2nd amendment" is not domestic tranquility. The purpose of the second amendment is not to allow petty thugs to take over and plot genocide against anyone with different colored skin.You're overemotional, as you do tend to get in this sort of discussion.
The second amendment is there to keep the government afraid of the people. Be those people virtuous, or shitty. The ultimate effect of representative democracy is we end up with the government we deserve... and that goes for the results of putting amendments into practice as well.
If they were brown and shouting "Allahu Akbar" while storming the capitol, they'd be mowed down in seconds. If they're white and doing it For the Good of the People, it's "the intent of the constitution, only considered a crime because they don't have enough support".But the second amendment is NOT there for terrorist groups to take over the government and institute a rule that is counter to the goals of the constitution. The constiution is not designed to allow fascist groups to take over. The second amendment very much cares if the people are virtuous or shitty. That's why you're allowed to ban felons from owning weapons. That's why you're allowed to arrest people for planning terrorist acts. That's why laws against treason exist. No matter how right you are that the government is supposed to be afraid of the people, the constitution also exists to keep people safe. "To promote domestic tranquilty." Vesting power in known bad actors is not domestic tranquility, and promoting the idea that a terrorist coup is "exactly the intent of the 2nd amendment" is not domestic tranquility. The purpose of the second amendment is not to allow petty thugs to take over and plot genocide against anyone with different colored skin.
Gas when the idea of shooting left wingers is brought up.The second amendment isn't something to be used just when you don't like a president's policies - policies that are discarded simply when someone else gets elected.
Well, to be fair... this possibility is exactly the intent of the 2nd amendment. The reason it's a crime and not a revolution is merely because it doesn't have enough actual popular support.
I didn't say the motivations weren't bad. In fact I specifically said the motivations WERE bad.Just pointing out that in one case he thinks the motivations are bad and in the other they aren't.
Nah, it's totally there for hunting, self defence and shooting them in the air for fun.So if you'd stop splitting hairs for a moment, you'd see you just admitted that when the system fails, the 2nd amendment is there to hit the reset button.
Yeah dude, but that's true of everything.As I said, the reason it's a crime this time and not a revolution is merely a matter of numbers. Or to put it less cynically, because the white supremacists are still outnumbered by good people by a lot.
What...what possible danger could his female friends have caused with tampons that they needed to be confiscated?
Robert Evans of Behind the Bastards Podcast
It's a threat to their masculinity.What...what possible danger could his female friends have caused with tampons that they needed to be confiscated?
They could be used to forcibly remind men that women exist for non-sexual purposes. This would be a very embarrassing thing for the major sources ofWhat...what possible danger could his female friends have caused with tampons that they needed to be confiscated?
State troopers said they were taking anything that could be thrown at legislators, which included tampons, maxi pads, sugar packets, and condoms.
I'm pretty sure you can throw a gun at a legislator, too.Tampons Confiscated, Guns Allowed as Texas Senate Debates Abortion
State troopers confiscated tampons and maxi pads from people entering the Texas Senate gallery on Friday afternoon as senators began debating a controversial new abortion regulations that are almost certain to pass.www.theatlantic.com
Non-twitter news source.
Evidently, the last time Texas tried to pass this legislation, people in the gallery disrupted the proceedings by throwing pads and the like. I don't imagine anyone threw guns the first timeI'm pretty sure you can throw a gun at a legislator, too.
Traditionally, you wait to throw your gun at someone until after you have expended all your ammunition.I'm pretty sure you can throw a gun at a legislator, too.
It is not illegal to own a bazooka (or an RPG for that matter) but you pay very hefty transfer taxes on them and the ammunition.I was under the impression those were classed as WoMD and not "firearms." If so, that's could maybe mean a trip downtown for some potentially intense 'splaining.
--Patrick
This is stupid for several reasons. First, it's a single shot weapon so ammunition costs is not a thing. Second, the one he's wearing has already been fired so it's nothing more than an inert tube. Third, this proves it's not about exercising his rights to anything is is more for intimidation than anything.It is not illegal to own a bazooka (or an RPG for that matter) but you pay very hefty transfer taxes on them and the ammunition.
Ammo isn't a thing for a single shot LAW, sure, but it is for other recoilless rifles and RPGs. Last I looked into it, the transfer fee (tax) on purchasing such things was a flat $200 a pop. As in, per round.This is stupid for several reasons. First, it's a single shot weapon so ammunition costs is not a thing. Second, the one he's wearing has already been fired so it's nothing more than an inert tube. Third, this proves it's not about exercising his rights to anything is is more for intimidation than anything.
Big fucking surprise.
As it should be. Actually it shouldn't be. It shouldn't be available to fucking civilians. But in the case of the picture in question, your point was not right. For other weapons of the same type, yes, but not the subject at hand.Ammo isn't a thing for a single shot LAW, sure, but it is for other recoilless rifles and RPGs. Last I looked into it, the transfer fee (tax) on purchasing such things was a flat $200 a pop. As in, per round.
Yeah, my post was a little nebulous I guess, because I expanded it ("This is not illegal to own, and neither are other things like it"). So yeah, this guy is a chuuni dumbass for hauling around an empty tube on his back to look intimidating. But it's not illegal.As it should be. Actually it shouldn't be. It shouldn't be available to fucking civilians. But in the case of the picture in question, your point was not right. For other weapons of the same type, yes, but not the subject at hand.
It's not real freedom until i can own my own nuke, and y'all know it...I disagree about what should be available to civilians, but you know that, and I know you know that, and we both know there's not much point in hashing it all out again.
There's actually no law preventing private ownership of nuclear weapons.It's not real freedom until i can own my own nuke, and y'all know it...
Does any country have laws that say you can't build your own nuke?Just a whole lot of restrictions on the fissile material it takes to make them.
You know, I'm not sure, actually.Does any country have laws that say you can't build your own nuke?
Might want to check Sealand.You know, I'm not sure, actually.
Gonna need a citation on that. WMD is a treaty thing, not a law enforcement thing, from what I've read. At least in the US.Owning any type of weapon of mass destruction is illegal worldwide, both for states and for individuals, with some specific exceptions, such as small batches of smallpox for research purposes etc.
So, yes, it's very much illegal to own a nuke, even if you build it yourself.
Might want to check Sealand.
Also discovered this yesterday:
View attachment 34013
Yes, you're looking at a 2-shot 12ga top-break pistol that you can buy for about $500 and have mailed to your door.
But it's okay! It's legal because it's a black powder pistol, which means it is considered part of the musket family.
The reviewer suggests that it is good for close-range use only, but not exactly suited for things like suprise duck hunting. Penetration is lackluster, and maintenance/loading are a chore.
Sooooo it looks intimidating, but it's really not very effective for defense...and should appeal to the people who fit that exact description.
--Patrick
Right, but those are considered to be "sawed-off shotguns" and therefore subject to restrictions similar to those imposed on machine guns--extra tax, registration, documentation of transfer, etc. The Diablo is no doubt marketed to people who do not wish to be burdened with such things.It's been done before.
Maybe not illegal to own but certainly illegal to use, threaten, or attempt or conspire to use a WMD. Although - from a purely theoretical POV - it might be interesting to see someone defend themselves from being charged with threatening to use a nuke by claiming 1st Amendment rights.Gonna need a citation on that. WMD is a treaty thing, not a law enforcement thing, from what I've read. At least in the US.
I'm pretty sure this was a plot in metal gearMaybe not illegal to own but certainly illegal to use, threaten, or attempt or conspire to use a WMD. Although - from a purely theoretical POV - it might be interesting to see someone defend themselves from being charged with threatening to use a nuke by claiming 1st Amendment rights.
I suspect that if someone did own, or was attempting to build, their own WMD in the US that the US Gov would treat the mere possession of said WMD as an attempt to use it & charge them appropriately. I further suspect that such a person would almost certainly be "killed resisting arrest", regardless of how much they actually resisted.
"Oh no! We didn't violate the treaty. You see, that bomb belongs to one of our citizens. The government of our honorable country bears no responsibility for what a citizen owns."Gonna need a citation on that. WMD is a treaty thing, not a law enforcement thing, from what I've read. At least in the US.
Even if they were a Boy Scout?the US Gov would treat the mere possession of said WMD as an attempt to use it & charge them appropriately.
Governments are bound by treaties. Citizens are bound by laws. I'm assuming that this is what Gas is referring to."Oh no! We didn't violate the treaty. You see, that bomb belongs to one of our citizens. The government of our honorable country bears no responsibility for what a citizen owns."
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
Yes, and if governments are bound by treaties, then they must enforce them, and I don't see how anyone would buy the "I'm not responsible for the WMDs my citizens own, that I was fully aware of, and intentionally gave them the right to possess."Governments are bound by treaties. Citizens are bound by laws. I'm assuming that this is what Gas is referring to.
Dangit, I was gonna point that out, heh.
And died at age 39, his mother committed suicide, etc.But he did make eagle scout!
I was actually asking in the context of Gas pointing out that it's not the device that's illegal, it's it's "ammunition"... aka the radioactive stuff.Owning any type of weapon of mass destruction is illegal worldwide, both for states and for individuals, with some specific exceptions, such as small batches of smallpox for research purposes etc.
So, yes, it's very much illegal to own a nuke, even if you build it yourself.
Mostly I'm after protection from impact munitions. The feds are not yet using live rounds and I hope to hell they don't get to that point, but the chances are good that eventually I'm going to find my way to the front line of somebody's protest, and someone's going to put out a call for the white shield, and I'm going to wind up where I belong - on the line between the black protesters and the feds. So far we have half-face ventilators with exchangeable cartridges, padded and slightly cut-resistant mechanics gloves, OTG impact resistant goggles, silicone ear plugs, and knee pads. Originally, I was just going to go with bike armor like you see the X-games athletes wearing, but the cops have rapidly changed from batons to impact munitions, so that's probably not going to provide enough protection.If you're actively contemplating the purchase of body armor, then I'm of the opinion you need to evaluate your current situation and whether staying in it is still worthwhile.
That said, isn't the plated stuff more to stop AP munitions? And part of the reason for its design is that once a plate has soaked up an impact, it will need to be replaced with a fresh one. A vest offering "ballistic" protection is designed to catch expanding (i.e., lead) projectiles carrying high kinetic energy BUT you can't automatically assume it will be effective in a stabby knife fight unless it explicitly says so.
It's a lot like buying a case for your phone. Some cases protect better against impact, intrusion, liquid, infiltration, etc. But unless you know ahead of time exactly which one you're going to need, there's always the chance you're going to end up bringing a ballistic vest to a knife fight.
--Patrick
Are you trying to conceal carry the body armor? Plate carriers (and plates) are harder to hide AFAIK. However, they're also way more versatile, since you can upgrade/add plates piecemeal to fit your needs. A ballistic backpack (i.e. one you can fit a plate inside of to use as a shield/chest protection) is another concealable possibility.So... gun tangential question. For bulletproof vests, should I be looking at the ones like law enforcement wear in TV shows, or plate carriers?
Very dependent on the type of plate. Soft and hybrid plates are very much a thing.That said, isn't the plated stuff more to stop AP munitions? And part of the reason for its design is that once a plate has soaked up an impact, it will need to be replaced with a fresh one. A vest offering "ballistic" protection is designed to catch expanding (i.e., lead) projectiles carrying high kinetic energy BUT you can't automatically assume it will be effective in a stabby knife fight unless it explicitly says so.
Nah, not much concern for hiding the armor. No one seems to care if you're wearing body armor to a protest, as long as you hold your phone in the air while doing so.Are you trying to conceal carry the body armor? Plate carriers (and plates) are harder to hide AFAIK. However, they're also way more versatile, since you can upgrade/add plates piecemeal to fit your needs. A ballistic backpack (i.e. one you can fit a plate inside of to use as a shield/chest protection) is another concealable possibility.
Very dependent on the type of plate. Soft and hybrid plates are very much a thing.
And they're doing wonderful things with non-newtonian solids these days.Soft and hybrid plates are very much a thing.
I'm sure this is something I really don't need to be concerned with. But it's a fun little mental exercise and it could come in handy at some point in time. But no, I don't live anywhere that I even feel the need for more than my mask, a pair of basketball shorts, and sandals to be out on the streets. Maybe a hat, if the sun's out. Don't want to get skin cancer. This is more for if I just happen to be visiting my sister in law in Portland while this is all still going on.And they're doing wonderful things with non-newtonian solids these days.
Fortunately, I am not in a position where I need to do much comparison shopping.
--Patrick
Don't think that's the sort of protection you want, then--or, if it is, it's way overpriced. You'd want the sort of body armor that's meant to (just) absorb blunt trauma, not dissipate piercing projectiles.Mostly I'm after protection from impact munitions. The feds are not yet using live rounds and I hope to hell they don't get to that point, but the chances are good that eventually I'm going to find my way to the front line of somebody's protest, and someone's going to put out a call for the white shield, and I'm going to wind up where I belong - on the line between the black protesters and the feds. So far we have half-face ventilators with exchangeable cartridges, padded and slightly cut-resistant mechanics gloves, OTG impact resistant goggles, silicone ear plugs, and knee pads. Originally, I was just going to go with bike armor like you see the X-games athletes wearing, but the cops have rapidly changed from batons to impact munitions, so that's probably not going to provide enough protection.
And this could be something as simple as coiling bike lock cable into a space-filling curve over the surface of a moving blanket that you've basically cut into a chasuble to wear under a jacket, or attaching a couple short lengths of rebar or conduit with heavy-duty duct tape to a pad made of cork board to wear on a forearm or thigh. It's really not that hard to improvise effective blunt-force armor from items commonly found at a hardware store.You'd want the sort of body armor that's meant to (just) absorb blunt trauma, not dissipate piercing projectiles.
Every day we will march until change happens. No meaningful change has happened in Portland. So, no. Also, the feds and the local cops are working together, they're not fighting against each other.Has anyone ever considered, y'know, maybe, just disengaging for a week or so? Let the cops and other authorities kill themselves instead of protesters?
I liked it better when you thought baton beatings was the worst you would have to weather.I don't think coiling some bike lock cable in a blanket is going to cut it.
Me too. Pickle barrel armor is easy enough to make that every half-decent SCAdian fighter should have a set. Wooden shields from plywood with plastic or leather wrapping for the edges? Also pretty easy. Impact munitions though, those are something else. Also, apparently when CS gas breaks down due to age it breaks down into even more lethal gasses, phosgene, and other VOCs, so using 16 year old gas with a shelf life of 4 years on your own populace? Nasty.I liked it better when you thought baton beatings was the worst you would have to weather.
--Patrick
Things changed this morning. This is no longer just a protest. The Federal Agents have stepped up their tactics to literally kidnapping people off the streets, throwing them in unmarked civilian rental-vans, and disappearing into the pre-dawn darkness while throwing pipe-bomb looking devices out of the doors. They're preparing to sweep the park across from the federal building, and the snipers on the roof have been carrying live ammo for days now. Despite demands from the Mayor, the Governor, our Senators, and our Congressional Reps, the feds refuse to leave. In addition, the federal government is threatening to step up their involvement by sending elite CBP agents to all sanctuary cities. This is no longer a protest. This is an invasion.I'll say this: going in with a shield will make you a target for a quick takedown. As in, expect the cops to rush you if things go bad and to end up in the hospital as a result of it.
Hong Kong taught us a lot about modern protesting. What are you doing for head protection? Construction helmets work well, but again make you a target. They've actually started making ball caps with protective plates in them for protest use.
With that in mind, is Ruger a reputable maker of 22LR semi-auto rifles? Cabela's has a great sale on them right now; $230 for a semi-auto, but I'd have to buy a sight for it. Also, how difficult is it to install a gun sight accurately?
I love my Ruger pistols. I haven't tried any of their rifles, however. Dialing in a scope isn't too hard. You'll just need some sandbags or something similar like that to rest the gun on and aim at a target downrange, try to make sure the gun doesn't move, aim the crosshairs at the middle of the target and fire 5 to 10 rounds. then move the crosshairs to the center of the grouping of where the bullets actually hit. The adjustment is usually made by a couple of Allen screws.With that in mind, is Ruger a reputable maker of 22LR semi-auto rifles? Cabela's has a great sale on them right now; $230 for a semi-auto, but I'd have to buy a sight for it. Also, how difficult is it to install a gun sight accurately?
Awesome. Our county sheriff still isn't processing handgun licenses, so it's all long-arms for us.I love my Ruger pistols. I haven't tried any of their rifles, however. Dialing in a scope isn't too hard. You'll just need some sandbags or something similar like that to rest the gun on and aim at a target downrange, try to make sure the gun doesn't move, aim the crosshairs at the middle of the target and fire 5 to 10 rounds. then move the crosshairs to the center of the grouping of where the bullets actually hit. The adjustment is usually made by a couple of Allen screws.
The Ruger 10/22 carbine is one of THE best-known, most widely-owned .22cal rifles in existence. It's like asking if Honda is a reputable maker of hatchback cars.is Ruger a reputable maker of 22LR semi-auto rifles?
Installing it isn't that difficult. Training it is what will take the most time.how difficult is it to install a gun sight accurately?
This is excellent advice. Just make sure to do your training at (or close to) the distance you intend to shoot AND make sure to do it on as windless of a day as possible. A standard .22 projectile only weighs just a little over 2-1/2 grams (about a tenth of an ounce) so it is extremely susceptible to wind, impact with raindrops, etc. So-called "hyper-velocity" ammo is even lighter. Keep in mind that using a scope means you will not be able to use your iron sights for close-range shooting as it will obstruct their use. You can buy elevated sight rings that hold your sight up high enough to peer below your scope for iron sight usage, but the increased elevation of the scope means the firearm's overall profile will be higher and harder to fit in cases and such, and the added height also slightly reduces the precision of your scope due to the increased parallax.You'll just need some sandbags or something similar like that to rest the gun on and aim at a target downrange, try to make sure the gun doesn't move, aim the crosshairs at the middle of the target and fire 5 to 10 rounds. then move the crosshairs to the center of the grouping of where the bullets actually hit. The adjustment is usually made by a couple of Allen screws.
Marlin is another name that was good back when I was still looking.I’m partial to savage rifles.
No worries, friend. Nobody can know everything. This is the same sort of thing that happens to me when I ask stuff like, “I’ve never seen Avatar: The Last Airbender, is it any good?”I just didn't know if they were also good with rifles.
Good to know.The 10/22 it a great little rifle. Especially for training.
If this will be for self defense, might look at a pistol caliber carbine.
Thank goodness. Forty snuck up on me and I am suddenly very cognizant of the amount of things about which I need to know more.Martin is another name that was good back when I was still looking.
No worries, friend. Nobody can know everything. This is the same sort of thing that happens to me when I ask stuff like, “I’ve never seen Avatar: The Last Airbender, is it any good?”
—Patrick
...no? My Model 44 is still considered a carbine even though it is chambered for .44 Mag. I think there are lever-action .357’s, too.PCCs are technically classified as handguns, aren’t they?
Hmm... Henry's are sold by my local gun shop of choice, so that's a definite plus. Let me root around on Pew Pew Tactical for a bit and see what I wander out of Bi-Mart with (after a successful federal background check, and appropriate waiting period, of course).Big Boy X Model | Henry Repeating Arms
Creating the mold and then breaking out of it is something that we take great pride in. It’s how we progress and continue pushing the boundaries of what lever actions are capable of. The Big Boy X Model does just that and marks an evolutionary step in a product line with quite the pedigree...www.henryusa.com
My personal recommendation. I wish I could find one for myself. I want the .357 and shoot .38 special out of it for home defense. So I won't end up shooting too far through the walls.
Mossberg Maverick 88 Security 12 Gauge Pump-Action Shotgun | Academy
Designed with a fixed choke, cylinder-bore barrel, the Mossberg Maverick 88 Security 12 Gauge Pump-Action Shotgun is designed with a 3" chamber that handles factory...www.academy.com
My current home defense gun. $200 and I hope to never shoot it again.
I got my maverick 88 for $120. I love it. It has never jammed on me, and it just feels good to shoot.My current home defense gun. $200 and I hope to never shoot it again.
This is why you shouldn't LARP with AR15s.Blowing off your own foot and dick to own the libs
As with most specialty guns, beers, trucks,.... I think it's because "why not?".Why?
Whyyyyyyyyy???
--Patrick
First time I shot it, it goes "whooom!", and all the guys on the line who were shooting .22's with their kids all look over real slow like "what the actual fuck...". I was not prepared. I totally scoped myself in the eye, and after the one shot, I trekked my ass back up to the gun shop on the hill above the range and bought two layers of gel pads for my shoulder.Mmm... 30-06...
Sounds about right. I've only fired one once, and it was when I was 15 at Philmont. I think I had that kickback bruise for a week at least.First time I shot it, it goes "whooom!", and all the guys on the line who were shooting .22's with their kids all look over real slow like "what the actual fuck...". I was not prepared. I totally scoped myself in the eye, and after the one shot, I trekked my ass back up to the gun shop on the hill above the range and bought two layers of gel pads for my shoulder.
I was wearing a tshirt with no padding for that first shot. Felt a lot like a horse kick. And if you've never felt a real horse kick, you only think you imagine what that feels like. But you're wrong.Sounds about right. I've only fired one once, and it was when I was 15 at Philmont. I think I had that kickback bruise for a week at least.
FAR too accurate for police work.Looks to me like you could apply to the Milwaukee PD.
Here too...but that doesn't mean I'm happy with how sloppy my shooting has gotten.Looks to me like you could apply to the Milwaukee PD.
This is my advice too. If you want it for home defense, you can't beat the price, reliability, and ease of use of your basic 12-gauge shotgun. It's got other advantages too:You can still get Mossberg Maverick 88s (a very decent 12 ga shotgun) for under $200 brand new.
This 'cause of your dumbass brother? If you want something cheap there's always the Yeet Cannon, assuming you can find one.So I'm looking to buy a weapon. But when I looked they were all over the place for price. What sucks is if I do this I won't be able to afford my computer upgrade. Mother fucker.
I wonder if anybody has ever tried to Kevin McCallister it and use a recording of that sound to ward someone off.- Simply cocking a shotgun is a field tested and researched deterrent. Everybody knows what that sound is and what it means. People have lost their nerve and surrendered just hearing it.
The guys I talked to about them said basically, "look, you couldn't get me to stand down range of a guy using one, but it definitely wouldn't set my mind at ease to have one as my only defense option, either."I mostly just wanted an excuse to point out there's a gun called the Yeet Cannon. Though I've heard they're actually fairly reliable, just ugly as shit.
I looked around at M9A1 and 92X Compact pricing for something he might be more used to, but those seem to be hovering right around $650.$300....hard to beat. (and, of course, like most /r/GunDeals sales, it went out of stock minutes after being posted)
Ah, looks like you're probably right. I saw the beavertail and immediately assumed Colt.I believe that is a Kimber Micro 9 Sapphire
Damn, that is a bit better shooting than I do. I shoot the hell out of the line between the 9 and 10 ring to the right.
Technically it's an AK-103, but same family.Calico 9mm SMG: Fiddly gun, can't get past 400 rounds without an issue.
AK-47: You can force this this to fire more than 600 rounds in a row, WHILE it's on fire, if you're willing to slam it into a table.
I think after putting > 1k rounds through it, slamming it into a table would be little more than a welcome diversion for it. Also if you haven’t destroyed the table after the first dozen or so magazines, I doubt hitting it will be any more effective.You can force this this to fire more than 600 rounds in a row, WHILE it's on fire, if you're willing to slam it into a table.
Assuming you mean for hunting prey (and not for, say, disabling a vehicle), then you are probably looking for something chambered in 7.62x54, .30-06, 7mm Mag, or .300 WMR. There are many more, but these are commonly available.Who are Barrett's competitors?
Remington, aside from having a bazillion creditors, was about to be sued out of existence by the Sandy Hooks families... and that was after a previous restructuring. I personally believe they are breaking up the business to prevent the lawsuit from going forward, while protecting the assets by dividing them up into entities that can't be held liable for the event.Remington Arms apparently went out of business a few months ago, which came as a bit of a surprise to me, but there are still plenty of rifles in the channel.
—Patrick
What if I'm hunting Blue Birds and Greyhounds? 50 BMG is pretty much it, right? I mean, aside from 37mm or 40mm grenades? Also, I should point out, Oregon has very lax limitations on weapons ownership.Assuming you mean for hunting prey (and not for, say, disabling a vehicle), then you are probably looking for something chambered in 7.62x54, .30-06, 7mm Mag, or .300 WMR. There are many more, but these are commonly available.
A quick search shows manufacturers of such bolt-action rifles include Weatherby, Remington, Savage, Mauser, Franchi, Bergara, Winchester, Browning, and more I don’t recognize (Howa, CZ, Christensen, etc).
Remington Arms apparently went out of business a few months ago, which came as a bit of a surprise to me, but there are still plenty of rifles in the channel.
EDIT: I left off .308 as another caliber to look for. Its performance is similar to that of the 7.62x54 but with slightly longer reach.
—Patrick
That's utter bullshit, btw, because everybody knows the brand name on the receiver did not cause those deaths, it was the finger on the trigger that did, but GUNZ BAD*. But I realize that sometimes even being right is not enough to prevent being SLAPPed out of existence if your opponents are sufficiently motivated and/or numerous.Remington, aside from having a bazillion creditors, was about to be sued out of existence by the Sandy Hooks families... and that was after a previous restructuring. I personally believe they are breaking up the business to prevent the lawsuit from going forward, while protecting the assets by dividing them up into entities that can't be held liable for the event.
The phrase you're probably looking for is "anti-materiel."What if I'm hunting Blue Birds and Greyhounds? 50 BMG is pretty much it, right?
Oregon has very lax limitations on weapons ownership.
If you want to limit yourself to 50 BMG, the only other names I saw in a "for sale" search were Armalite's AR-50A1 and the Remington R2MI, though there are apparently plenty of other models. They're all ridiculously heavy 20-40lb and ridiculously expensive (to buy AND to feed), though.Wikipedia said:In the United States, Washington, D.C. disallows registration of .50 BMG rifles, thus rendering civilian possession unlawful. California prohibits the private purchase of a rifle capable of firing the .50 BMG through the .50 Caliber BMG Regulation Act of 2004. Connecticut specifically bans the Barrett 82A1 .50 BMG rifle. However, .50 BMG rifles registered prior to the enacted bans remain lawful to possess in California and Connecticut. Maryland imposes additional regulations on the sale and transfer of .50 BMG rifles and other "regulated firearms", and limits purchases of any firearm within this class to one per month, but does not impose registration requirements or any form of categorical ban.
They repeatedly, intentionally advertised the Bushmaster in a fashion that was not only irresponsible, but was designed to highlight it's effectiveness in a use that, as a civilian firearm, it should not and would not be used. It's the equivalent of making pesticides and highlighting it's effectiveness at killing humans if you make them drink it... except you actually designed the chemicals to do that the entire time and profited off of people's fantasies of poisoning their neighbors... and that's a position coming from someone who is generally pro-gun rights!That's utter bullshit, btw, because everybody knows the brand name on the receiver did not cause those deaths, it was the finger on the trigger that did, but GUNZ BAD*. But I realize that sometimes even being right is not enough to prevent being SLAPPed out of existence if your opponents are sufficiently motivated and/or numerous.
This tells me that I do not know as much about the case as I thought I did.They repeatedly, intentionally advertised the Bushmaster in a fashion that was not only irresponsible, but was designed to highlight it's effectiveness...
I could tell you, but...First the care package, now this?
I feel questions coming on about what your new job might entail...
—Patrick
...yes, yes. But then all the mystery would be gone from our relationship, I know.I could tell you, but...
I've heard some really good press on that gun. Let us know how it is to shoot after your first hundred rounds through it.My S&W SD9VE is just too cumbersome for concealed carry.
So I went out and got me a cute little Sig Sauer P365 today.
View attachment 36314
Will do. Gonna try to take it out next weekend.I've heard some really good press on that gun. Let us know how it is to shoot after your first hundred rounds through it.
Got a buddy who as of yesterday is trying to unload (heh) about 800rds of .22LR that someone gave him for free.Ammo shortage? Not if you know where to troll on the internet
What's his asking?Got a buddy who as of yesterday is trying to unload (heh) about 800rds of .22LR that someone gave him for free.
I'm half tempted to take him up on it.
--Patrick
In reality, you will want the laser dot to be slightly above your sight dot (to account for bullet drop), depending on the distance to the target.Click the sight adjustments until the two dots line up. Done. I have high hopes.
I mean... technically it does? It's just the laser isn't sufficient power to damage anything other than eyesightSo, it doesn't convert your bullet gun into a laser gun? LAME.
Well, technically, it does. It's just a weak-ass laser gunSo, it doesn't convert your bullet gun into a laser gun? LAME.
Weak equalling being able to blow your arm off in one shot, and it just being outclassed by automatic rocket launchers, gravity propelled monomolecular ninja stars / crystal shards, plasma bullets etc.Weak laser? Check.
Extended mag, specifically to make it less rinky-dinkyIs that an extended mag? Or just something else to make it less rinky-dinky?
--Patrick
Of the two candidates, Trump is also the only one to legitimately suggest taking everyone's guns awayDidn't the ammo vanish from the shelves during Trump's term?
I did not see a single box of ammo at Academy (a big box outdoors store) today.
I'd just buy from someone else.Pfft. I'd probably lie about that anyways, just like they would.
And I'd do it while wearing my JOE hat, too.
How else is a doctor supposed to get rid of these things?"Why is there a gun?" To shoot the birds, of course.
Virginia already does this for open carry, and it hasn't really been an issue the 10 years I've been up here. Occasionally I see a guy strapping at the grocery store. It's not a big deal.It's worse than I thought. No permits. No background checks.
Fuck you, Texas. Just fuck you.
This is about open carry though, not buying guns.*shrug *
I'm European. Normal people in a civilized society don't need easy instant access to firearms as far as I'm concerned. This is just something our cultural differences are too big for.
But even assuming you want anyone and everyone to have free access, no background checks at all - literally nothing - is a horrible idea that will result in more deaths than there needed to be.
Gun purchases will still require federal background checks. I assume DA is talking about 'constitutional carry'--the right to carry a gun openly or concealed.It's a big deal for someone with mental issues, be it depression or psychosis or delusions, to be able to literally just walk into a Walmart and buy what they want to shoot up a school or store.
I mean, I'm pretty sure there will be plenty of middle aged ammosexuals doing it to own the libs as well.Gun purchases will still require federal background checks. I assume DA is talking about 'constitutional carry'--the right to carry a gun openly or concealed.
I'm of the opinion that anyone who wants to carry concealed now probably already does do, whether or not they have a permit.I don't imagine taking the permit out of that equation will change much. The biggest societal change will probably be the open carry part. It's not a big deal in Virginia, but we've had it here for a long time. In Texas, I imagine it'll be like someone's 21st birthday (alcohol age here). They'll overdo it considerably because they've been repressed, until they learn to moderate.
Probably. They probably don't understand that, especially in Texas, there's this thing called the "gun toting democrat". I conceal carry. I don't want to advertise that I have a weapon or where it is--the only time someone should see it would be if I ever have to use it (which is an unlikely but non-zero chance). We even have a couple subreddits for left-leaning gun owners.I mean, I'm pretty sure there will be plenty of middle aged ammosexuals doing it to own the libs as well.
I agree, "The Right" is a religion at this point, and they don't understand that a lot of people don't feel the need to advertise their political leanings on a minute by minute basis.Probably. They probably don't understand that, especially in Texas, there's this thing called the "gun toting democrat". I conceal carry. I don't want to advertise that I have a weapon or where it is--the only time someone should see it would be if I ever have to use it (which is an unlikely but non-zero chance). We even have a couple subreddits for left-leaning gun owners.
I don't think it's nearly as much of a left/right issue as the right assumes.
Funny you should say this:I agree, "The Right" is a religion at this point
Uh-oh.Possibly unrelated, Iron Rod Ministries had previously released a draft of a potential constitution for the United States of Cheon Il Guk, "the Kingdom of God (and/or Heaven), a sovereign and actual nation does not yet exist in this world, but is the long awaited culmination of the End of Time as prophesied in the Biblical Scripture," a legal document that breaks down laws for taxes, militias, courts, etc., and formally recognizes Moon himself as "King of the Second Kingship of the Kingdom of God, Cheon Il Guk, as the Crowned Successor and Representative Body of the Cosmic True Parents of Heaven and Earth and full Inheritor of the Kingship of God."
As opposed to what? A 9mm won’t go through much. But yes, it’s a single house that’s a half mile from anyone else.No experience with either, sorry. I assume this means you're living in VERY detached housing, if you're looking to feed 9mm into something that's shoulder-enabled.
--Patrick
I don't own one, but I have heard a LOT of glowing reviews about the Kel-Tec Sub2000. I also have a cousin who owns a KSG and sings its praises loudly (I know it's a 12ga shotgun, but it speaks further to the quality of Kel-Tec firearms, and it's bullpup, not full sized).Anyone have any experience with these guns? I’m leaning towards the keltec right now.
Most "home defense" stuff is aimed (heh) at people looking for something one-handed (or else is a shotgun), so once I start seeing a stock, I start assuming your nearest neighbor isn't all that near.As opposed to what? A 9mm won’t go through much.
I hope that changes. A PCC isn’t going to make a 9mm go a crazy range, and you’ll at least hopefully hit what you want, which is harder with a shotgun.Most "home defense" stuff is aimed (heh) at people looking for something one-handed (or else is a shotgun), so once I start seeing a stock, I start assuming your nearest neighbor isn't all that near.
--Patrick
I mean, they already do, assuming you can rein 'em in.A PCC isn’t going to make a 9mm go a crazy range
I guess what I meant is that it’s not going to penetrate through walls more than something like buckshot, and you’re less likely to have stray lead flying through the air. But that does show part of the reason I’m going for something like this. With a carbine, it should still reliably reach out 50 or 100 yards in the open.I mean, they already do, assuming you can rein 'em in.
--Patrick
I’m pretty sure my local shop has some sub 9000s. I know they have the ruger I want, and it’s marked at $750. I could only deal with gun shop talk for so long, and didn’t want to stick around to ask about the keltec.One of the bigger draws of the Kel-tec Sub 2000 is that it accepts magazines from several 9mm or .40S&W pistol makers. If you have any of those, it might be worth getting the Kel-Tec. Expect to pay $350-600 and expect to have trouble simply finding one.
The Ruger is a bit pricer... expect $800-950 for new.
Really, what is the point of that besides hosing it down with testosterone?Shotguns have gone all kinds of crazy since i was young...
View attachment 39410
Yes, it definitely looks like something that's for gun LARPers, but here are the reasons I bought it:Really, what is the point of that besides hosing it down with testosterone?
Like he said, it’s already illegal to own firearms if you’re convicted of domestic violence, for the exact reason he’s talking about. It’s just not enforced as well as it should be. Before considering any type of new gun restrictions, I think we need to look harder at how current laws are enforced and ensure anyone buying a gun goes through a required background check no matter how they buy them.If you haven't heard, Jon Stewart is back with a new show, The Problem with Jon Stewart.
And this clip points out an almost direct correlation between domestic violence and mass gun violence.
That's a bullpup? How?
- As a bullpup model, it is mostly weight-centered at the pistol grip instead of the barrel, making for faster target acquisition.
I guess it's not. The magazine is not behind the trigger. But that's how it's classified on the gun website where I researched it. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯That's a bullpup? How?
I've only seen the first one so far, the one about the burn pits. It was sobering.If you haven't heard, Jon Stewart is back with a new show, The Problem with Jon Stewart.
yeah, I made mention of that in my acknowledgement that @drifter was correctThat is definitely not bullpup. The magazine would be in the stock, if it were.
View attachment 39416
And when we do, it's about how crap those gun safes actually are. Too many LPL videos to post here proves that out.We don’t talk enough about securing those guns with quick access gun safes.
It’s more about keeping kids away from a gun than someone trying to pick a safe. A toddler won’t try to break into a gun safe, but they will grab one that’s sitting under a mattress or in a drawer.And when we do, it's about how crap those gun safes actually are. Too many LPL videos to post here proves that out.
Some of these gun safes could be opened by a curious grade schooler who knows nothing about lock picking.It’s more about keeping kids away from a gun than someone trying to pick a safe. A toddler won’t try to break into a gun safe, but they will grab one that’s sitting under a mattress or in a drawer.
My dad kept his hunting rifle and shotgun in the master bedroom closet...but it's still not good enough security to leave a gun within reach of children.
I would rather have someone using a cheap safe that’s easy to break open than nothing at all. It’s the same thought behind including those cheap cable locks with guns. I’m sure any curious kid could find the keys for them and open them up, but there are a lot of people who wouldn’t have used a lock at all if it wasn’t included.Some of these gun safes could be opened by a curious grade schooler who knows nothing about lock picking.
Yeah, that might keep out a toddler, but it's still not good enough security to leave a gun within reach of children.
The annual fee, maybe, but the liability insurance? Oof, probably higher. Much higher.It's like 25 dollars a year.
Dunno...if you believe the NRA numbers, cars are way more deadly than guns and more likely to be involved in accidents, so liability insurance would be lower than car insurance. Of course, whether insurance brokers will use those numbers or, y'know, the real ones, is another matter. But that's just the Free Market in action baby!The annual fee, maybe, but the liability insurance? Oof, probably higher. Much higher.
--Patrick
My assumption is that California will mandate a certain minimum level of coverage. A somewhat expensive minimum. One that will be enough of an onus that ownership will be significantly curtailed, but which will technically not count as "infringement."whether insurance brokers will use those numbers or, y'know, the real ones, is another matter.
That's what infringed means.One that will be enough of an onus that ownership will be significantly curtailed
Oh, I know. But barriers that are solely financial in nature have been upheld before. Repeatedly.That's what infringed means.
I've made that same presentation when people were talking about things like the right to food, the right to water, the right to health care. It didn't go over well.Oh, I know. But barriers that are solely financial in nature have been upheld before. Repeatedly.
2A unfortunately doesn't guarantee possession, it merely guarantees the opportunity to possess -- i.e., 2A is not "You get a gun! And you get a gun! Everyone gets a gun, line forms here!" instead it is "You are allowed to have a gun...subject to all these sufficiently-onerous-but-not-quite-meeting-the-legal-definition-of-infringing requirements, of course."
So far as I know, you and I are actually in agreement (or close enough, anyway) as to what it SHOULD mean, but of course that's not the reality.
--Patrick
That raises another thing in my mind, another example of the law of unintended consequences.While I'm obviously of the opinion the whole 2A is a horrible mess that's going to lead straight to CW2 being a victory for the racist conservative idiot side, and that proper weapon control and training and all that are necessary, I do agree that placing financial burdens in between that make it harder are pretty much the description of infringement. It's like saying you have a right to vote, but you'll have to take a day off from work, travel 2 hours, wait in line for 2 hours, and oh yeah, register and get a photo ID at least a month beforehand. Of course, such a thing would never happen, we all know everyone is completely free to easily, cheaply and quickly vote. Phew.
There have been a few articles in the news as of late equating gun control and racism.That raises another thing in my mind, another example of the law of unintended consequences.
As Bubble so anviliciously points out, this is the 2A version of a poll tax.
It was shown that poll taxes disproportionately disenfranchise the poor, ergo becoming an infringement upon the voting rights of minorities.
So by the same logic, it could be said that the pragmatic effect of gun liability insurance will be to disarm minorities.
Which I'm sure will be of great comfort to the badged klansmen in blue.
I thought this was immediately obvious. Whenever you attach a requirement to any "Right," it ceases to be a Right and instead becomes a division between the "haves" and the "have-nots," where your dividing line is money, transportation, freedom to reproduce, whatever.That raises another thing in my mind, another example of the law of unintended consequences.
As Bubble so anviliciously points out, this is the 2A version of a poll tax.
This may come as a shock to you, but that is standard procedure in 38 out of the 50 states. All of the bad, naughty guns must be destroyed so that only the well-behaved, responsible guns may breed.They punished the gun.
Honestly, I can see good reason for it. Especially in this case, since if it weren't destroyed it would become a collector's item.This may come as a shock to you, but that is standard procedure in 38 out of the 50 states. All of the bad, naughty guns must be destroyed so that only the well-behaved, responsible guns may breed.
*Relicit would become a collector's item.
I could not agree more with this. If I steal a gun out of someone’s prized collection and murder someone with it, they are technically supposed to destroy it, even if it’s some rare $200k collector’s model. That’s such a waste.it is rather ironic given "guns don't kill people, people kill people". If the gun is innocent, why is it the only one being punished?
Well, yeah, he's white.He was released at the scene.
Is this road rage? It's hard to tell, it kinda looks like the other car fires once and breaks his window before he starts firing. Why does this guy have a gun safe in his center console? Is he off duty cop? A drug dealer? Just a 2a nut?
There is a link to an article with the tweet.Is this road rage? It's hard to tell, it kinda looks like the other car fires once and breaks his window before he starts firing. Why does this guy have a gun safe in his center console? Is he off duty cop? A drug dealer? Just a 2a nut?
This video is crazy and needs context
Ok, so crazy 2a guy that just really wanted to shoot someoneThere is a link to an article with the tweet.
1) The other car does not fire anything; the other driver came up next to him, cursed at him, and threw a water bottle. This driver responded a few seconds later by shooting. According to the article, there is adequate time between the water bottle being thrown and the shooting for this driver to realize he wasn’t in danger.
2) No one knows why he had the gun safe in his console. He was a civilian investigator for the local fire department (but he resigned after being arrested).
"Finally! No longer will I be simply be a Good Guy, now I will be a Good Guy With A Gun!"Ok, so crazy 2a guy that just really wanted to shoot someone
yeah, because every gun store I've ever shopped at, every employee has had a sidearm on their hip. I was trying to imagine a scenario where I got rounds into a magazine, and then the magazine into a weapon without having a half-dozen pistols pulled on me before I completed the task.Given how many Trump signs I have seen in the windows of gun stores, I think giving some of these people credit for common sense is a bit of a stretch..
I wonder if this guy was trying to commit suicide by opening fire in a gun store, and left disappointed because nobody shot back.
Looks like a department store.yeah, because every gun store I've ever shopped at, every employee has had a sidearm on their hip. I was trying to imagine a scenario where I got rounds into a magazine, and then the magazine into a weapon without having a half-dozen pistols pulled on me before I completed the task.
There's actually a lot of data on that, which I'm currently too tired to research to give proper numbers and citations, but the gist is pretty simple. Risk of suicide is substantially higher among those who own a gun, and those who attempt suicide by gun generally succeed, while those who attempt via other means usually turn out to be nonfatal.While I'm all in favor of gun legislation, the firearm numbers is almost 50% suicides. Yes, guns lower the threshold and make it easier to take your own life "on a whim", but still - a large part of those would have tried without a gun, too.
Yeah, I know, I recognize that. it's, you know, the bit "guns lower the threshold and make it easier", up there :-PThere's actually a lot of data on that, which I'm currently too tired to research to give proper numbers and citations, but the gist is pretty simple. Risk of suicide is substantially higher among those who own a gun, and those who attempt suicide by gun generally succeed, while those who attempt via other means usually turn out to be nonfatal.
From the article, " That said, suicides in general seem to have actually lowered during the first year of the pandemic, and gun violence may have declined in 2021."I'd assume Covid is also adding to those suicide by gun numbers as well.
Hmm I wonder where this could be going.This bill prohibits the state of New Hampshire, a political subdivision of this state, or any person acting under the color of state, county, or municipal law from using any personnel or financial resources to enforce, administer, or cooperate with any law, act, rule, order, or regulation of the United States Government or Executive Order of the President of the United States that is inconsistent with any law of this state regarding the regulation of firearms, ammunition, magazines or the ammunition feeding devices, firearm components, firearms supplies, or knives.
Aren't they actually called suppressors?only took about 18 months from the time the money came out of my pocket...but finally
View attachment 41679
Aren't they actually called suppressors?
Ah, thank you, I appreciate it.His oft mentioned and long-awaited suppressor, I assume
ok, WTF am I looking at?
Yup. Banish 30 multi-caliber suppressor.His oft mentioned and long-awaited suppressor, I assume
Lol, right? I was like "That can't be a cannon".With the spool I thought that was a mini cannon.
Lol, I just wanted to prop it up so it had some depth in the photo. I had the spool of lycra elastic (which I've been putting in the crochet shorts) handy.With the spool I thought that was a mini cannon.
That'll teach you not to use a banana for scale!Lol, I just wanted to prop it up so it had some depth in the photo. I had the spool of lycra elastic (which I've been putting in the crochet shorts) handy.
Huh, Canada just blanket banned handguns. As of today handguns are frozen in place save for a select few exemptions.
Not really, it's ridiculously difficult to legally own a handgun in Canada. This affects almost no one.Reposting this here because.
The world will watch with great interest.Canada bans new handgun sales in latest gun control action
Regulations prohibiting the sale, purchase or transfer of handguns within Canada took effect on Friday, as Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said the measure builds on earlier efforts banning handgun imports.www.reuters.com
—Patrick
This feels like a Darwin Award contender.Man dies after being shot by his own gun because he refused to take it off his person before entering a room with an MRI machine.
"When the machine was turned on, the magnetic force pulled de Novaes’ gun from his waistband and it discharged, the bullet striking him in the abdomen."
... The obvious being reckless child endangerment, irresponsible handling of a firearm, and gross negligence?“ 'There was never a danger other than the obvious,' Stuteville claimed."
There is nothing wrong here other than everything obviously wrong... The obvious being reckless child endangerment, irresponsible handling of a firearm, and gross negligence?
Some people need to have the obvious pointed out to them.... The obvious being reckless child endangerment, irresponsible handling of a firearm, and gross negligence?
It’s useless because it attempts to reframe the relationship between the act and “danger” like those equations that try to prove that 1 is equal to 0 through a series of mathematical transformations that reach their conclusion through an illegal operation (dividing by zero) but which hope you just don’t notice that part.it's a useless and content-free statement.
I thought it was the M1 Garand already.Alabama Representative Barry Moore has introduced a bill to make the AR-15 the "National Gun of America" (Newsweek article)
This is also the guy who co-sponsored the bill to end the Department of Education.
Many handguns, particularly Glocks, don’t really have a safety or any cocking mechanism. If it’s loaded, it will fire.#3 likely means it was stored cocked, which is bad for the gun mechanism AND for people nearby.
—Patrick
Or you can just get a dogMany handguns, particularly Glocks, don’t really have a safety or any cocking mechanism. If it’s loaded, it will fire.
I think one of the most dangerous narratives going around the pro-gun circles is that seconds matter in a home invasion and having your gun locked up means you might as well not have one at all. There’s plenty of good fast access safes available now that can easily prevent this.
Well sure, there’s a lot of better ways to protect yourself from imaginary threats, but it’s America!Or you can just get a dog
Yes…IF the person pulling the trigger has sufficient strength to overcome the trigger’s “weight.” SAO/DAO models aside, that means the first trigger pull will be noticeably more difficult than the ones that follow, as that first pull has to overcome spring pressure to move all of the mechanical bits into firing position before it can drop the hammer to fire that first round. This can easily require 12-15lbs of exertion. Most will then divert some of the gas flow from that fired round to power the work of setting up the firing position again, which means the only work required to pull the trigger the next time is the effort required to release the hammer, which can be as little as 3-5lbs. You might see this listed as “double-action first pull, single-action thereafter.”Many handguns, particularly Glocks, don’t really have a safety or any cocking mechanism. If it’s loaded, it will fire.
Right, what I’m saying though is that many handguns are striker fired now and will have about a 5 pound trigger weight all the time. There is no cocking or de-cocking the hammer.Yes…IF the person pulling the trigger has sufficient strength to overcome the trigger’s “weight.” SAO/DAO models aside, that means the first trigger pull will be noticeably more difficult than the ones that follow, as that first pull has to overcome spring pressure to move all of the mechanical bits into firing position before it can drop the hammer to fire that first round. This can easily require 12-15lbs of exertion. Most will then divert some of the gas flow from that fired round to power the work of setting up the firing position again, which means the only work required to pull the trigger the next time is the effort required to release the hammer, which can be as little as 3-5lbs. You might see this listed as “double-action first pull, single-action thereafter.”
But because of that whole “I must be ready for that first shot!” mentality, too many people leave their gun cocked and ready to fire, entirely skipping that first “heavier” pull.
—Patrick
If I had it in my budget, I'd protect myself with a robotic Richard Simmons.Well sure, there’s a lot of better ways to protect yourself from imaginary threats, but it’s America!