User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 5/25/2016 6:08:18 AM EDT
[Last Edit: Harmonic_Distortion]
[#1]
Just saw that Tim from Military Arms Channel wants to fight Hughes and use his voice to get others to join.
I already tagged a few YouTubers and posted that folks can start by voting Nolo for NRA BoD- Nolo, can you get with MAC and form an Alliance? Looks like next year will be our year at NRAAM- I've decided I need to use my voice to do something about the NFA and the Hughes Amendment. This year I want to work with other YouTubers and bloggers to organize a movement on social media to repeal the Hughes Amendment. We are going to do this by targeting the NRA-ILA and challenging them to honor their word. They caused this mess in 1986 and I hope we can pressure them to fix it. By the NRA's annual meeting next year I want to see hundreds, if not thousands, of people wearing these shirts putting them on notice we're holding them accountable for their actions. Their leadership gave us the Hughes Amendment, now we're going to get them to keep their promise and fix it. Share this post folks. I can't do this alone. It starts right here, right now. WHO IS WITH ME??? The shirt he is designing/displaying: 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/25/2016 6:30:00 AM EDT
[#2]
Good. The more people that know about it the better.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/25/2016 7:07:28 AM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By brich2929:
Just saw that Tim from Military Arms Channel wants to fight Hughes and use his voice to get others to join. I already tagged a few YouTubers and posted that folks can start by voting Nolo for NRA BoD- Nolo, can you get with MAC and form an Alliance? Looks like next year will be our year at NRAAM- The shirt he is designing/displaying: http://i1329.photobucket.com/albums/w542/brich2929/2A%20Photos/2A1B0FE8-379A-432C-B1A7-1D5052FE4564_zpsteannuq8.jpg http://i1329.photobucket.com/albums/w542/brich2929/2A%20Photos/A25611B2-7CDE-4266-85A8-6B20A01D03C6_zpsvhjh8wk2.jpg Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By brich2929:
Just saw that Tim from Military Arms Channel wants to fight Hughes and use his voice to get others to join. I already tagged a few YouTubers and posted that folks can start by voting Nolo for NRA BoD- Nolo, can you get with MAC and form an Alliance? Looks like next year will be our year at NRAAM- I've decided I need to use my voice to do something about the NFA and the Hughes Amendment. This year I want to work with other YouTubers and bloggers to organize a movement on social media to repeal the Hughes Amendment. We are going to do this by targeting the NRA-ILA and challenging them to honor their word. They caused this mess in 1986 and I hope we can pressure them to fix it. By the NRA's annual meeting next year I want to see hundreds, if not thousands, of people wearing these shirts putting them on notice we're holding them accountable for their actions. Their leadership gave us the Hughes Amendment, now we're going to get them to keep their promise and fix it. Share this post folks. I can't do this alone. It starts right here, right now. WHO IS WITH ME??? The shirt he is designing/displaying: http://i1329.photobucket.com/albums/w542/brich2929/2A%20Photos/2A1B0FE8-379A-432C-B1A7-1D5052FE4564_zpsteannuq8.jpg http://i1329.photobucket.com/albums/w542/brich2929/2A%20Photos/A25611B2-7CDE-4266-85A8-6B20A01D03C6_zpsvhjh8wk2.jpg Yes. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/25/2016 7:24:43 AM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By NoloContendere:
Yes. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By NoloContendere:
Originally Posted By brich2929:
Just saw that Tim from Military Arms Channel wants to fight Hughes and use his voice to get others to join. I already tagged a few YouTubers and posted that folks can start by voting Nolo for NRA BoD- Nolo, can you get with MAC and form an Alliance? Looks like next year will be our year at NRAAM- I've decided I need to use my voice to do something about the NFA and the Hughes Amendment. This year I want to work with other YouTubers and bloggers to organize a movement on social media to repeal the Hughes Amendment. We are going to do this by targeting the NRA-ILA and challenging them to honor their word. They caused this mess in 1986 and I hope we can pressure them to fix it. By the NRA's annual meeting next year I want to see hundreds, if not thousands, of people wearing these shirts putting them on notice we're holding them accountable for their actions. Their leadership gave us the Hughes Amendment, now we're going to get them to keep their promise and fix it. Share this post folks. I can't do this alone. It starts right here, right now. WHO IS WITH ME??? The shirt he is designing/displaying: http://i1329.photobucket.com/albums/w542/brich2929/2A%20Photos/2A1B0FE8-379A-432C-B1A7-1D5052FE4564_zpsteannuq8.jpg http://i1329.photobucket.com/albums/w542/brich2929/2A%20Photos/A25611B2-7CDE-4266-85A8-6B20A01D03C6_zpsvhjh8wk2.jpg Yes. 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/25/2016 2:09:14 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Mariner82:
Hmmmmmmm. So DoJ lawyers have been caught lying to a 5th Circuit Judge about Obungo's immigration EOs. Wonder if that might influence the views of the judges in Hollis regarding the believability of the DOJ lawyers in this case too. Funny how that's works, isn't it? You or me lie to a Federal agent or in a court proceeding and it's a felony or perjury charge, but if they lie....., well, some pigs are more equal than others. 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/25/2016 2:15:13 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By NoloContendere:
Well...... So remember DOJ attorney in 5th saying that the post 1986 approved form 1 I filed the judicial notice motion on should be revoked? Turns out ATF had a different answer and it is a lawful machinegun even though it was manufactured after may 19, 1986. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By NoloContendere:
Originally Posted By Mariner82:
Hmmmmmmm. So DoJ lawyers have been caught lying to a 5th Circuit Judge about Obungo's immigration EOs. Wonder if that might influence the views of the judges in Hollis regarding the believability of the DOJ lawyers in this case too. Well...... So remember DOJ attorney in 5th saying that the post 1986 approved form 1 I filed the judicial notice motion on should be revoked? Turns out ATF had a different answer and it is a lawful machinegun even though it was manufactured after may 19, 1986. This was the F1 that was filed pre-May, but approved post-May? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/25/2016 2:35:50 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By scul:
This was the F1 that was filed pre-May, but approved post-May? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By scul:
Originally Posted By NoloContendere:
Originally Posted By Mariner82:
Hmmmmmmm. So DoJ lawyers have been caught lying to a 5th Circuit Judge about Obungo's immigration EOs. Wonder if that might influence the views of the judges in Hollis regarding the believability of the DOJ lawyers in this case too. Well...... So remember DOJ attorney in 5th saying that the post 1986 approved form 1 I filed the judicial notice motion on should be revoked? Turns out ATF had a different answer and it is a lawful machinegun even though it was manufactured after may 19, 1986. This was the F1 that was filed pre-May, but approved post-May? yes |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/25/2016 2:40:49 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By brich2929:
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By brich2929:
Originally Posted By NoloContendere:
Originally Posted By brich2929:
Just saw that Tim from Military Arms Channel wants to fight Hughes and use his voice to get others to join. I already tagged a few YouTubers and posted that folks can start by voting Nolo for NRA BoD- Nolo, can you get with MAC and form an Alliance? Looks like next year will be our year at NRAAM- I've decided I need to use my voice to do something about the NFA and the Hughes Amendment. This year I want to work with other YouTubers and bloggers to organize a movement on social media to repeal the Hughes Amendment. We are going to do this by targeting the NRA-ILA and challenging them to honor their word. They caused this mess in 1986 and I hope we can pressure them to fix it. By the NRA's annual meeting next year I want to see hundreds, if not thousands, of people wearing these shirts putting them on notice we're holding them accountable for their actions. Their leadership gave us the Hughes Amendment, now we're going to get them to keep their promise and fix it. Share this post folks. I can't do this alone. It starts right here, right now. WHO IS WITH ME??? The shirt he is designing/displaying: http://i1329.photobucket.com/albums/w542/brich2929/2A%20Photos/2A1B0FE8-379A-432C-B1A7-1D5052FE4564_zpsteannuq8.jpg http://i1329.photobucket.com/albums/w542/brich2929/2A%20Photos/A25611B2-7CDE-4266-85A8-6B20A01D03C6_zpsvhjh8wk2.jpg Yes. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/25/2016 4:52:43 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Cowbell]
[#9]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By NoloContendere:
Yes. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By NoloContendere:
Originally Posted By brich2929:
Just saw that Tim from Military Arms Channel wants to fight Hughes and use his voice to get others to join. I already tagged a few YouTubers and posted that folks can start by voting Nolo for NRA BoD- Nolo, can you get with MAC and form an Alliance? Looks like next year will be our year at NRAAM- I've decided I need to use my voice to do something about the NFA and the Hughes Amendment. This year I want to work with other YouTubers and bloggers to organize a movement on social media to repeal the Hughes Amendment. We are going to do this by targeting the NRA-ILA and challenging them to honor their word. They caused this mess in 1986 and I hope we can pressure them to fix it. By the NRA's annual meeting next year I want to see hundreds, if not thousands, of people wearing these shirts putting them on notice we're holding them accountable for their actions. Their leadership gave us the Hughes Amendment, now we're going to get them to keep their promise and fix it. Share this post folks. I can't do this alone. It starts right here, right now. WHO IS WITH ME??? The shirt he is designing/displaying: http://i1329.photobucket.com/albums/w542/brich2929/2A%20Photos/2A1B0FE8-379A-432C-B1A7-1D5052FE4564_zpsteannuq8.jpg http://i1329.photobucket.com/albums/w542/brich2929/2A%20Photos/A25611B2-7CDE-4266-85A8-6B20A01D03C6_zpsvhjh8wk2.jpg Yes. Came here to post this, Tim has a huge social media influence and we could definitely use his support. ETA: I emailed Tim and posted on his facebook, if he could give Nolo a shoutout I think we could get some more signatures and hopefully some donations. I am willing to bet there are lots of people that watch his channel but never get on ARFCOM or know anything about Nolo's fight. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/25/2016 6:52:26 PM EDT
[#10]
Spoke to him. It was a good conversation.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/25/2016 7:32:24 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By brich2929: Just saw that Tim from Military Arms Channel wants to fight Hughes and use his voice to get others to join. I already tagged a few YouTubers and posted that folks can start by voting Nolo for NRA BoD- Nolo, can you get with MAC and form an Alliance? Looks like next year will be our year at NRAAM- The shirt he is designing/displaying: http://i1329.photobucket.com/albums/w542/brich2929/2A%20Photos/2A1B0FE8-379A-432C-B1A7-1D5052FE4564_zpsteannuq8.jpg http://i1329.photobucket.com/albums/w542/brich2929/2A%20Photos/A25611B2-7CDE-4266-85A8-6B20A01D03C6_zpsvhjh8wk2.jpg Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By brich2929: Just saw that Tim from Military Arms Channel wants to fight Hughes and use his voice to get others to join. I already tagged a few YouTubers and posted that folks can start by voting Nolo for NRA BoD- Nolo, can you get with MAC and form an Alliance? Looks like next year will be our year at NRAAM- I've decided I need to use my voice to do something about the NFA and the Hughes Amendment. This year I want to work with other YouTubers and bloggers to organize a movement on social media to repeal the Hughes Amendment. We are going to do this by targeting the NRA-ILA and challenging them to honor their word. They caused this mess in 1986 and I hope we can pressure them to fix it. By the NRA's annual meeting next year I want to see hundreds, if not thousands, of people wearing these shirts putting them on notice we're holding them accountable for their actions. Their leadership gave us the Hughes Amendment, now we're going to get them to keep their promise and fix it. Share this post folks. I can't do this alone. It starts right here, right now. WHO IS WITH ME??? The shirt he is designing/displaying: http://i1329.photobucket.com/albums/w542/brich2929/2A%20Photos/2A1B0FE8-379A-432C-B1A7-1D5052FE4564_zpsteannuq8.jpg http://i1329.photobucket.com/albums/w542/brich2929/2A%20Photos/A25611B2-7CDE-4266-85A8-6B20A01D03C6_zpsvhjh8wk2.jpg Where is the money for the shirts going? To him or NRA-ILA? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/25/2016 7:51:25 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By NoloContendere:
Spoke to him. It was a good conversation. Excellent! |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/25/2016 11:35:33 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By brich2929:
Excellent! Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By brich2929:
Originally Posted By NoloContendere:
Spoke to him. It was a good conversation. Excellent! 
He emailed me back and said he spoke to you. I can almost feel that fun switch going around to the third position. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/25/2016 11:49:42 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By NoloContendere: Spoke to him. It was a good conversation. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/26/2016 8:02:14 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By NoloContendere: Spoke to him. It was a good conversation.  |
|
|
|
AZ, USA
|
Posted: 5/27/2016 2:53:15 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By semiautomatic:
You just gave me a funny feeling in my pants. No homo.
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By semiautomatic:
Originally Posted By NoloContendere:
Spoke to him. It was a good conversation.
it's not homo if it's nolo |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2016 7:31:13 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By FiddyoneGyrojet:
it's not homo if it's nolo Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By FiddyoneGyrojet:
Originally Posted By semiautomatic:
Originally Posted By NoloContendere:
Spoke to him. It was a good conversation.
it's not homo if it's nolo sig line shit right there.... or T-shirts! |
|
|
|
NV, USA
|
Posted: 5/30/2016 11:39:12 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By sitkashooter:
sig line shit right there.... or T-shirts! Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By sitkashooter:
Originally Posted By FiddyoneGyrojet:
Originally Posted By semiautomatic:
Originally Posted By NoloContendere:
Spoke to him. It was a good conversation.
it's not homo if it's nolo sig line shit right there.... or T-shirts! NO(LO)HOMO?? |
|
|
FL, USA
|
Posted: 5/31/2016 7:35:57 AM EDT
[Last Edit: Timberwulfen]
[#19]
Nolo,
Any way to use this: https://www.fbo.gov/utils/view?id=09c3d5e933bc24416b752b57294a17b3 The Department of Homeland Security has defined what a "Personal Defense Weapon" is ... ie select fire. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/31/2016 7:53:15 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Timberwulfen:
Nolo, Any way to use this: https://www.fbo.gov/utils/view?id=09c3d5e933bc24416b752b57294a17b3 The Department of Homeland Security has defined what a "Personal Defense Weapon" is ... ie select fire. What's good for the government to use on you, is not good for you to use |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/31/2016 7:58:13 AM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Timberwulfen:
Nolo, Any way to use this: https://www.fbo.gov/utils/view?id=09c3d5e933bc24416b752b57294a17b3 The Department of Homeland Security has defined what a "Personal Defense Weapon" is ... ie select fire. All that shit just to say DHS wants to buy 7000 M4s. |
|
|
|
FL, USA
|
Posted: 5/31/2016 8:11:03 AM EDT
[Last Edit: Timberwulfen]
[#22]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Chris0013:
All that shit just to say DHS wants to buy 7000 M4s. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Chris0013:
Originally Posted By Timberwulfen:
Nolo, Any way to use this: https://www.fbo.gov/utils/view?id=09c3d5e933bc24416b752b57294a17b3 The Department of Homeland Security has defined what a "Personal Defense Weapon" is ... ie select fire. All that shit just to say DHS wants to buy 7000 M4s. Most impotantly it says on page C-15: "Personal Defense Weapon (PDW) - 5.56x45mm NATO, select-fire firearm suitable for personal defense use in close quarters and/or when maximum concealment is required. . " Seems to me a firearm suitable for personal defense must surely be protected by 2A, and also be eligible for concealed carry. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/31/2016 9:09:58 AM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By NoloContendere: Yes. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By NoloContendere: Originally Posted By brich2929: Just saw that Tim from Military Arms Channel wants to fight Hughes and use his voice to get others to join. I already tagged a few YouTubers and posted that folks can start by voting Nolo for NRA BoD- Nolo, can you get with MAC and form an Alliance? Looks like next year will be our year at NRAAM- I've decided I need to use my voice to do something about the NFA and the Hughes Amendment. This year I want to work with other YouTubers and bloggers to organize a movement on social media to repeal the Hughes Amendment. We are going to do this by targeting the NRA-ILA and challenging them to honor their word. They caused this mess in 1986 and I hope we can pressure them to fix it. By the NRA's annual meeting next year I want to see hundreds, if not thousands, of people wearing these shirts putting them on notice we're holding them accountable for their actions. Their leadership gave us the Hughes Amendment, now we're going to get them to keep their promise and fix it. Share this post folks. I can't do this alone. It starts right here, right now. WHO IS WITH ME??? The shirt he is designing/displaying: http://i1329.photobucket.com/albums/w542/brich2929/2A%20Photos/2A1B0FE8-379A-432C-B1A7-1D5052FE4564_zpsteannuq8.jpg http://i1329.photobucket.com/albums/w542/brich2929/2A%20Photos/A25611B2-7CDE-4266-85A8-6B20A01D03C6_zpsvhjh8wk2.jpg Yes. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/31/2016 10:08:59 AM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Timberwulfen:
Most impotantly it says on page C-15: "Personal Defense Weapon (PDW) - 5.56x45mm NATO, select-fire firearm suitable for personal defense use in close quarters and/or when maximum concealment is required. . " Seems to me a firearm suitable for personal defense must surely be protected by 2A, and also be eligible for concealed carry. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Timberwulfen:
Originally Posted By Chris0013:
Originally Posted By Timberwulfen:
Nolo, Any way to use this: https://www.fbo.gov/utils/view?id=09c3d5e933bc24416b752b57294a17b3 The Department of Homeland Security has defined what a "Personal Defense Weapon" is ... ie select fire. All that shit just to say DHS wants to buy 7000 M4s. Most impotantly it says on page C-15: "Personal Defense Weapon (PDW) - 5.56x45mm NATO, select-fire firearm suitable for personal defense use in close quarters and/or when maximum concealment is required. . " Seems to me a firearm suitable for personal defense must surely be protected by 2A, and also be eligible for concealed carry. He did use that IIRC in Hollis for the 5th COA. I'm pretty sure he used that information in oral arguments, I don't recall for sure, but believe it was also mentioned in one of his briefs. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/31/2016 2:54:19 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By soowah:
He did use that IIRC in Hollis for the 5th COA. I'm pretty sure he used that information in oral arguments, I don't recall for sure, but believe it was also mentioned in one of his briefs. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By soowah:
Originally Posted By Timberwulfen:
Originally Posted By Chris0013:
Originally Posted By Timberwulfen:
Nolo, Any way to use this: https://www.fbo.gov/utils/view?id=09c3d5e933bc24416b752b57294a17b3 The Department of Homeland Security has defined what a "Personal Defense Weapon" is ... ie select fire. All that shit just to say DHS wants to buy 7000 M4s. Most impotantly it says on page C-15: "Personal Defense Weapon (PDW) - 5.56x45mm NATO, select-fire firearm suitable for personal defense use in close quarters and/or when maximum concealment is required. . " Seems to me a firearm suitable for personal defense must surely be protected by 2A, and also be eligible for concealed carry. He did use that IIRC in Hollis for the 5th COA. I'm pretty sure he used that information in oral arguments, I don't recall for sure, but believe it was also mentioned in one of his briefs. I recall the idea that .gov purchases PDWs that are automatic being used in oral arguments in PA as well. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/31/2016 2:58:45 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By soowah:
He did use that IIRC in Hollis for the 5th COA. I'm pretty sure he used that information in oral arguments, I don't recall for sure, but believe it was also mentioned in one of his briefs. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By soowah:
Originally Posted By Timberwulfen:
Originally Posted By Chris0013:
Originally Posted By Timberwulfen:
Nolo, Any way to use this: https://www.fbo.gov/utils/view?id=09c3d5e933bc24416b752b57294a17b3 The Department of Homeland Security has defined what a "Personal Defense Weapon" is ... ie select fire. All that shit just to say DHS wants to buy 7000 M4s. Most impotantly it says on page C-15: "Personal Defense Weapon (PDW) - 5.56x45mm NATO, select-fire firearm suitable for personal defense use in close quarters and/or when maximum concealment is required. . " Seems to me a firearm suitable for personal defense must surely be protected by 2A, and also be eligible for concealed carry. He did use that IIRC in Hollis for the 5th COA. I'm pretty sure he used that information in oral arguments, I don't recall for sure, but believe it was also mentioned in one of his briefs. I don't remember it being brought up in oral arguments at the 5th, but I could be mistaken. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/31/2016 10:59:47 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Wangstang]
[#27]
From another member's separate thread:
Declassified footage of a SEAL unit in Nam, most of them appear to be carrying belt fed 249's or other full auto guns. Given the nature of their individual/small unit work seems like it could further support the cause. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/31/2016 11:56:46 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Wangstang:
From another member's separate thread: Declassified footage of a SEAL unit in Nam, most of them appear to be carrying belt fed 249's or other full auto guns. Given the nature of their individual/small unit work seems like it could further support the cause. Wes Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Wangstang:
From another member's separate thread: Declassified footage of a SEAL unit in Nam, most of them appear to be carrying belt fed 249's or other full auto guns. Given the nature of their individual/small unit work seems like it could further support the cause. Wes 249s in the 60s and/or 70s? I confused. Also it's amazing film they are using, albolutely no frame flicker |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/1/2016 12:18:21 AM EDT
[Last Edit: Wangstang]
[#29]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By williewvr:
249s in the 60s and/or 70s? I confused. Also it's amazing film they are using, albolutely no frame flicker Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By williewvr:
Originally Posted By Wangstang:
From another member's separate thread: Declassified footage of a SEAL unit in Nam, most of them appear to be carrying belt fed 249's or other full auto guns. Given the nature of their individual/small unit work seems like it could further support the cause. Wes 249s in the 60s and/or 70s? I confused. Also it's amazing film they are using, albolutely no frame flicker I apologize is I misidentified the guns. As to the accuracy of the film, I can't speak to it but thought NOLO could look into it. Update: closer review, they look like M60 belt feeds, which is appropriate for the time period. As to the no frame flick, the national archives have been releasing digitally cleaned up films over the last ten years from the defense department that are consistent with this film quality. An example of an older released film: https://youtu.be/1Ujx_pND9wg |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/1/2016 12:29:30 AM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Wangstang: From another member's separate thread: Declassified footage of a SEAL unit in Nam, most of them appear to be carrying belt fed 249's or other full auto guns. Given the nature of their individual/small unit work seems like it could further support the cause. Wes Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Wangstang: From another member's separate thread: Declassified footage of a SEAL unit in Nam, most of them appear to be carrying belt fed 249's or other full auto guns. Given the nature of their individual/small unit work seems like it could further support the cause. Wes Only watched the first minute or so, but what I saw were a mix of Stoner 63's and M16A1's. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/1/2016 12:35:58 AM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By LoneWolf545:
Only watched the first minute or so, but what I saw were a mix of Stoner 63's and M16A1's. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By LoneWolf545:
Originally Posted By Wangstang:
From another member's separate thread: Declassified footage of a SEAL unit in Nam, most of them appear to be carrying belt fed 249's or other full auto guns. Given the nature of their individual/small unit work seems like it could further support the cause. Wes Only watched the first minute or so, but what I saw were a mix of Stoner 63's and M16A1's. What do you see at 1:17-123? Thanks |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/1/2016 12:58:36 AM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Wangstang: What do you see at 1:17-123? Thanks Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Wangstang: Originally Posted By LoneWolf545: Originally Posted By Wangstang: From another member's separate thread: Declassified footage of a SEAL unit in Nam, most of them appear to be carrying belt fed 249's or other full auto guns. Given the nature of their individual/small unit work seems like it could further support the cause. Wes Only watched the first minute or so, but what I saw were a mix of Stoner 63's and M16A1's. What do you see at 1:17-123? Thanks M60's at that point, originally only watched the first minute. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/1/2016 5:58:39 AM EDT
[#33]
Would it help in court to have starements from people who want to have MGs?
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/2/2016 12:53:10 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By LoneWolf545:
M60's at that point, originally only watched the first minute. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By LoneWolf545:
Originally Posted By Wangstang:
Originally Posted By LoneWolf545:
Originally Posted By Wangstang:
From another member's separate thread: Declassified footage of a SEAL unit in Nam, most of them appear to be carrying belt fed 249's or other full auto guns. Given the nature of their individual/small unit work seems like it could further support the cause. Wes Only watched the first minute or so, but what I saw were a mix of Stoner 63's and M16A1's. What do you see at 1:17-123? Thanks M60's at that point, originally only watched the first minute. A few Stoners in there also. 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/2/2016 5:13:38 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By NCUrk:
A few Stoners in there also. <a href="http://s232.photobucket.com/user/NCUrk/media/Stoner63lmg-1_zpsl2k3yiir.jpg.html" target="_blank">http://i232.photobucket.com/albums/ee83/NCUrk/Stoner63lmg-1_zpsl2k3yiir.jpg</a> It was 'nam maaaaaan, stoners were like everywhere maaaaan |
|
|
|
AL, USA
|
Posted: 6/2/2016 10:09:37 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Chris0013:
Would it help in court to have starements from people who want to have MGs? I would add my name to that list. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/2/2016 10:28:58 PM EDT
[#37]
Nolo, the 5th is radio silent?
|
|
|
|
FL, USA
|
Posted: 6/2/2016 11:12:11 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By dillehayd:
Nolo, the 5th is radio silent? It is not uncommon for an opinion to issue 6 months after oral argument. Judging from how short and quickly issued the Third Circuit's opinion was, I'd wager the Fifth won't think this case very complicated either. But that's no guarantee on a fast issuance. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/2/2016 11:29:50 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By TheSpaniard:
It is not uncommon for an opinion to issue 6 months after oral argument. Judging from how short and quickly issued the Third Circuit's opinion was, I'd wager the Fifth won't think this case very complicated either. But that's no guarantee on a fast issuance. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By TheSpaniard:
Originally Posted By dillehayd:
Nolo, the 5th is radio silent? It is not uncommon for an opinion to issue 6 months after oral argument. Judging from how short and quickly issued the Third Circuit's opinion was, I'd wager the Fifth won't think this case very complicated either. But that's no guarantee on a fast issuance. Oh, I know. Just curious and tapping a toe. |
|
|
|
OH, USA
|
Posted: 6/2/2016 11:50:55 PM EDT
[#40]
Keep fightin the good fight, Nolo.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/3/2016 2:16:51 AM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By dillehayd:
Oh, I know. Just curious and tapping a toe. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By dillehayd:
Originally Posted By TheSpaniard:
Originally Posted By dillehayd:
Nolo, the 5th is radio silent? It is not uncommon for an opinion to issue 6 months after oral argument. Judging from how short and quickly issued the Third Circuit's opinion was, I'd wager the Fifth won't think this case very complicated either. But that's no guarantee on a fast issuance. Oh, I know. Just curious and tapping a toe. Took about 6 months for the per curiam Caetano decision to come out, the wheels of justice usually turn slowly. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/3/2016 11:33:35 AM EDT
[#42]
So I have come in and out of this thread knowing it is a long process, as I work in the Court system.
Just want to make sure I am up to speed. Civilians should not own machine guns or short barreled weapons because they are "unusual and dangerous" But they are unusual because they are banned from civilian possession for the last 30 years? And they are not used for lawful purposes by civilians but they offer no proof of said civilians who own them "legally" using them unlawfully. Do I have the main points right? Nolo you are a hero to the cause sir. I appreciate all you are doing on behalf of our nation. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/3/2016 12:25:47 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By dillehayd:
Nolo, the 5th is radio silent? Yes. The case they heard right before Hollis was recently decided. Also, working on 3rd circuit rehearing petition. 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/3/2016 12:34:43 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By NoloContendere:
Yes. The case they heard right before Hollis was recently decided. Also, working on 3rd circuit rehearing petition. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By NoloContendere:
Originally Posted By dillehayd:
Nolo, the 5th is radio silent? Yes. The case they heard right before Hollis was recently decided. Also, working on 3rd circuit rehearing petition. Sweet. Did the other case go the way everyone in the room figured? 
(Protip: If you plead guilty you're probably fucked later!) |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/3/2016 12:55:48 PM EDT
[Last Edit: NoloContendere]
[#45]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By dillehayd:
Sweet. Did the other case go the way everyone in the room figured?
(Protip: If you plead guilty you're probably fucked later!) Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By dillehayd:
Originally Posted By NoloContendere:
Originally Posted By dillehayd:
Nolo, the 5th is radio silent? Yes. The case they heard right before Hollis was recently decided. Also, working on 3rd circuit rehearing petition. Sweet. Did the other case go the way everyone in the room figured?
(Protip: If you plead guilty you're probably fucked later!) That one was reversed and remanded! |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/3/2016 12:58:49 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By NoloContendere:
That one was reversed and remanded! Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By NoloContendere:
Originally Posted By dillehayd:
Originally Posted By NoloContendere:
Originally Posted By dillehayd:
Nolo, the 5th is radio silent? Yes. The case they heard right before Hollis was recently decided. Also, working on 3rd circuit rehearing petition. Sweet. Did the other case go the way everyone in the room figured?
(Protip: If you plead guilty you're probably fucked later!) That one was reversed and remanded! Wow. Did NOT see that one coming. Ray Charles has failed me! |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/3/2016 1:36:59 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By NoloContendere:
That one was reversed and remanded! Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By NoloContendere:
Originally Posted By dillehayd:
Originally Posted By NoloContendere:
Originally Posted By dillehayd:
Nolo, the 5th is radio silent? Yes. The case they heard right before Hollis was recently decided. Also, working on 3rd circuit rehearing petition. Sweet. Did the other case go the way everyone in the room figured?
(Protip: If you plead guilty you're probably fucked later!) That one was reversed and remanded! Whoa |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/3/2016 1:42:56 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Gamma762]
[#48]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By gotuonpaper:
So I have come in and out of this thread knowing it is a long process, as I work in the Court system. Just want to make sure I am up to speed. Civilians should not own machine guns or short barreled weapons because they are "unusual and dangerous" But they are unusual because they are banned from civilian possession for the last 30 years? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By gotuonpaper:
So I have come in and out of this thread knowing it is a long process, as I work in the Court system. Just want to make sure I am up to speed. Civilians should not own machine guns or short barreled weapons because they are "unusual and dangerous" But they are unusual because they are banned from civilian possession for the last 30 years? And severely regulated and heavily taxed for 52 years leading up to the last 30, yes. And they are not used for lawful purposes by civilians but they offer no proof of said civilians who own them "legally" using them unlawfully. Don't forget that they have no place in society, yet they buy them by the tens of thousands for their own employees to use as "personal defense weapons" with a description that sounds exactly like what SCOTUS declared was a core component of 2nd Amendment protection for citizens. And they distribute tens of thousands more to local and state police agencies. Even for illegally possessed ones they are almost never used in crime, legally possessed ones have no crime impact at all. All of the claimed harms are entirely imaginary. But for most courts, a well spun tale is all that is required to uphold restrictions on lawful firearms owners. Most times the tale doesn't even have to be that well spun. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/3/2016 1:45:14 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Captain_Morgan: Whoa Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Captain_Morgan: Originally Posted By NoloContendere: Originally Posted By dillehayd: Originally Posted By NoloContendere: Yes. The case they heard right before Hollis was recently decided. Also, working on 3rd circuit rehearing petition. Sweet. Did the other case go the way everyone in the room figured? (Protip: If you plead guilty you're probably fucked later!) That one was reversed and remanded! Whoa |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/3/2016 1:56:13 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Diesel_Maximus_2992:
^legally challenged, explain why the reaction? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Diesel_Maximus_2992:
Originally Posted By Captain_Morgan:
Originally Posted By NoloContendere:
Originally Posted By dillehayd:
Sweet. Did the other case go the way everyone in the room figured?
(Protip: If you plead guilty you're probably fucked later!) That one was reversed and remanded! Whoa We were in attendance. The case involved some guy doing shady shit that then had a medical issue (stroke maybe?) that brought into question his ability to enter a plea (was he threatened/coerced, etc). Basically, the govt.'s position was that he plead guilty, so too bad. |
|
|
|
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
