Jump to content

NotActuallyALonghorn

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    5779
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by NotActuallyALonghorn

  1. Back in the day I had a .44 mag lever gun I bought for my 18th birthday, and I would buy ammo for it all the time from Walmart. I just told them I was buying it for a rifle and there was no problem. That was almost 20 years ago, though. Pretty much any pistol round is also a rifle round, so there is really no way to enforce it unless things have changed.
  2. Couple candidates coming up...
  3. Based on how much of the blue circle is left, the timer was set for 30 minutes. Also, that's an android.
  4. I saw this guy lots on the cam at this location... I have a nice sequence of his stalking his way across the frame from left to right and then running back the other way, but I apparently selected my file management app as the default app for selecting pictures to upload and the previews are way to small to select anything and not sorted in any redeemable order, so you will just have to use your imagination.
  5. On your first point, I meant to say that it would ban them for those under 21. To suggest that a legal adult who can be drafted into or volunteer for the army should not have the right to a freaking Ruger 10/22, which is probably the most popular rimfire rifle in the US by sales, is a little overboard. It's not exactly the choice of mass shooters by any stretch, and nor would it be effective for them. To your second point, So, yes, in some cases, they can. Whether it is successful or not could be up in the air, as they do have what on the surface appears to be a decently designed law. But they may also get into a situation where the evidence is the professional opinion of the person who initiated the whole thing, which can easily allow for personal biases. However, this article throws up a few red flags, yet conveniently doesn’t really delve into the data behind them. While we all agree that people should exercise their civil rights responsibly, attempting to strip someone of them for that reason seems a bit orwellian. What other civil rights should we be allowed to strip from others because we don't think they are exercising them responsibly? So their implementation seems to be a bit racist, with black people being almost twice as likely as white people in some jurisdictions to be stripped of their rights. This is also concerning. The article lists possible reasons, such as individuals not having proper representation to make them stick, but the fact that a group of people who have proven themselves to be untrustworthy time and time again has such a disproportionate success rate should raise some questions. So that thing you claim doesn't happen actually does happen. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you mean that it isn't successful. And that's fair. But how many of those frivilous cases have been pursued by the law to enforce penalties on those false accusers? I'm guessing the number is something close to the number of cases that are pursued against people living on their form 4473. Which is close to zero. I would like to see some statistics on that if anybody can find them. There is plenty of evidence out there that these laws have the potential to be abused, and gun owners can have a legitimate concern about it. This is why I suggested the model I suggested. It allows for the law to be tailored to meet those suggestions and gain more trust from gun owners and develop a system that everybody except the most fringe elements can work with. The alternative is to keep saying there is nothing to worry about while nothing ever happens.
  6. Shoot, I need to rewatch The Wire, Deadwood, Clone Wars, and Battlestar Galactica anyways.
  7. I'm not sure it's the best, but it is the one I enjoy rewatching the most.
  8. Also, if you made universal background checks under the Coburn model mandatory after a five year trial period, you could incorporate a red flag law with it that would prevent transfers to those who have been flagged with proper due process instead of outright taking any firearms they already own away from them. This would also prevent fresh 18 year olds from acquiring guns, without preventing current gun owners from being afraid to seek help with mental health because of the risk of losing their rights. So a veteran who is experiencing PTSD wouldn't have to worry about whether or not their therapist is an activist anti gun type who might lean towards confiscating their guns just because they have nightmares about Afghanistan.
  9. That's fair. So why exactly do you think that 18-22 year olds should be denied constitutional rights, yet still be required to register for the draft? What other constitutional rights can they be denied? There is a well established federal legislative history of disallowing FFL holders from selling certain guns, handguns specifically, to them, but still allowing private transfers. Now, this is relevant because that was allowed because it was not believed that it was constitutional to completely deny them the right to acquire a handgun. However with the expansion of the commerce clause, it was believed to be justified to deny them FFL transfers. Getting further into legislative history, when the NFA of 1934 was being debated in congress, they originally wanted to include handguns in the list of firearms that would be subject to the law. However, they felt this would not pass constitutional muster and dropped them so that it would not risk SCOTUS striking the whole thing down. At the time, the commerce clause had not been expanded, so it was passed under Congress's authority to levy taxes. Of course, this was before the second amendment had been incorporated under the fourteenth amendment to the states, something which has not been challenged given that that only happened in 2010. Given the fate of other laws that tax civil rights which have been incorporated under the fourteenth amendment, it could very well be that the transfer tax goes bye bye as well. Anyhow, that's a lot of words to say that there is a long legislative history of allowing certain restrictions, but not outright bans, on certain firearms for certain people who have not been denied their rights through due process. There have been lower court cases, and the results are fairly predictable if you follow that stuff, but there is no real established law. The real question is do you want to establish it with the current court? Maybe the better tactic would be to disallow those transfers through FFL's while still allowing private transfers. You could even throw in a universal background check system for all private transfers that would be akin to the one Senator Coburn proposed in 2013, except run by the state instead of the federal government. If you have to, make it optional for five years to test it out and get enough votes to pass and then see what the results are before trying to make it mandatory. I would suspect that a system like that would be used for the vast majority of private transfers between strangers. Also, write better bills. Bozo's Mini-14's only saving grace, beyond it's terrible accuracy, is that it is to expensive for angsty teen incels. But something like this: Or this: Is not likely at all to be used in a mass shooting event. Yet the bill discussed previously would ban them. And probably also an freaking Ruger 10/22, which is the most popular and practical .22 long rifle guns made in the modern era. For real, write better bills that are actually well thought out instead of coming up with some crap that couldn't even pass a cursory review by someone knowledgeable on the subject and is likely to get struck down in the courts.
  10. Cliffs notes? That's seems like a lot of random stuff to look up just to understand what you are saying.
  11. *Fightlite lower. Didn't notice that autocorrect changed it until just now.
  12. What about an AR built on a fighting lower?
  13. Moving to Mexico only works if you already have a reliable source of income. There is a reason lots of them choose to come here despite the challenges that come with that. Don't get me wrong, I love Mexico. There are lots of awesome places down there that most Americans will never even hear about, but if you look at the cost of property and goods that aren't domestically produced down there and then look at what the average income level is in the heartland of Mexico, things can get pretty tough for the average Mexican who wasn't born into privilege.
  14. Discussing measures that could or could not be effective is one thing in this thread, but posting cloak roomy memes is another entirely. There are plenty of threads for that stuff. But since you mentioned children, I have noticed that @Brisketexan never responded to the fact that his assertion about guns being the number one cause of death for children being misinfomation. It's ok to admit that you were suckered in by an emotionally charged headline and didn't take the time to properly vet the claims. Ill even admit that I got the percentages I cited from a reddit thread and haven't checked them out for myself yet. We all, well most of us, have day jobs and families and can't spend every waking hour chasing down exactly what is and isn't fact, which is one of the big reasons why misinformation can be so dangerous. If I get some time, I'll try and confirm that those numbers are accurate, but between work, select soccer for the oldest, coaching three year old soccer for the middle, and trying to reign in the youngest who apparently just wants to watch the world burn, I've already got a pretty busy schedule.
  15. RIP MAC. He always told a good story on here. I'll have to read some of his other stuff in the next few days.
  16. Red flag laws will also lead to fewer people seeking out treatment for mental health.
  17. Pulled the memory card from my camera this weekend and went through all the pics on it. By the look of things, this guy probably sired half the fawns that hit the ground this spring.
  18. QC has probably been checking to make sure they fire fire without pulling the trigger, just like the drawings say to make them.
  19. That's not QC, that's engineering.
  20. Yeah, sane kind of issues for me. It's dang near impossible to go back and correct a word that autocorrect changed and clicking on links or other buttons takes several tries before it finally works. No issues on any other sites.
  21. .22 long rifle is .223 diameter, so a Ruger 10/22 is illegal for those under 21 according to this bill. It's a poorly written bill designed to appeal to the lowest common denominator. If they wanted to do it proper, they would specify centerfire rifles. It also means that several classic hunting rifles such as the Remington 7400 or Browning BAR are illegal for those under 21, despite not being at all practical for Nefarious means. So my inheriting my great grandfather's hunting rifle at the age of six would have been illegal under it. If they wanted to do it proper, they could, but they instead chose to be lazy.
  22. Just so you know, the study that claimed that the number one cause of death for "children" in the US is firearms included 18 and 19 year olds in in their definition of children. Why? Because they accounted for 47% of the deaths they cited. 75% of the deaths were ages 16-19. When somebody says that the leading cause of death for kids in the US is guns, the majority of people are not thinking of those age ranges. But it is an effective disinformation strategy designed to elicit an emotional response based not on facts, but what people imagine those facts to be based on a quick reading of the headline. Oh, and they also excluded children under 1, because they aren't really people yet and including them would muck up their disinformation campaign.
  23. It's funny how you think that they were all functionally idiots and couldn't look at the rapidly developing industrial revolution and think maybe that it would affect arms as well.
  24. Easy there, Grand Wizard.
  25. Since we are talking sensible regulations, let's go ahead and name a politician who advocates for them so that the folks here can vote for them. To me, the list looks like a lot of nothing. So my ballot will be cast with a lot of nothing. Unless you can name a politician or party that actually supports sensible regulations, you are doing nothing but pissing in the wind. But I agree with Bozo to an extent, and it is almost enough to push me to run for office just to try to add some sensibility to things.
Ă—
Ă—
  • Create New...