Jump to content


Legacy Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited


4,767 Surly 10%

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. From Sotomayor's dissent: Seems like she just said AR-15's are in common usage.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. That's why you have it written down somewhere so you can help her cancel it.
  11. All that may be true, but it seems like you might not be factoring in the fact that this is Baltimore.
  12. They've been able to make the night sisters work without being cheese. Not sure why this was so hard.
  13. https://interestingengineering.com/innovation/thin-film-transform-normal-glasses-night-vision Here's to hoping this is legit. Could be pretty revolutionary.
  • Create New...