macphisto wrote:Your pro-gun step-brother is a fucking idiot.
And he's not really pro-gun.
Even if this were a good idea, I don't know how feasible it is under the current law. It would mean that all ranges would probably have to be FFLs and log all firearms into their books. Now they have to maintain these records for 30 years. Oh, and the range has to have significant upgrades for security and safes for all the weapons. For a given public range, how many members might there be? Dozens per lane at a minimum?
If you manufactured your own rifle, no FFL will touch it without you jumping through hoops and getting it serialized.
This model only works in places like Switzerland or Germany where shooting sports are the domain of a relatively small number of well to do hobbyists. Which is kinda what Biden is going for with his placing everything under the auspices of the NFA plan.
oh no, paperwork and actual precautionary steps to ensure that these dangerous things are accounted for... you know what, nevermind, seems complicated.
If they wanted to be FFLs, they already would be. Its not part of their business as it currently stands. The feds made being an FFL significantly more painful to be in the 90s for... reasons. Not sure if its improved anything.
The physical security of your typical outdoor range is effectively non existent. The only valuables on site is typically a small amount of ammunution. If you want one stop looting targets, forcing 100s of people to keep their rifles in safes crammed into the hunters safety training office sounds like an attractive approach.
You keep bringing up this same objection every time without engaging with the potential upsides or downsides. In your universe are regulations and checking boxes unalloyed goods?
I mean, wanting to make sure poor people have no legal, effective form of self defense could go either way, depending on your viewpoint.
There it is. Help, help, I'm being repressed! I can't have my AR-15 at home so self defense has been regulated out of existence!
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHH
macphisto wrote:Your pro-gun step-brother is a fucking idiot.
And he's not really pro-gun.
Even if this were a good idea, I don't know how feasible it is under the current law. It would mean that all ranges would probably have to be FFLs and log all firearms into their books. Now they have to maintain these records for 30 years. Oh, and the range has to have significant upgrades for security and safes for all the weapons. For a given public range, how many members might there be? Dozens per lane at a minimum?
If you manufactured your own rifle, no FFL will touch it without you jumping through hoops and getting it serialized.
This model only works in places like Switzerland or Germany where shooting sports are the domain of a relatively small number of well to do hobbyists. Which is kinda what Biden is going for with his placing everything under the auspices of the NFA plan.
oh no, paperwork and actual precautionary steps to ensure that these dangerous things are accounted for... you know what, nevermind, seems complicated.
If they wanted to be FFLs, they already would be. Its not part of their business as it currently stands. The feds made being an FFL significantly more painful to be in the 90s for... reasons. Not sure if its improved anything.
The physical security of your typical outdoor range is effectively non existent. The only valuables on site is typically a small amount of ammunution. If you want one stop looting targets, forcing 100s of people to keep their rifles in safes crammed into the hunters safety training office sounds like an attractive approach.
You keep bringing up this same objection every time without engaging with the potential upsides or downsides. In your universe are regulations and checking boxes unalloyed goods?
I mean, wanting to make sure poor people have no legal, effective form of self defense could go either way, depending on your viewpoint.
There it is. Help, help, I'm being repressed! I can't have my AR-15 at home so self defense has been regulated out of existence!
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHH
Biden's proposal also applies to the most popular handguns. You know, the ones with more than 10 round magazines. The kinds the cops use. They also use AR-15s. Its almost like they choose weapons for effective self defense (without too much of a barrier to entry from a price/ training standpoint).
macphisto wrote:Your pro-gun step-brother is a fucking idiot.
And he's not really pro-gun.
Even if this were a good idea, I don't know how feasible it is under the current law. It would mean that all ranges would probably have to be FFLs and log all firearms into their books. Now they have to maintain these records for 30 years. Oh, and the range has to have significant upgrades for security and safes for all the weapons. For a given public range, how many members might there be? Dozens per lane at a minimum?
If you manufactured your own rifle, no FFL will touch it without you jumping through hoops and getting it serialized.
This model only works in places like Switzerland or Germany where shooting sports are the domain of a relatively small number of well to do hobbyists. Which is kinda what Biden is going for with his placing everything under the auspices of the NFA plan.
oh no, paperwork and actual precautionary steps to ensure that these dangerous things are accounted for... you know what, nevermind, seems complicated.
If they wanted to be FFLs, they already would be. Its not part of their business as it currently stands. The feds made being an FFL significantly more painful to be in the 90s for... reasons. Not sure if its improved anything.
The physical security of your typical outdoor range is effectively non existent. The only valuables on site is typically a small amount of ammunution. If you want one stop looting targets, forcing 100s of people to keep their rifles in safes crammed into the hunters safety training office sounds like an attractive approach.
You keep bringing up this same objection every time without engaging with the potential upsides or downsides. In your universe are regulations and checking boxes unalloyed goods?
I mean, wanting to make sure poor people have no legal, effective form of self defense could go either way, depending on your viewpoint.
There it is. Help, help, I'm being repressed! I can't have my AR-15 at home so self defense has been regulated out of existence!
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHH
Fuck your snide bullshit. Pass whatever laws or onerous regulations you want. I’m not registering or surrendering anything. Suck my dick.
*points at crotch*
Dev wrote:You're whole platform is about normalizing idiocy.
elliseamos wrote:Yes, "the cops do it so we should too" seems pretty impenetrable. I'll step out and try not to laugh.
Talking equipment choices, not use of force decisions my man. If cops thought revolvers or single stack 1911s were good enough for self defense, then you might have an argument.
Unless you have a magic wand and can make everything else disappear...
Are there any ear muffs that approach 32 NRR? I got some electronic muffs, and I think they are something like 26/ 28 NRR. Normal foam ear plugs are 32 Noise Reduction Rating.
Or maybe we can just pass the hearing protection act and I won't need to upgrade.
BurtReynolds wrote:Kyle Rittenhouse was just released today. Coincidence? I think not.
The idea that Kyle was engaged in self defense against the most base elements of society (conveniently all white to boot) is somehow hateful to some segments. Jury nullification might just end up to his detriment with all the ill informed commentary on this.
BurtReynolds wrote:Kyle Rittenhouse was just released today. Coincidence? I think not.
The idea that Kyle was engaged in self defense against the most base elements of society (conveniently all white to boot) is somehow hateful to some segments. Jury nullification might just end up to his detriment with all the ill informed commentary on this.
getting a gun illegally and crossing state lines to go protect people is the most flimsiest of rationales anyone could come up with for his defense. imo he went there looking for trouble and was hoping to get to use his metaphoric dick substitute to prove he is a man and did just that.
BurtReynolds wrote:Kyle Rittenhouse was just released today. Coincidence? I think not.
The idea that Kyle was engaged in self defense against the most base elements of society (conveniently all white to boot) is somehow hateful to some segments. Jury nullification might just end up to his detriment with all the ill informed commentary on this.
getting a gun illegally and crossing state lines to go protect people is the most flimsiest of rationales anyone could come up with for his defense. imo he went there looking for trouble and was hoping to get to use his metaphoric dick substitute to prove he is a man and did just that.
let him fry
I’m not clear on what he did before the shooting, but I doubt it was a capital offense.
"The fatal flaw of all revolutionaries is that they know how to tear things down but don't have a f**king clue about how to build anything."
the rifle didnt but he did. though i dont think he was charged with anything to do with state lines it shows he really had no business being in WI since he is from illinois
Peeps wrote:the rifle didnt but he did. though i dont think he was charged with anything to do with state lines it shows he really had no business being in WI since he is from illinois
He worked there as a lifeguard. Its like 20 minutes away.
Like I said, ill informed commentary. Kids gonna get fucked by lazy half remembered lies and disinformation. The primary sources are out there for those that could be arsed to look at them.
The first assailant couldn't stay with his fiance that night because they were worried he'd violate the protective order in place. But for him things might have gone quite a bit differently, seeing as he probably had a death wish.
