Jump to content


Legacy Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by NotActuallyALonghorn

  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.
  14. Yeah, my roommate in college had one. It was ugly. But it shot exactly where you wanted it to shoot without having to think about it.
  15. UYeah, that's a super easy DIY fix. Get a five gallons bucket and sit it under there until you get a couple hours to fix it. Empty it every few days and you don't even need to get in a rush. Obviously get a new regulator. Online will be cheaper and with a bucket under there there is no need to rush unless it is leaking bad enough that you can't keep it dumped. When your new regulator comes in, close the supply valve and open all your faucets. If you can unscrew the little nut thing on the bottom, drain it the way. Of not, unscrew the entire cup looking part enough to fill the bucket, but not so much that you can't screw it back in if the bucket fills up. Once the system is drained, swap out the regulator, keep all your faucets open, and slowly open the supply valve. When water is flowing normally through your faucets, close them.
  16. The lost in the woods episode was way worse. I mean, I get what they were trying to go for, but the writing was just bad and I found myself just waiting for it to end.
  17. Well, they did name an actual war after their vehicles...
  18. In the five or so years that they've had it, how many times have they really needed it?
  19. How much of this (if any) can be attributed to the tightening of lending standards post 2009? It's pretty generally accepted that renting costs more than owning, albeit with less risk if the market tanks. But to own, one generally needs capital and financial discipline to qualify for a mortgage. With tighter standards, fewer people can qualify. But that doesn't mean the demand for homes to live in has gone down. Which leaves renting. And to rent, somebody else has to own it. Looking at the graph posted on page one, it seems like the trend really started taking off post financial crisis. Which is exactly what one should expect following a tightening of lending standards.
  20. Yeah, but you told them to write it up as oil so he never knew the difference.
  21. Strap a dildo to a dolphin and they will evolve to use tools pretty quickly.
  • Create New...