BHMCruiser

He wasn't comparing Walsh and Page. He was just saying Walsh is UNDERRATED and Page is OVERRATED and Stairway is just an elaborate fingering exercise. Pay attention.

Boar on the floor!

That's an excellent firearm. Not a hunk of crap, you know, like a Mini-14.

I meant on all their products. After Cerberus got Remington, the product quality plummeted. Compare a new model 870 to a 20 year old Express. They aren't even in the same universe in terms of quality and craftsmanship.

The 700 issue covered nearly the whole production of that rifle and was only fixed by retrofitting a new safety as part of a recall. Remington QC is objectively terrible.

Good recs thank you. I love the 870 but left handed is unobtainium. I also would love a left-handed Model 42 but I may as well wish for a magic unicorn. I won't have a 700. I don't think they are safe and I don't trust them. I'm sure the vast majority are perfectly fine but I personally witnessed the safety discharge malfunction on one and we were very lucky the person holding the gun was practicing safe firearm handling at the time or somebody could have been killed.

Back on topic: I need to invest in left-handed rifles and shotguns for my boys, both of whom are left-handed. Anybody on here left-handed who can share some accumulated wisdom on what works for you? I need a small-bore rifle for small game, deer rifle, and some sort of shotgun.

I respectfully disagree. I think there are a lot of constitutional regulations you can pass post-Bruen. And I think some of the courts applying Bruen to strike down some laws have it wrong. But that's a different discussion. Dobbs was a terrible decision for a lot of reasons

AWs = "assault weapons." What is the purpose of the proposed ban on semiautomatic rifles if they can still get AR-15s? It's a silly law that does nothing, written by people who don't understand guns. And there's no constitutional basis for denying civil rights to adults under the age of 21. The NRA has made it clear that its opposition to red flag laws is based on their lack of due process. Show me one red flag law with a predeprivation hearing requirement. I bet those are constitutional. That's why you look to the historical tradition at the time the amendment was adopted, and not later attempts at gun control.

kind of like the First Amendment and computers/internet, or the Fifth Amendment and modern surveillance equipment, etc. etc. And Bruen is no different than the Heller/McDonald 2A tests. Some courts are misapplying the test but that is what happens when the courts engaged in massive resistance to Heller. It will stabilize.

Then why are you promoting a bill that is simultaneously overbroad and unconstitutional while underbroad and fails to capture AWs?

Pass constitutional laws if you want change. Pass unconstitutional laws if you want more reaction and counterreaction from the people.

Simply not true. How many "red flag" laws has the NRA challenged in court?

I just read HB2744. Most of what it provides is already federal law. It's ban on giving rifles to 18-21 year olds is unconstitutional. And on its own terms it fails to ban AR-15s chambered in .223 or 5.56. So what idiot wrote this worthless law?

Bans on 18 year olds getting guns are unconstitutional. Red flag laws that do not have due process protections are unconstitutional. Red flag laws that have meaningful due process protections are constitutional, yet are nearly never proposed as laws. Why is that?

As I understand the law there were several moments during the confrontation where my use of potentially lethal force would have been lawful/justified. So, restraining somebody acting that way in a chokehold would be understandable. If they ended up passing away, but that was not the intention of the person who put him in a chokehold, then it's unfortunate but it happens. I am a large man and this guy was the most aggressive person I've ever encountered and he had a level of malice you don't find in your typical bar fights or whatever we've all been in. He was talking about rape and murder and he was big, and he was strong. I was happy there was a peaceful resolution but it was touch and go.

nom nom nom

In my eight years in DC there was one occasion where a clearly aggressive, violent and deranged person might have gotten shot if people had carry permits. The Metro was slow due to an outage and we were on the platform for about an hour. During that time period, this very muscular guy in his forties, homeless looking, kept following this group of college girls around loudly saying he wanted to show them a good time and they could either let him fuck them or he would rape them, right here right now. Of course somebody called the cops, but it took 20 minutes for them to show. I intervened when it was clear the girls were scared and he was physically herding them into a corner, and he completely lost it. He was screaming at me to mind my own business or he'd kill me and he got almost within arm's reach before I calmed him down to a low buzz by the time the cops arrived but it was scary and unpleasant. And even though there were dozens of people on the platform, I got no help whatsoever. Even the guy who had been with the girls peeled off and let them fend for themselves. The girls were very grateful and I told them they needed better friends in front of the guy. If a marine had choked him to death, I would not have objected. Although, candidly, I was really most concerned about being bitten or scratched. I doubted he had a weapon.

Wait so now you are adding a condition, that the deal will close? I thought we were only discussing whether the 192 is real. I don't think there's any doubt it's real. Enjoy your hatwich.

Is hamsterhookah Derka's dad or something? How can anybody read this stream of consciousness nonsense and think "yes, I agree and am glad somebody wrote that"?

everything you write is painful to read

I double down and move farther away. So if I'm upstairs in another room and she starts yelling, I go downstairs. If I'm in the kitchen, I go into the garage. Eventually I'll just hang out in my kids' treehouse.

what kind of hat

bingo And Frank can even think it's because the boys beat Mattson so bad he didn't want to talk to them anymore.

I disagree. The 192 is real, I think. I think Mattson was responding to what he perceived to be Roman's very real desire not to sell to him. He is giving them a price the board will not reject, so that Roman has to do what Mattson wants. It's a power play; he is buying Roman and Ken and showing them they are irrelevant and what they want does not matter. He cultivated Shiv so he could split and weaken the three siblings. And that's why he wanted her to take a picture of Roman and Ken when the deal landed - to watch them in agony knowing the sale was now unstoppable but having to pretend that everything was good and they did a good job.