[ARCHIVED THREAD] - I recently examined and tested an Arizona Regulator three position FRT (Page 6 of 8)
|
Quoted: I didn't look close enough to form any opinions but some of his responses were more of a "just trust me, I'm right". I'd make my own before I bought one from that guy. https://i.ibb.co/5XnZNpy5/image.png https://i.ibb.co/GQ8J7LGQ/image.png Did you read the first post in this thread? |
|
Quoted: Did you read the first post in this thread? I did skim through it and I don't disagree with what was said. In fact, a thorough explanation like that would go a long way with potential customers rather than just "I'm Federal Legal". Patentability/infringement is another thing where it was just a wall of angry text. |
|
Quoted: Did you read the first post in this thread? Quoted: Quoted: I didn't look close enough to form any opinions but some of his responses were more of a "just trust me, I'm right". I'd make my own before I bought one from that guy. https://i.ibb.co/5XnZNpy5/image.png https://i.ibb.co/GQ8J7LGQ/image.png Did you read the first post in this thread? That website keeps getting more and more deranged... |
|
Quoted: That website keeps getting more and more deranged... Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I didn't look close enough to form any opinions but some of his responses were more of a "just trust me, I'm right". I'd make my own before I bought one from that guy. https://i.ibb.co/5XnZNpy5/image.png https://i.ibb.co/GQ8J7LGQ/image.png Did you read the first post in this thread? That website keeps getting more and more deranged... 
|
|
Quoted: I did skim through it and I don't disagree with what was said. In fact, a thorough explanation like that would go a long way with potential customers rather than just "I'm Federal Legal". Patentability/infringement is another thing where it was just a wall of angry text. Quoted: Quoted: Did you read the first post in this thread? I did skim through it and I don't disagree with what was said. In fact, a thorough explanation like that would go a long way with potential customers rather than just "I'm Federal Legal". Patentability/infringement is another thing where it was just a wall of angry text. Skim harder...Reading is fundamental. You know how we know you did not read the first post? |
|
Quoted: Skim harder...Reading is fundamental. You know how we know you did not read the first post? I took it as him saying that if 01Zulu had explained it the same way you did, instead of just posting what comes off as "I'm good and I know it, so you should be too", it would have gone a long way in helping people not be suspicious. |
|
Quoted: Skim harder...Reading is fundamental. You know how we know you did not read the first post? Quoted: Skim harder...Reading is fundamental. You know how we know you did not read the first post? I read your post and explanation. I don't think we ever got a coherent one from 01ZULU. Quoted: I took it as him saying that if 01Zulu had explained it the same way you did, instead of just posting what comes off as "I'm good and I know it, so you should be too", it would have gone a long way in helping people not be suspicious. This. |
|
Quoted: I read your post and explanation. I don't think we ever got a coherent one from 01ZULU. This. My bad... Lots of herp-derp been flying by folks who have not read the posts provided. Add that to some of less than coherent posting by AZR/01ZULU/JD....Well my Lifetime Exposure Limit is being exceeded. My apologies if I offended. I misunderstood your post. |
|
Quoted: I didn't look close enough to form any opinions but some of his responses were more of a "just trust me, I'm right". I'd make my own before I bought one from that guy. https://i.ibb.co/5XnZNpy5/image.png https://i.ibb.co/GQ8J7LGQ/image.png He's a crazy guy that makes a functional FRT. It's as legal as the RB. What more do you want? |
|
Quoted: ITT we learn about why customers get fired due to butthurt....and who has never bought gear from SOE If historicarms says your communication skills are so full of fuck that he's reached his lifetime exposure limit, then its probably not a customer skill issue. |
|
Quoted: If historicarms says your communication skills are so full of fuck that he's reached his lifetime exposure limit, then its probably not a customer skill issue. Quoted: Quoted: ITT we learn about why customers get fired due to butthurt....and who has never bought gear from SOE If historicarms says your communication skills are so full of fuck that he's reached his lifetime exposure limit, then its probably not a customer skill issue. I believe JD is a Marine, and also most likely qualifies as a Boomer, so his Internet communication skills are exactly what one would expect.  I would actually be more concerned if everything he said was PC and his website was SOTA. In that case, I would attribute that more to someone's handlers than to the individual themselves. In this case, I'm pretty sure that what we see is what we get when it comes to JD, which is actually rather assuring to me. He seems like a true patriot who puts out a solid product, and that's good enough for me. 
|
|
Quoted: I believe JD is a Marine, and also most likely qualifies as a Boomer, so his Internet communication skills are exactly what one would expect. I would actually be more concerned if everything he said was PC and his website was SOTA. In that case, I would attribute that more to someone's handlers than to the individual themselves. In this case, I'm pretty sure that what we see is what we get when it comes to JD, which is actually rather assuring to me. He seems like a true patriot who puts out a solid product, and that's good enough for me. Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: ITT we learn about why customers get fired due to butthurt....and who has never bought gear from SOE If historicarms says your communication skills are so full of fuck that he's reached his lifetime exposure limit, then its probably not a customer skill issue. I believe JD is a Marine, and also most likely qualifies as a Boomer, so his Internet communication skills are exactly what one would expect. I would actually be more concerned if everything he said was PC and his website was SOTA. In that case, I would attribute that more to someone's handlers than to the individual themselves. In this case, I'm pretty sure that what we see is what we get when it comes to JD, which is actually rather assuring to me. He seems like a true patriot who puts out a solid product, and that's good enough for me. I would attribute it to him hiring a professional to clean up his website and communicate with the customers. As many people here have (wisely, imo) advised him to do. He seems like the real life embodiment of Tom Simkowski from office space. "I deal with the goddamn customers so the engineers don't have to! I'm good with people! What is wrong with you people?!?" But yeah, his product seems solid and his heart is in the right place. |
|
Quoted: I believe JD is a Marine, and also most likely qualifies as a Boomer, so his Internet communication skills are exactly what one would expect. Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: ITT we learn about why customers get fired due to butthurt....and who has never bought gear from SOE If historicarms says your communication skills are so full of fuck that he's reached his lifetime exposure limit, then its probably not a customer skill issue. I believe JD is a Marine, and also most likely qualifies as a Boomer, so his Internet communication skills are exactly what one would expect. |
|
Quoted: How in the hell do you figure that JD Vance is a boomer? He's a millennial in his early 40s, so well past the 1964 boomer cutoff, as well as past the Gen X cutoff (1980) into millennial territory. Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: ITT we learn about why customers get fired due to butthurt....and who has never bought gear from SOE If historicarms says your communication skills are so full of fuck that he's reached his lifetime exposure limit, then its probably not a customer skill issue. I believe JD is a Marine, and also most likely qualifies as a Boomer, so his Internet communication skills are exactly what one would expect. Are you in the wrong thread, or are you having a stroke?  I'm pretty sure no one but you is talking about JD Vance in this thread. 
|
|
Quoted: Are you in the wrong thread, or are you having a stroke? I'm pretty sure no one but you is talking about JD Vance in this thread. Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: ITT we learn about why customers get fired due to butthurt....and who has never bought gear from SOE If historicarms says your communication skills are so full of fuck that he's reached his lifetime exposure limit, then its probably not a customer skill issue. I believe JD is a Marine, and also most likely qualifies as a Boomer, so his Internet communication skills are exactly what one would expect. Are you in the wrong thread, or are you having a stroke? I'm pretty sure no one but you is talking about JD Vance in this thread. Not sure if Zoomer with low attention span or Boomer with dementia. Hard to tell the difference, sometimes. |
|
Quoted: Caetano v. Massachusetts, 577 U.S. 411 (2016)- Massachusetts court said that stun guns could be banned because they "were not in common use at the time of the Second Amendment's enactment", but the Supreme Court noted that this contradicted Heller's conclusion that Second Amendment protects "arms ... that were not in existence at the time of the founding". SCOTUS in the Caetano case decision put a quantity of an "arm" to determine if it were "in comman use" and not "unusual"...200,000 units being possessed by citizens. I suspect under Caetano the quantity of FRT's in total has surpassed the "In Comman Use" threshold. Banning them outright is no longer an option according to SCOTUS and Caetano. If congress decides at some later date to change the definition of machinegun to incluude FRT's, then under the Gun Control Act of 1968 the government is REQUIRED to hold an amnesty registration of those articles. No less than thirty days and no longer ninety days, they can NOT be held consecutively (must have at least one day between amnesties). The more they are in common use the better. That’s interesting. I guess I didn’t realize the number that constituted common use. If I were RB or any of these other FRT companies I’d be tripping all over my dick to get PSA to put one in every lower they sold to get to that threshold fast. Do you think they’re past that point now? |
|
Quoted: That’s interesting. I guess I didn’t realize the number that constituted common use. If I were RB or any of these other FRT companies I’d be tripping all over my dick to get PSA to put one in every lower they sold to get to that threshold fast. Do you think they’re past that point now? Quoted: Quoted: Caetano v. Massachusetts, 577 U.S. 411 (2016)- Massachusetts court said that stun guns could be banned because they "were not in common use at the time of the Second Amendment's enactment", but the Supreme Court noted that this contradicted Heller's conclusion that Second Amendment protects "arms ... that were not in existence at the time of the founding". SCOTUS in the Caetano case decision put a quantity of an "arm" to determine if it were "in comman use" and not "unusual"...200,000 units being possessed by citizens. I suspect under Caetano the quantity of FRT's in total has surpassed the "In Comman Use" threshold. Banning them outright is no longer an option according to SCOTUS and Caetano. If congress decides at some later date to change the definition of machinegun to incluude FRT's, then under the Gun Control Act of 1968 the government is REQUIRED to hold an amnesty registration of those articles. No less than thirty days and no longer ninety days, they can NOT be held consecutively (must have at least one day between amnesties). The more they are in common use the better. That’s interesting. I guess I didn’t realize the number that constituted common use. If I were RB or any of these other FRT companies I’d be tripping all over my dick to get PSA to put one in every lower they sold to get to that threshold fast. Do you think they’re past that point now? There are more than 200k NFA registered MGs in private ownership already. |
|
Quoted: That’s interesting. I guess I didn’t realize the number that constituted common use. If I were RB or any of these other FRT companies I’d be tripping all over my dick to get PSA to put one in every lower they sold to get to that threshold fast. Do you think they’re past that point now? Unfortunately that number was used as a guideline in Caetano, but the goal post has subsequently been moved to some magical undefined number after people brought up in federal court the fact that that there were as many legally owned MGs when the 86 ban was passed. Que/ well that was different meme. |
|
Quoted: Unfortunately that number was used as a guideline in Caetano, but the goal post has subsequently been moved to some magical undefined number after people brought up in federal court the fact that that there were as many legally owned MGs when the 86 ban was passed. Que/ well that was different meme. Quoted: Quoted: That’s interesting. I guess I didn’t realize the number that constituted common use. If I were RB or any of these other FRT companies I’d be tripping all over my dick to get PSA to put one in every lower they sold to get to that threshold fast. Do you think they’re past that point now? Unfortunately that number was used as a guideline in Caetano, but the goal post has subsequently been moved to some magical undefined number after people brought up in federal court the fact that that there were as many legally owned MGs when the 86 ban was passed. Que/ well that was different meme. On the bright side, if all of the FRTs later get arbitrarily deemed to be "machine guns" then the number of machine guns in private hands will, overnight, bloom into the millions. AKA, common as fuck. |
|
Quoted: SCOTUS has already given us the tools in Bruen to challenge the MG ban when they ruled that if it wasn’t illegal at the time of the FF, it can’t be illegal now. That is an oversimplification, but in general I agree with you. The key is the right venue...and the right judge(s)...because what is reality, and what should be, are not aligned. Soon. |
|
Quoted: SCOTUS has already given us the tools in Bruen to challenge the MG ban when they ruled that if it wasn’t illegal at the time of the FF, it can’t be illegal now. It's also fun to point out to people that high capacity repeating rifles existed as far back as the late 1700s.  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girardoni_air_rifle |
|
Quoted: It's also fun to point out to people that high capacity repeating rifles existed as far back as the late 1700s. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girardoni_air_rifle Many example outside of just rifles...Gardner guns, volley guns, crazy as hell handguns as well: 
|
|
Quoted: There are more than 200k NFA registered MGs in private ownership already. Not so. The oft cited 750k number includes government guns and nontransferable firearms. The number of transferables in private hands is a paltry 175k, and there is now case law declaring that not in common use. Another issue discussed in Caetano that courts have been using to distinguish machineguns is that almost no states made stun guns illegal like Massachusetts did, while more states have made machineguns illegal, and the vast majority of states highly regulate them, including requiring NFA registration to be legal under state law. A lot of it boils down to "the government can ban it because they banned it, so it is not in common use, so it can be banned." That is not what US v. Miller meant at all when they used the phrase "in common use," as the court was just making a historical note that militia members were expected to show up with their private arms and of the type in common use at the time. It was not a test to determine types of weapons protected by the Second Amendment. The test was different. The test is whether the weapon is "any part of the ordinary military equipment" and also whether its "use could contribute to the common defense." Go read it. If you do, you will know more about this issue than your typical federal judge. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/307/174/#tab-opinion-1936361 |
|
https://insight.dickinsonlaw.psu.edu/dlr/vol129/iss3/2/#:~:text=Following%20Heller's%20minimal%20discussion%20of,would%20contravene%20Bruen's%20analogical%20guidance Dangerous and Unusual: How Heller’s Ahistorical Assumption Violates the Founders’ Original Intent |
|
Quoted: The screenshots and butt hurt for ARF on his website is a nice touch. That motherfucker is completely out of his mind. I get what some of you have said about not having to like the guy to buy a good product but damn. If it ever came down to a legal battle regarding his product can you imagine how he’d act in court? I’ve really been on the fence and leaning towards getting one but I just saw the screenshots on his website. I had missed the drama when it happened here. I wouldn’t buy a stapler from him. He’s not just eccentric or odd or off putting. He’s downright insane. ETA: I did read the first post and every post on every page. I still wouldn’t buy a stapler from him. He’s damaged goods. |
|
Quoted: Not so. The oft cited 750k number includes government guns and nontransferable firearms. The number of transferables in private hands is a paltry 175k, and there is now case law declaring that not in common use. Another issue discussed in Caetano that courts have been using to distinguish machineguns is that almost no states made stun guns illegal like Massachusetts did, while more states have made machineguns illegal, and the vast majority of states highly regulate them, including requiring NFA registration to be legal under state law. A lot of it boils down to "the government can ban it because they banned it, so it is not in common use, so it can be banned." That is not what US v. Miller meant at all when they used the phrase "in common use," as the court was just making a historical note that militia members were expected to show up with their private arms and of the type in common use at the time. It was not a test to determine types of weapons protected by the Second Amendment. The test was different. The test is whether the weapon is "any part of the ordinary military equipment" and also whether its "use could contribute to the common defense." Go read it. If you do, you will know more about this issue than your typical federal judge. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/307/174/#tab-opinion-1936361 |
|
Quoted: Not so. The oft cited 750k number includes government guns and nontransferable firearms. The number of transferables in private hands is a paltry 175k, and there is now case law declaring that not in common use. Another issue discussed in Caetano that courts have been using to distinguish machineguns is that almost no states made stun guns illegal like Massachusetts did, while more states have made machineguns illegal, and the vast majority of states highly regulate them, including requiring NFA registration to be legal under state law. A lot of it boils down to "the government can ban it because they banned it, so it is not in common use, so it can be banned." That is not what US v. Miller meant at all when they used the phrase "in common use," as the court was just making a historical note that militia members were expected to show up with their private arms and of the type in common use at the time. It was not a test to determine types of weapons protected by the Second Amendment. The test was different. The test is whether the weapon is "any part of the ordinary military equipment" and also whether its "use could contribute to the common defense." Go read it. If you do, you will know more about this issue than your typical federal judge. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/307/174/#tab-opinion-1936361 Quoted: Quoted: There are more than 200k NFA registered MGs in private ownership already. Not so. The oft cited 750k number includes government guns and nontransferable firearms. The number of transferables in private hands is a paltry 175k, and there is now case law declaring that not in common use. Another issue discussed in Caetano that courts have been using to distinguish machineguns is that almost no states made stun guns illegal like Massachusetts did, while more states have made machineguns illegal, and the vast majority of states highly regulate them, including requiring NFA registration to be legal under state law. A lot of it boils down to "the government can ban it because they banned it, so it is not in common use, so it can be banned." That is not what US v. Miller meant at all when they used the phrase "in common use," as the court was just making a historical note that militia members were expected to show up with their private arms and of the type in common use at the time. It was not a test to determine types of weapons protected by the Second Amendment. The test was different. The test is whether the weapon is "any part of the ordinary military equipment" and also whether its "use could contribute to the common defense." Go read it. If you do, you will know more about this issue than your typical federal judge. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/307/174/#tab-opinion-1936361 According to the ATF, the number of private transferrables is 234k. https://www.atf.gov/resource-center/data-statistics#:~:text=As%20of%20May%202024%2C%20the,outside%20of%20the%20United%20States. I don't know where you're getting the figure that only 175k of those are privately owned. I took 234k private transferrables to mean "likely 200k or more owned privately" |
|
Quoted: Not so. The oft cited 750k number includes government guns and nontransferable firearms. The number of transferables in private hands is a paltry 175k, and there is now case law declaring that not in common use. Another issue discussed in Caetano that courts have been using to distinguish machineguns is that almost no states made stun guns illegal like Massachusetts did, while more states have made machineguns illegal, and the vast majority of states highly regulate them, including requiring NFA registration to be legal under state law. A lot of it boils down to "the government can ban it because they banned it, so it is not in common use, so it can be banned." That is not what US v. Miller meant at all when they used the phrase "in common use," as the court was just making a historical note that militia members were expected to show up with their private arms and of the type in common use at the time. It was not a test to determine types of weapons protected by the Second Amendment. The test was different. The test is whether the weapon is "any part of the ordinary military equipment" and also whether its "use could contribute to the common defense." Go read it. If you do, you will know more about this issue than your typical federal judge. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/307/174/#tab-opinion-1936361 Right. The oft overlooked issue in that bad case law is that the number of transferable MGs per 100,000 Americans at the passing of the Hughes amendment dwarfs the relative prevalence of 200,000 stun guns at the time of Caetano, and an unconstitutional law doesn't become suddenly valid simply due to it being long standing. |
|
That's the video, thank you.
|
|
Quoted: Unfortunately that number was used as a guideline in Caetano, but the goal post has subsequently been moved to some magical undefined number after people brought up in federal court the fact that that there were as many legally owned MGs when the 86 ban was passed. Que/ well that was different meme. |
|
Quoted: That motherfucker is completely out of his mind. I get what some of you have said about not having to like the guy to buy a good product but damn. If it ever came down to a legal battle regarding his product can you imagine how he’d act in court? I’ve really been on the fence and leaning towards getting one but I just saw the screenshots on his website. I had missed the drama when it happened here. I wouldn’t buy a stapler from him. He’s not just eccentric or odd or off putting. He’s downright insane. ETA: I did read the first post and every post on every page. I still wouldn’t buy a stapler from him. He’s damaged goods. Quoted: Quoted: The screenshots and butt hurt for ARF on his website is a nice touch. That motherfucker is completely out of his mind. I get what some of you have said about not having to like the guy to buy a good product but damn. If it ever came down to a legal battle regarding his product can you imagine how he’d act in court? I’ve really been on the fence and leaning towards getting one but I just saw the screenshots on his website. I had missed the drama when it happened here. I wouldn’t buy a stapler from him. He’s not just eccentric or odd or off putting. He’s downright insane. ETA: I did read the first post and every post on every page. I still wouldn’t buy a stapler from him. He’s damaged goods. I wasn't quite sure if he was actually banned so I did a little softer sale on some of his writings I discovered but I'd say that this is an accurate statement lol. |
|
Quoted: That motherfucker is completely out of his mind. I get what some of you have said about not having to like the guy to buy a good product but damn. If it ever came down to a legal battle regarding his product can you imagine how he’d act in court? I’ve really been on the fence and leaning towards getting one but I just saw the screenshots on his website. I had missed the drama when it happened here. I wouldn’t buy a stapler from him. He’s not just eccentric or odd or off putting. He’s downright insane. ETA: I did read the first post and every post on every page. I still wouldn’t buy a stapler from him. He’s damaged goods. I’m in the former camp. Today, I took the fire control group out of my lower, put in his 3 position, put the FRT in the upper, closed it up, turned the gas plug to suppressed and it ran flawlessly. Shot four mags. Made single shots, three to six fast shots, 15 rounds fast, then one mag until empty. I look forward to more of his ideas. POF piston upper. ETA-That’s my wife’s Calipso quilt. My Pride quilt is different. 
|
|
Quoted: Deliberately keeping the DOJ at bay by complying with the only agreement that prevents the DOJ from treating ALL FRTs as machineguns. Quoted: Quoted: So they're deliberately costing other companies a bunch of legal fees just to show their fealty to the government?  So is Rare Breed paying the legal fees for everyone they're trying to screw over in an attempt to protect their own hide? They're deliberately going above and beyond what their agreement required of them, and everyone here knows it. You just happen to be one of the few here dishonest enough to refuse to admit it. |
|
Quoted: The government never specifically conceded in writing that Forced Reset Triggers are "not machineguns". At a high level, what the US DOJ and Rare Breed agreed to was that the government would halt any appeals and/or file motions to dismiss its current litigation against FRTs (there were a couple different cases), return existing seized FRTs (with some limitations) and would also not prosecute owners under the NFA or 922(o) for possession of an FRT as a machinegun if it met certain mechanical and model* stipulations. *Model meaning the FRT was not for a traditional handgun....like a TX22...which all sort of folks are now filming themselves with and which are clearly delineated as outside of the DOJ criminal prosecution safe harbor provisions of this agreement as outlined in section 11 b. These do not shoot "more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger" so don't meet the legal definition of machinegun in federal law. The law doesn't distinguish between rifles, pistols, shotguns in that regard. Of course, there are government officials who make false arrests for things that aren't crimes, but it's tough to predict what legal behavior will trigger those bad people to do bad things to good people. Quoted: Of course Congress is not in any way beholden to this agreement and can create a new category of banned or restricted firearms that encompass all "recoil assisted rate of fire accelerators" equipped firearms and/or components like Bump Stocks, FRTs, hellfires, etc. That's an important point. They could just as easily, and as constitutionally, ban all firearms for civilians. |
|
Quoted: I can't find the phrase "common use" in the constitution. It doesn't matter if you can or not. Men who are incapable of separating what they want reality to be from what reality is will always exist within a prison made by others and guarded by their own lack of awareness. You can change the reality in which you exist only once you can accept and acknowledge what conditions make it as it is. |
|
Quoted: I was going to buy one, then I got to the website. It reminds me of the Always Sunny in Philadelphia episode where Charlie is trying to connect the dots. More than a few people here have begged him to stop self-sabotaging and given him good advice. Would to God he listened to it. |
|
Quoted: That website keeps getting more and more deranged... Starting to read like one of the cars on https://www.reddit.com/r/SchizophreniaRides/ |
|
Thank you to Historic Firearms for posting this. Bill Gates is documented for strangeness, but nobody has stopped buying computers. If anything this product shows how out of spec many manufacturers really are. Of over 8 AR uppers only 1 pocket fit his product. Bear Creek. Took some fiddling but the product really works. GForce 9mm Jawbone and DTI lower on a 30 TOK KAK upper. Both pockets were too small. Milspec is a total industry joke. |
|
Quoted: So is Rare Breed paying the legal fees for everyone they're trying to screw over in an attempt to protect their own hide? They're deliberately going above and beyond what their agreement required of them, and everyone here knows it. You just happen to be one of the few here dishonest enough to refuse to admit it. I don't work for RB, have any stock in RB, or any affiliation with them whatsoever. I just call it how I see it. I watched the video, I tried to imagine hiw I might have reacted in their shoes, facing that kind of prison time, and as disappointed as I was that they didn't take it all the way, I understand why they did it. |