Jump to content

NotActuallyALonghorn

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    5711
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by NotActuallyALonghorn

  1. This is just my mom's portion and half of my aunt's (who has no kids) that will go to my brothers and me. Three kids for me and just one for my older brother. Not expecting any from my younger brother. Older brother and niece live in Montana, so I don't see then having string opinions on how it is managed and there is a good chance I buy him out one day.
  2. Yeah, I was leaning LLC because of all the reasons stated, but was mainly curious if there are pitfalls I haven't thought about since her lawyer seems to be strongly against it.
  3. Are you talking about a divorce or paying movers?
  4. I said financial advisor, but what I meant was estate lawyer. So she is going to get paid. I just hate to see the land divided up so much. If we go that route, each of my kids has ten acres to look forward to. And land fragmentation is a pretty serious issue, not just with regards to how it is managed, but ecological issues as well.
  5. Here's a picture of one of them from a couple years ago chucked up in my very dirty flintlock after a long shooting session.
  6. I thought it pretty obvious that that is a broken point made from obsidian. The other stuff is really what I was curious about. Some of it is almost glass like in it's translucency. Yet it is tough enough to last just as long as a piece of English flint when I manage to knap a piece into the right shape to use in my flintlock. My understanding is that quartz us generally too brittle to last more than a few shots when used as a gun flint.
  7. So is the consensus that a jointly owned LLC is the way to go? My mom is trying to set up her estate right now and her financial adviser feels strongly that it isn't a good idea. Her share of my grandfather's land is about 90 acres of east Texans timberland (was pasture when I was a kid) and my brothers and I don't want to see it get split up into smaller and smaller pieces.
  8. According to the data compiled by Ammoland, any handgun has a success rate of something like 98% at deterring bear attacks. In fact, they only found one case where a handgun was used to shoot an attacking bear that was unsuccessful, and it was with a .22.
  9. Gracia, Imma. Internet is too slow here to get the autism-imbed to work. The mezcal probably didn't help much either.
  10. https://images2.imgbox.com/15/ad/KwMlSm0G_o.jpg All from the same spot in central Mexico. The ones I found before threw a pretty decent spark for my flintlock without destroying themselves.
  11. Was mostly joking. I would never watch that show with my children.
  12. You should watch The Boys with your daughter. One of the characters doesn't talk except in sign language. Not deaf, but kinda close.
  13. There are some pretty legit 3D printed cans being developed by folks if you like to mess around with stuff like that. User paboiii on reddit has designs that can stand up to full auto .308 and still have a decent usefull life. Plenty durable for a more casual shooter.
  14. If this had been some rule further restricting immigration rights or abortion rights and SCOTUS had overturned it because of executive overreach, plenty of y'all would be pissing your pants with jubilation. But the mere fact that this case had to do with restrictions on firearms that were almost universally agreed upon by both sides of the aisle to need congressional action to fix has made y'all so upset really speaks to what is broken in this system. Civil rights don't actually matter. The further consequences of decisions don't matter. All that matters is getting a W for you side in the hopes of transforming society into whatever vision you think is best for it. Damn the future implications of the decisions. This same attitude is what kept us one vote away from not being able to have sanctuary cities or states legalizing pot when the court decided Printz v United States.
  15. From Sotomayor's dissent: Seems like she just said AR-15's are in common usage.
  16. This whole thing reminds me of Primtz v United States, where all of the "liberal" judges dissented because the question involved guns. However it set the precedent that the federal government cannot compel state or local law enforcement to enforce federal laws. A precedent which now allows states to legalize marijuana and have sanctuary cities. If the "liberal" side of the court had gotten their way in that case, there would be significantly fewer freedoms in other areas of society. But they blindly opposed it because guns.
  17. She used the "difference" in those to support her argument for why they used the word function instead of pull, which wasn't really necessary because she had already used the M2 as an example where you pushed the trigger instead of pull. She then goes on to used these guns as examples where it is clear she doesn't even have an element understanding of the technical details of how they function, despite that being a key part of her argument. Furthermore, her argument is essentially that 1+1=1, and the history confirms that, nevermind that for over a decade history actually agreed on the opposite until the legal genius of Donald Trump came along and informed everyone we were wrong. But I guess you can keep sucking his legal dick (as long as je doesn't pay you any hush money) while you toss out other cornerstones of legal theory like the rule of lenity.
  18. I read it. Clearly, somebody told her a BAR can fire eight rounds per second with a single pull of the trigger, and she took that to mean that it shoots eight round bursts. She then contrasts it with a Thompson submachine gun which can empty an entire magazine with one pull of the trigger. This helped form part of the backstop for her argument. Except the the eight rounds per second thing is the rate of fire. It is a select fire machine gun that functions the same as the gun she immediately contrasts it with. Nobody on her team actually bothered to learn about the technical details, despite basing their entire argument on technical details. The entire thing is riddled with errors.
  19. The second amendment isn't even mentioned in any of the opinions or the dissent. This is about whether or not the ATF went to far in interpreting federal law with specific language to include bumpstocks when they spent over a decade saying they weren't machine guns (an opinion pretty much everybody agreed with, including Barack Obama and Dianne Feinstein). It was nearly universally agreed upon that it would require legislation to ban bumpstocks until Trump came along and issued an executive order to the ATF saying do it anyways.
  20. Who do you think the prohibition on drug addicts owning firearms is designed to prevent from owning firearms? Adding extra constitutional violations to it just makes it extra hard for those people to exercise their rights.
  21. I'm not opposed to spmething like this, but I think you would have to combine it with an expansion of the court so that decisions wouldn't fluctuate too much due to the makeup of the court shifting. And any plan to increase the size would need to be gradual with set expansions every few years.
×
×
  • Create New...