The Leopards Eating Faces and Unlubed Dildo of Consequences Thread

[Gil Bang 26,007]

2 minutes ago, BHMCruiser said:

I thought it was the lack of a loaded chamber indicator (sufficient to satisfy CalDOJ) so they were not submitted. I was unaware of any drop test issues for any models of the Glocks and don't understand why the newer ones would fare worse than the older Gen 3 design. 

When I was looking for a certain Sig, I was told that it wasn't available in CA because it hadn't been submitted for drop testing, and that other pistols were unavailable for the same reason. That was from the gun department manager at Turners.  He might be full of shit, and I'm no expert.  

[BHMCruiser 1,816]

5 minutes ago, Gil Bang said:

When I was looking for a certain Sig, I was told that it wasn't available in CA because it hadn't been submitted for drop testing, and that other pistols were unavailable for the same reason. That was from the gun department manager at Turners.  He might be full of shit, and I'm no expert.  

New manufacturers are not submitting handguns because of the microstamping requirement which has been a big pinch point. 

[GenXer 2,990]

 

From Apr 2017.

But he’ll only deport criminals this time. Because cognitive dissonance.

Deport ‘em because they’re really stupid people. And we already have a surplus of that.

[Bozo_Casanova 26,540]

1 hour ago, BHMCruiser said:

Debating the NRA and its efforts, or the fruits of those efforts (like, for example, Bruen) is probably a pointless exercise. You and I can just agree to disagree on that. 

Well, fair enough, but I mentioned you and Flatty because we have an interest/hobby in common and since the Gun Owners thread probably isn’t the  place when there’s a point of contention, this will have to do. 
That said- we certainly do disagree. I don’t see Bruen as a win for Gun owners, full stop, and I don’t see how playing footsie with Russian spies or funneling Russian money into our elections, or spending members money on yachts and hookers represents gun owners either. 
 

 

1 hour ago, BHMCruiser said:

Even if Trump is, at best, agnostic on guns, he is not actively hostile to them at the highest level like the Biden administration was. If you are naive enough to fall for Kamala's lies about owning a type of gun she advocated banning in California and her pandering about using one to defend herself, then.....okay. 

I'm not a fan of Bondi, especially on guns, but I cannot parse your doomsday comment on the destruction of the constitution. I can tell you that people in Trump's inner circle are very big on gun rights and will have some positive influence there. Will it be perfect? Probably not. But maybe your idea of trading suppressors for red flags will have some chance of coming true. 

 

Here’s what I think: you’re betting that you can be in a transactional relationship with a counterparty who breaks deals with everyone and routinely violates the terms of the ones he does keep. And maybe you can, short term, but the man literally put taking guns without due process on the table. Can you explain to me, in my well-known and profound naïveté how you can be sure that Harris does not own the gun she owns and has mentioned several times going back to when she was a DA. Why wouldn’t she own a gun? 

No offense, but the projection here is off the charts. Of course she owns a gun. It’s same reason I own one (or in my case more than 10, but will always have a at least one), and probably the same reason you will too.

And given your involvement in the issue, the fact that you give Donald Trump,of all people, the benefit of the doubt is pretty telling. 

 

 

Edited 1 hour ago by Bozo_Casanova

[BHMCruiser 1,816]

3 minutes ago, BHMCruiser said:

New manufacturers are not submitting handguns because of the microstamping requirement which has been a big pinch point. 

Also I would not be surprised to discover Sig is concerned about the P320 and the drop testing, but I'm speculating. 

[BHMCruiser 1,816]

9 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Well, fair enough, but I mentioned you and Flatty because we have an interest/hobby in common and since the Gun Owners thread probably isn’t the  place when there’s a point of contention, this will have to do. 
That said- we certainly do disagree. I don’t see Bruen as a win for Gun owners, full stop, and I don’t see how playing footsie with Russian spies or funneling Russian money into our elections, or spending members money on yachts and hookers represents gun owners either. 
 

 

Here’s what I think: you’re betting that you can be in a transactional relationship with a counterparty who breaks deals with everyone and routinely violates deals he makes. And maybe you can, short term, but the man literally put taking guns without due process on the table. Can you explain to me, in my well-known and profound naïveté how you can be sure that Harris does not own the gun she owns and has mentioned several times going back to when she was a DA. Why wouldn’t she own a gun? 

No offense, but the projection here is off the charts. Of course she owns a gun. It’s same reason I own one (or in my case more than 10, but will always have a at least one), and probably the same reason you will too.

And given your involvement in the issue, the fact that you give Donald Trump,of all people, the benefit of the doubt is pretty telling. 

 

 

You don't think Bruen is a win for gun owners? Okay

[royiv 9,349]

9 minutes ago, BHMCruiser said:

Also I would not be surprised to discover Sig is concerned about the P320 and the drop testing, but I'm speculating. 

You still haven’t backed up your unsubstantiated claim about Biden being hostile towards guns for the last four years.

[BHMCruiser 1,816]

4 minutes ago, royiv said:

You still haven’t backed up your unsubstantiated claim about Biden being hostile towards guns for the last four years.

Because I'm not engaging in that. 

[royiv 9,349]

Just now, BHMCruiser said:

Because I'm not engaging in that. 

Lol. Because you can’t substantiate your claim. 

[Bozo_Casanova 26,540]

12 minutes ago, BHMCruiser said:

You don't think Bruen is a win for gun owners? Okay

I’d love to get Brisket’s take on this, but in my opinion calling Bruen a win for gun owners is like calling January 6th a win for voters. 

[BHMCruiser 1,816]

Just now, Bozo_Casanova said:

I’d love to get Brisket’s take on this, but in my opinion calling Bruen a win for gun owners is like calling January 6th a win for voters. 

I don't get that analogy. Bruen struck down a near total ban on carrying handguns outside the home for self-defense. It did so by holding that any restriction on the keeping and/or bearing of firearms must be rooted in the text of the Second Amendment and the historical tradition of American firearm regulation. This standard is more exacting even than strict scrutiny. During a panel discussion last year at a judicial conference the question the judges had was "what gun control regulation CAN survive this test," and the answer was "certainly the one at issue in Rahimi, and likely felon in possession, but after that we will have to see." 

I have trouble seeing the flip side of the coin where it was a loss for gun owners but you're a thoughtful guy so I will listen. 

[hobbes2702 13,065]

11 minutes ago, BHMCruiser said:

Because I'm not engaging in that. 

Wut? lol. You made a claim, someone asks for you to prove it and that’s your reply?

[DigglerontheHoof 21,225]

1 hour ago, BHMCruiser said:

Maybe she does. But the point is she has a long history of hostility toward gun rights, as did Joe Biden. That's all I'm saying. 

How many guns have Harris and Biden taken from you?

[kevwun 15,879]

They hadn't gotten to the guns yet because they were personally performing sex change operations on school children.

[BHMCruiser 1,816]

7 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

Wut? lol. You made a claim, someone asks for you to prove it and that’s your reply?

Ignore my claim then. Problem solved.

[hobbes2702 13,065]

2 minutes ago, BHMCruiser said:

Ignore my claim then. Problem solved.

So you were lying?

[Bozo_Casanova 26,540]

3 minutes ago, BHMCruiser said:

I don't get that analogy. Bruen struck down a near total ban on carrying handguns outside the home for self-defense. It did so by holding that any restriction on the keeping and/or bearing of firearms must be rooted in the text of the Second Amendment and the historical tradition of American firearm regulation. This standard is more exacting even than strict scrutiny. During a panel discussion last year at a judicial conference the question the judges had was "what gun control regulation CAN survive this test," and the answer was "certainly the one at issue in Rahimi, and likely felon in possession, but after that we will have to see." 

I have trouble seeing the flip side of the coin where it was a loss for gun owners but you're a thoughtful guy so I will listen. 

I’ll defer to the lawyers on the niceties, but in my opinion the decision is so outside the bounds of the history, precedent and the plain meaning of the texts involved, and the test it imposes is so absurdly subjective and nonsensical that it essentially means that future courts should feel encouraged to cherry pick whatever bits and bobs of history they wish, to serve whatever faction they feel most attached to at that moment. 

Thus- capture the capital and you can pick the president you want, capture the court and you can pick your laws, voters be damned. 

[BHMCruiser 1,816]

2 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

I’ll defer to the lawyers on the niceties, but in my opinion the decision is so outside the bounds of the history, precedent and the plain meaning of the texts involved, and the test it imposes is so absurdly subjective and nonsensical that it essentially means that future courts should feel encouraged to cherry pick whatever bits and bobs of history they wish, to serve whatever faction they feel most attached to at that moment. 

Thus- capture the capital and you can pick the president you want, capture the court and you can pick your laws, voters be damned. 

Got it. You mean it's a loss for gunowners in a sort of geo-political sense. I get that. I personally think the Dobbs decision really undermines the Bruen decision and the Heller decision and at best gives the impression that it's all just voting based on political preference and the next court can do whatever it wants until we all just shoot each other with California-compliant Austrian-made Generation 3 Glocks.

7 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

So you were lying?

fuck off

Edited 1 hour ago by BHMCruiser

[Bozo_Casanova 26,540]

Just now, BHMCruiser said:

Got it. You mean it's a loss for gunowners in a sort of geo-political sense. I get that. I personally think the Dobbs decision really undermines the Bruen decision and the Heller decision and at best gives the impression that it's all just voting based on political preference and the next court can do whatever it wants until we all just shoot each other with California-complaint Austrian-made Generation 3 Glocks.

I’m a Gen5 guy myself, other than the trigger.

[BHMCruiser 1,816]

Just now, Bozo_Casanova said:

I’m a Gen5 guy myself, other than the trigger.

Yeah but you cannot exclude law-abiding Californians from the impending civil war. That would be a pretty clear violation of their equal protection rights.

[hobbes2702 13,065]

2 minutes ago, BHMCruiser said:

Got it. You mean it's a loss for gunowners in a sort of geo-political sense. I get that. I personally think the Dobbs decision really undermines the Bruen decision and the Heller decision and at best gives the impression that it's all just voting based on political preference and the next court can do whatever it wants until we all just shoot each other with California-compliant Austrian-made Generation 3 Glocks.

fuck off

Lulz. “Cloak room is so mean to me”. 
pussy 

[BHMCruiser 1,816]

1 minute ago, hobbes2702 said:

Lulz. “Cloak room is so mean to me”. 
pussy 

no just a waste of time

[hobbes2702 13,065]

1 minute ago, BHMCruiser said:

no just a waste of time

Those pesky facts always getting in the way of your feelings huh 

[softlynow 1,824]

5 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

I’ll defer to the lawyers on the niceties, but in my opinion the decision is so outside the bounds of the history, precedent and the plain meaning of the texts involved, and the test it imposes is so absurdly subjective and nonsensical that it essentially means that future courts should feel encouraged to cherry pick whatever bits and bobs of history they wish, to serve whatever faction they feel most attached to at that moment. 

Thus- capture the capital and you can pick the president you want, capture the court and you can pick your laws, voters be damned. 

Republicans were already there before Bruen. They just needed to get Kennedy out of there.

In Rahimi, the Court basically admits that Bruen was too rigid. The 5th Circuit followed Bruen and concluded that since wife beaters used to legally arm themselves back then, they obviously can now. All but Thomas saw the flaw in the Bruen framework, and said it was more a general guideline (like the Pirate's Code) than a real judical test.

The Court, like the country in general, is no longer a serious entity.

[softlynow 1,824]

11 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

Those pesky facts always getting in the way of your feelings huh 

Dude, take the W. He took the L, sure like a pussy, but he took it.

[TwiceHorn 31,534]

32 minutes ago, softlynow said:

Republicans were already there before Bruen. They just needed to get Kennedy out of there.

In Rahimi, the Court basically admits that Bruen was too rigid. The 5th Circuit followed Bruen and concluded that since wife beaters used to legally arm themselves back then, they obviously can now. All but Thomas saw the flaw in the Bruen framework, and said it was more a general guideline (like the Pirate's Code) than a real judical test.

The Court, like the country in general, is no longer a serious entity.

Well said.

[InkaUtexas 26,094]

So glad we finally have a place to talk about guns.

Just a reminder, Amur and Snow Leopards are endangered species. So they get the first go around on dumbasses.