User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 4/9/2016 1:14:31 AM EDT
[#1]
Playing a game and was talking about this case... a guy playing with is apparently an ATF lawyer... and he literally said, " if the law said to go into this city and decimate the population, that's what we'd do, because that's our job."
That's a nice dental plan. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/9/2016 1:19:55 AM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By joshdb50:
Playing a game and was talking about this case... a guy playing with is apparently an ATF lawyer... and he literally said, " if the law said to go into this city and decimate the population, that's what we'd do, because that's our job." That's a nice dental plan. Bet the fucking ATF lawyer wouldn't be one of the ones going in (and getting chewed up). Easy to be a big talker when you aren't the guy suiting up. |
|
|
|
NV, USA
|
Posted: 4/9/2016 2:23:01 AM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By joshdb50:
Playing a game and was talking about this case... a guy playing with is apparently an ATF lawyer... and he literally said, " if the law said to go into this city and decimate the population, that's what we'd do, because that's our job." That's a nice dental plan. The first rule of GTA5, never believe anyone who says they are an ATF lawyer... |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/9/2016 3:15:19 AM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Timberwulfen:
Funny how Remington Military Division makes two door breeching shotguns with barrels under 18"...the 870P and the MCS (Military Combat Shotgun). Seems like a weapon of war, theyd have a hard argument against them now. http://www.remingtonmilitary.com/~/media/Images/RemingtonMilitary/slideshow/firearm/firearm_pumpshotgun_breachers_2_ss.ashx http://www.gundigest.com/wp-content/uploads/Remington-870-MCS-Lead.jpg http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRtQc01gN7AQbWuQW18db0EKwGZJrUXtvTEeNuF9n9sUrUIjZbvscsje-8 Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Timberwulfen:
Originally Posted By Adam-Wayne:
What's really funny is that in the Miller decision, it would be inferred that "weapons of war" are protected by the second amendment. "The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon. In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense." They weren't presented with any evidence that short barreled shotguns were in ordinary usage by any military, or that it was in use by any militia, or anything like that, as Miller had died and his defense didn't pursue the case. Funny how Remington Military Division makes two door breeching shotguns with barrels under 18"...the 870P and the MCS (Military Combat Shotgun). Seems like a weapon of war, theyd have a hard argument against them now. http://www.remingtonmilitary.com/~/media/Images/RemingtonMilitary/slideshow/firearm/firearm_pumpshotgun_breachers_2_ss.ashx http://www.gundigest.com/wp-content/uploads/Remington-870-MCS-Lead.jpg http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRtQc01gN7AQbWuQW18db0EKwGZJrUXtvTEeNuF9n9sUrUIjZbvscsje-8 While those are regularly issued they are made for a specific task and that is not defense. I think a better example would be the Marines which I understand have been using SBS for their defense work for a long long time. Think they are mostly Mossbergs but don't know for sure. |
|
|
|
WA, USA
|
Posted: 4/9/2016 3:28:09 AM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ALASKANFIRE:
While those are regularly issued they are made for a specific task and that is not defense. I think a better example would be the Marines which I understand have been using SBS for their defense work for a long long time. Think they are mostly Mossbergs but don't know for sure. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ALASKANFIRE:
Originally Posted By Timberwulfen:
Originally Posted By Adam-Wayne:
What's really funny is that in the Miller decision, it would be inferred that "weapons of war" are protected by the second amendment. "The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon. In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense." They weren't presented with any evidence that short barreled shotguns were in ordinary usage by any military, or that it was in use by any militia, or anything like that, as Miller had died and his defense didn't pursue the case. Funny how Remington Military Division makes two door breeching shotguns with barrels under 18"...the 870P and the MCS (Military Combat Shotgun). Seems like a weapon of war, theyd have a hard argument against them now. http://www.remingtonmilitary.com/~/media/Images/RemingtonMilitary/slideshow/firearm/firearm_pumpshotgun_breachers_2_ss.ashx http://www.gundigest.com/wp-content/uploads/Remington-870-MCS-Lead.jpg http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRtQc01gN7AQbWuQW18db0EKwGZJrUXtvTEeNuF9n9sUrUIjZbvscsje-8 While those are regularly issued they are made for a specific task and that is not defense. I think a better example would be the Marines which I understand have been using SBS for their defense work for a long long time. Think they are mostly Mossbergs but don't know for sure. Yeah, well, if the fucking Redcoats are holed up in Farmer Jameson's barn and have put a fucking keyed iron clasp on the door, I'm not bound to proceed very quickly taking to it hatefully with my fucking firelocke and bayonet, now, am I? |
|
|
AZ, USA
|
Posted: 4/9/2016 5:50:23 AM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryYeah, well, if the fucking Redcoats are holed up in Farmer Jameson's barn and have put a fucking keyed iron clasp on the door, I'm not bound to proceed very quickly taking to it hatefully with my fucking firelocke and bayonet, now, am I? if logic and good will mattered to anyone in the government, we wouldn't have to fight for anything like this. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/9/2016 7:01:42 AM EDT
[#7]
K
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Gamma762:
People consistently misunderstand and misrepresent the Miller decision. The Miller decision DID NOT declare that a short barreled shotgun was not suitable for militia use. It stated that such information (yes or no) was not part of the judicial record and therefore REMANDED the case back to the lower courts for such fact finding. With the notice that if it was in fact part of ordinary military equipment that it would be protected. As far as LE, the same federal government that claims that MGs are dangerous and unusual and weapons of war not only buys them in large quantities for their own LE agencies for personal protection, and uses them to protect the President and other officials, they've also distributed tens of thousands of them to local LE agencies as well. As well as creating a special exemption to the MG ban to allow their use in protecting highly sensitive privately owned industries. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Gamma762:
Originally Posted By Adam-Wayne:
Originally Posted By 3Trip:
You know, they focused a lot on machine guns being military weapons of war, it'd be good to remind them law enforcement doesn't use machine guns as weapons of war. What's really funny is that in the Miller decision, it would be inferred that "weapons of war" are protected by the second amendment. "The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon. In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense." They weren't presented with any evidence that short barreled shotguns were in ordinary usage by any military, or that it was in use by any militia, or anything like that, as Miller had died and his defense didn't pursue the case. People consistently misunderstand and misrepresent the Miller decision. The Miller decision DID NOT declare that a short barreled shotgun was not suitable for militia use. It stated that such information (yes or no) was not part of the judicial record and therefore REMANDED the case back to the lower courts for such fact finding. With the notice that if it was in fact part of ordinary military equipment that it would be protected. As far as LE, the same federal government that claims that MGs are dangerous and unusual and weapons of war not only buys them in large quantities for their own LE agencies for personal protection, and uses them to protect the President and other officials, they've also distributed tens of thousands of them to local LE agencies as well. As well as creating a special exemption to the MG ban to allow their use in protecting highly sensitive privately owned industries. I would bring up the term "PDW" and I believe the .gov has put out several bids for such "personal defense weapons" before. Police agencies as well use that tern yes? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/9/2016 9:06:23 AM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Freedom_Or_DEATH:
NOLO, When you have time, I'm curious what your thoughts would be on a possible new case, with a willing, "patsy" with investors backing them, to bring an equal protection suit upon receipt of a denied F1(s). Based solely on private sector VIP style, basically: 1) Form a corporation 2) Appoint officers 3) Appoint security team 4) Submit F1's (on behalf of the Corp.) to convert said teams AR-15's (owned by the Corp.) to M-16's 5) Once F1's get denied, you know the rest (Congress, President, etc. etc. are not better humans)... XD Equal protection really isn't going to work there unless your hypothetical corporation's security team is similarly situated (protecting a nuclear site or other facility an attack on which could cause a mass casualty event). |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/9/2016 9:08:52 AM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ALASKANFIRE:
While those are regularly issued they are made for a specific task and that is not defense. I think a better example would be the Marines which I understand have been using SBS for their defense work for a long long time. Think they are mostly Mossbergs but don't know for sure. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ALASKANFIRE:
Originally Posted By Timberwulfen:
Originally Posted By Adam-Wayne:
What's really funny is that in the Miller decision, it would be inferred that "weapons of war" are protected by the second amendment. "The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon. In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense." They weren't presented with any evidence that short barreled shotguns were in ordinary usage by any military, or that it was in use by any militia, or anything like that, as Miller had died and his defense didn't pursue the case. Funny how Remington Military Division makes two door breeching shotguns with barrels under 18"...the 870P and the MCS (Military Combat Shotgun). Seems like a weapon of war, theyd have a hard argument against them now. http://www.remingtonmilitary.com/~/media/Images/RemingtonMilitary/slideshow/firearm/firearm_pumpshotgun_breachers_2_ss.ashx http://www.gundigest.com/wp-content/uploads/Remington-870-MCS-Lead.jpg http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRtQc01gN7AQbWuQW18db0EKwGZJrUXtvTEeNuF9n9sUrUIjZbvscsje-8 While those are regularly issued they are made for a specific task and that is not defense. I think a better example would be the Marines which I understand have been using SBS for their defense work for a long long time. Think they are mostly Mossbergs but don't know for sure. My father was given a shotgun doing guard duty in Da Nang. USMC. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/9/2016 12:51:08 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By dillehayd:
My father was given a shotgun doing guard duty in Da Nang. USMC. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By dillehayd:
Originally Posted By ALASKANFIRE:
Originally Posted By Timberwulfen:
Originally Posted By Adam-Wayne:
What's really funny is that in the Miller decision, it would be inferred that "weapons of war" are protected by the second amendment. "The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon. In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense." They weren't presented with any evidence that short barreled shotguns were in ordinary usage by any military, or that it was in use by any militia, or anything like that, as Miller had died and his defense didn't pursue the case. Funny how Remington Military Division makes two door breeching shotguns with barrels under 18"...the 870P and the MCS (Military Combat Shotgun). Seems like a weapon of war, theyd have a hard argument against them now. http://www.remingtonmilitary.com/~/media/Images/RemingtonMilitary/slideshow/firearm/firearm_pumpshotgun_breachers_2_ss.ashx http://www.gundigest.com/wp-content/uploads/Remington-870-MCS-Lead.jpg http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRtQc01gN7AQbWuQW18db0EKwGZJrUXtvTEeNuF9n9sUrUIjZbvscsje-8 While those are regularly issued they are made for a specific task and that is not defense. I think a better example would be the Marines which I understand have been using SBS for their defense work for a long long time. Think they are mostly Mossbergs but don't know for sure. My father was given a shotgun doing guard duty in Da Nang. USMC. But was it a short barreled gun. Most of the Vietnam and older guns I have seen are long barreled guns |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/9/2016 6:07:09 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ALASKANFIRE:
But was it a short barreled gun. Most of the Vietnam and older guns I have seen are long barreled guns Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ALASKANFIRE:
Originally Posted By dillehayd:
<snip> My father was given a shotgun doing guard duty in Da Nang. USMC. But was it a short barreled gun. Most of the Vietnam and older guns I have seen are long barreled guns Newer ones too. I had four or six Mossbergs in my armory on the FFG (late 80s), and they were all long barrels. Short barrels would have been far better suited to maneuvering through ship passageways and compartments. For that matter, M-4s (had they been invented then) would have been better suited than the M-14s I had too. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/9/2016 8:21:44 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Mariner82:
Newer ones too. I had four or six Mossbergs in my armory on the FFG (late 80s), and they were all long barrels. Short barrels would have been far better suited to maneuvering through ship passageways and compartments. For that matter, M-4s (had they been invented then) would have been better suited than the M-14s I had too. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Mariner82:
Originally Posted By ALASKANFIRE:
Originally Posted By dillehayd:
<snip> My father was given a shotgun doing guard duty in Da Nang. USMC. But was it a short barreled gun. Most of the Vietnam and older guns I have seen are long barreled guns Newer ones too. I had four or six Mossbergs in my armory on the FFG (late 80s), and they were all long barrels. Short barrels would have been far better suited to maneuvering through ship passageways and compartments. For that matter, M-4s (had they been invented then) would have been better suited than the M-14s I had too. Current issue is 18" or 20" mossberg 500. Certainly not super short but better than a standard 26" to 28" barrel. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/9/2016 8:26:01 PM EDT
[#13]
http://www.guns.com/2016/04/07/lawmakers-approve-1000-tax-on-handguns-in-lieu-of-total-ban/
Here is NFA 2.0. And a test to see if a right taxed is a right denied. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/9/2016 8:33:46 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By IHTFP08:
http://www.guns.com/2016/04/07/lawmakers-approve-1000-tax-on-handguns-in-lieu-of-total-ban/ Here is NFA 2.0. And a test to see if a right taxed is a right denied. At some point people need to stand and fight. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/9/2016 8:36:39 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Undefined:
At some point people need to stand and fight. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Undefined:
Originally Posted By IHTFP08:
http://www.guns.com/2016/04/07/lawmakers-approve-1000-tax-on-handguns-in-lieu-of-total-ban/ Here is NFA 2.0. And a test to see if a right taxed is a right denied. At some point people need to stand and fight. Yep |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/9/2016 8:36:50 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By IHTFP08:
http://www.guns.com/2016/04/07/lawmakers-approve-1000-tax-on-handguns-in-lieu-of-total-ban/ Here is NFA 2.0. And a test to see if a right taxed is a right denied. Wow, no shotguns larger than .410. Should be interesting to see how that tax plays out. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/9/2016 9:14:10 PM EDT
[#17]
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/9/2016 9:17:47 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By IHTFP08:
http://www.guns.com/2016/04/07/lawmakers-approve-1000-tax-on-handguns-in-lieu-of-total-ban/ Here is NFA 2.0. And a test to see if a right taxed is a right denied. Holy shit. I missed this. I was wondering when they would think of using taxes to enact a defacto ban. My guess is it doesn't survive the courts but damn these roaches are devious. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/9/2016 9:32:43 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By LTCetme: Holy shit. I missed this. I was wondering when they would think of using taxes to enact a defacto ban. My guess is it doesn't survive the courts but damn these roaches are devious. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By LTCetme: Originally Posted By IHTFP08: http://www.guns.com/2016/04/07/lawmakers-approve-1000-tax-on-handguns-in-lieu-of-total-ban/ Here is NFA 2.0. And a test to see if a right taxed is a right denied. Holy shit. I missed this. I was wondering when they would think of using taxes to enact a defacto ban. My guess is it doesn't survive the courts but damn these roaches are devious. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/9/2016 10:09:17 PM EDT
[#20]
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/9/2016 11:18:44 PM EDT
[Last Edit: xxprince]
[#21]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By alphajaguars:
 Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By alphajaguars:
Ordered 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/9/2016 11:41:44 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By xxprince:
Ordered Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By xxprince:
Originally Posted By alphajaguars:
Ordered |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/9/2016 11:45:24 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By scmar: Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By scmar: Originally Posted By xxprince: Originally Posted By alphajaguars: Ordered |
|
|
|
OK, USA
|
Posted: 4/10/2016 12:15:45 AM EDT
[#24]
Ordered
Keep it up!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/10/2016 1:08:59 AM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By djkel:
Front should have said SOON! Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By djkel:
Originally Posted By scmar:
I want one that says "SOON™" on the front on the back has images of a variety of belt feds, full auto carbines, and submachineguns with "FREEDOM. COMING TO A RANGE NEAR YOU. SOON™" Then again, I'd accept one with an image of a machine gun and a $200 NFA tax stamp with the words "SHUT UP AND TAKE MY MONEY" The one I really want, more than anything else, simply says "You can have it NOW™, but I remember when it was SOON™" |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/10/2016 10:26:11 AM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By LTCetme:
Holy shit. I missed this. I was wondering when they would think of using taxes to enact a defacto ban. My guess is it doesn't survive the courts but damn these roaches are devious. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By LTCetme:
Originally Posted By IHTFP08:
http://www.guns.com/2016/04/07/lawmakers-approve-1000-tax-on-handguns-in-lieu-of-total-ban/ Here is NFA 2.0. And a test to see if a right taxed is a right denied. Holy shit. I missed this. I was wondering when they would think of using taxes to enact a defacto ban. My guess is it doesn't survive the courts but damn these roaches are devious. And that's why I think this could go really well if it's overturned. How can NFA stand if this tax is struck down? Or it goes poorly and its upheld and other states start taxing new sales. The secondhand market would boom. |
|
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 4/10/2016 11:40:06 AM EDT
[#27]
If that tax stands then 1 State needs to pass a dual law where you must pay tax on voting ID's and tax on firearms. Let them deal with both at same time and see what outcome would be.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/10/2016 12:00:14 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By dcormier1:
If that tax stands then 1 State needs to pass a dual law where you must pay tax on voting ID's and tax on firearms. Let them deal with both at same time and see what outcome would be. Do you even 24th amendment, bro? 
|
|
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 4/11/2016 7:43:53 AM EDT
[Last Edit: dcormier1]
[#29]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Undefined:
Do you even 24th amendment, bro? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Undefined:
Originally Posted By dcormier1:
If that tax stands then 1 State needs to pass a dual law where you must pay tax on voting ID's and tax on firearms. Let them deal with both at same time and see what outcome would be. Do you even 24th amendment, bro? Voting would be free. The Id would have the tax. Same logic as right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed but you have to pay this fee and wait for permission (in some states) How about plenty of abortion clinics to do abortions, but background checks, permits and 10 day waiting periods to get them? ETA: oh wait I just realized what you said. There is already a Constitutional Amendment to stop taxing voting. So somebody should just tell them about the 2nd Admendment and then they would just drop it. That's how it works, right? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/11/2016 2:08:22 PM EDT
[#30]
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/11/2016 6:43:42 PM EDT
[#31]
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/11/2016 7:14:15 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Wingnut116ACW]
[#32]
If you need a copy of my unredacted hand grenade Form 1 or some nice studio shots of the device itself, you just let me know.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/11/2016 7:17:34 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Wingnut116ACW:
If you need a copy of my unredacted hand grenade Form 1 or some nice studio shots of the device itself, you just let me know. http://i1285.photobucket.com/albums/a595/Wingnut116ACW/frag_zpsg0undmzo.jpg Are you still thinking about doing an antipersonnel mine? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/11/2016 7:23:24 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Undefined:
Are you still thinking about doing an antipersonnel mine? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Undefined:
Originally Posted By Wingnut116ACW:
If you need a copy of my unredacted hand grenade Form 1 or some nice studio shots of the device itself, you just let me know. http://i1285.photobucket.com/albums/a595/Wingnut116ACW/frag_zpsg0undmzo.jpg Are you still thinking about doing an antipersonnel mine? Well yeah, just don't have the extra cash for the stamp. Getting an M203 at the moment. But you should follow stuff at reardendarmament.com for more destructive device developments. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/11/2016 7:30:02 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Wingnut116ACW:
Well yeah, just don't have the extra cash for the stamp. Getting an M203 at the moment. But you should follow stuff at reardendarmament.com for more destructive device developments. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Wingnut116ACW:
Originally Posted By Undefined:
Originally Posted By Wingnut116ACW:
If you need a copy of my unredacted hand grenade Form 1 or some nice studio shots of the device itself, you just let me know. http://i1285.photobucket.com/albums/a595/Wingnut116ACW/frag_zpsg0undmzo.jpg Are you still thinking about doing an antipersonnel mine? Well yeah, just don't have the extra cash for the stamp. Getting an M203 at the moment. But you should follow stuff at reardendarmament.com for more destructive device developments. Most destructive devices cost more than my Land Cruiser. I'm afraid to follow stuff that will cause me to lust over things I ought not spend the money on. If no one has said this to you today, please allow me to thank you for building and documenting your hand grenade. It warms my heart and pleases me at several levels that there are good people out there pushing the envelope and experiencing the very fringes of freedom. Inspirational shit right there. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/11/2016 7:57:04 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Wingnut116ACW:
Well yeah, just don't have the extra cash for the stamp. Getting an M203 at the moment. But you should follow stuff at reardendarmament.com for more destructive device developments. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Wingnut116ACW:
Originally Posted By Undefined:
Originally Posted By Wingnut116ACW:
If you need a copy of my unredacted hand grenade Form 1 or some nice studio shots of the device itself, you just let me know. http://i1285.photobucket.com/albums/a595/Wingnut116ACW/frag_zpsg0undmzo.jpg Are you still thinking about doing an antipersonnel mine? Well yeah, just don't have the extra cash for the stamp. Getting an M203 at the moment. But you should follow stuff at reardendarmament.com for more destructive device developments. If NOLO said that an approved Form 1 for the mine would help the case, I will put up the tax money. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/11/2016 8:11:38 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By dcormier1:
The Id would have the tax. You're a bit late. The only way the Indiana voter ID law (the first in the nation) passed a constitutional challenge is because the law provided free state IDs to the indigent. Without that provision the law would have been declared void. Imposing a tax on the ID would have the same result. "The life of the law has not been logic; it has been experience." Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. The Common Law (1881) Experience tells me that the courts treat voting differently than the RKBA is treated. If experience does not teach you the same lesson, you need more of it. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/11/2016 8:44:29 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote Historyit will be live and i'll post up the link once i receive it. my only condition was no video!
|
|
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 4/11/2016 8:47:46 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By POLYTHENEPAM:
You're a bit late. The only way the Indiana voter ID law (the first in the nation) passed a constitutional challenge is because the law provided free state IDs to the indigent. Without that provision the law would have been declared void. Imposing a tax on the ID would have the same result. "The life of the law has not been logic; it has been experience." Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. The Common Law (1881) Experience tells me that the courts treat voting differently than the RKBA is treated. If experience does not teach you the same lesson, you need more of it. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By POLYTHENEPAM:
Originally Posted By dcormier1:
The Id would have the tax. You're a bit late. The only way the Indiana voter ID law (the first in the nation) passed a constitutional challenge is because the law provided free state IDs to the indigent. Without that provision the law would have been declared void. Imposing a tax on the ID would have the same result. "The life of the law has not been logic; it has been experience." Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. The Common Law (1881) Experience tells me that the courts treat voting differently than the RKBA is treated. If experience does not teach you the same lesson, you need more of it. I am aware of that but my point was for it to be in the same law so that the challenge would be together. Force them to agree that a tax on a right is unconstitutional or it is constitutional. Leave them will not retreat. Its either all yes or all no. |
|
|
NV, USA
|
Posted: 4/11/2016 8:49:57 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By NoloContendere:
it will be live and i'll post up the link once i receive it. my only condition was no video! Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By NoloContendere:
it will be live and i'll post up the link once i receive it. my only condition was no video! 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/11/2016 8:56:33 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By NoloContendere:
it will be live and i'll post up the link once i receive it. my only condition was no video! Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By NoloContendere:
it will be live and i'll post up the link once i receive it. my only condition was no video! 10-4 |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/11/2016 9:35:50 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By dcormier1:
If that tax stands then 1 State needs to pass a dual law where you must pay tax on voting ID's and tax on firearms. Let them deal with both at same time and see what outcome would be. I've said for years that some state needs to pass a voter registration and ID requirement that would be a copy of the Massachusetts FID or Illinois FOID requirements, including the fees and disqualifiers. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/11/2016 9:42:06 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Undefined:
Most destructive devices cost more than my Land Cruiser. I'm afraid to follow stuff that will cause me to lust over things I ought not spend the money on. If no one has said this to you today, please allow me to thank you for building and documenting your hand grenade. It warms my heart and pleases me at several levels that there are good people out there pushing the envelope and experiencing the very fringes of freedom. Inspirational shit right there. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Undefined:
Originally Posted By Wingnut116ACW:
Originally Posted By Undefined:
Originally Posted By Wingnut116ACW:
If you need a copy of my unredacted hand grenade Form 1 or some nice studio shots of the device itself, you just let me know. http://i1285.photobucket.com/albums/a595/Wingnut116ACW/frag_zpsg0undmzo.jpg Are you still thinking about doing an antipersonnel mine? Well yeah, just don't have the extra cash for the stamp. Getting an M203 at the moment. But you should follow stuff at reardendarmament.com for more destructive device developments. Most destructive devices cost more than my Land Cruiser. I'm afraid to follow stuff that will cause me to lust over things I ought not spend the money on. If no one has said this to you today, please allow me to thank you for building and documenting your hand grenade. It warms my heart and pleases me at several levels that there are good people out there pushing the envelope and experiencing the very fringes of freedom. Inspirational shit right there. Pretty sure you can actually do a 60mm mortar for the price of a nicer AR with optics. Mine was only $2500, and I have a very nice mortar. And there is talk of many, many more DDs becoming available and cheap. Soon. 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/11/2016 9:42:31 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Undefined:
Are you still thinking about doing an antipersonnel mine? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Undefined:
Originally Posted By Wingnut116ACW:
If you need a copy of my unredacted hand grenade Form 1 or some nice studio shots of the device itself, you just let me know. http://i1285.photobucket.com/albums/a595/Wingnut116ACW/frag_zpsg0undmzo.jpg Are you still thinking about doing an antipersonnel mine? I had a comment here about what is legal vs banned under the current scheme, but I don't really need to give the antis ideas of more things that they aren't aware of that they will demand banning. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/11/2016 9:46:58 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Freedom_Or_DEATH:
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Freedom_Or_DEATH:
Originally Posted By NoloContendere:
it will be live and i'll post up the link once i receive it. my only condition was no video! I've seen him, you're not missing much
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/11/2016 10:02:58 PM EDT
[Last Edit: xxprince]
[#47]
Nvm
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/11/2016 10:09:04 PM EDT
[#48]
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/11/2016 10:14:28 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By RockHard13F:
Pretty sure you can actually do a 60mm mortar for the price of a nicer AR with optics. Mine was only $2500, and I have a very nice mortar. And there is talk of many, many more DDs becoming available and cheap. Soon.
Keep talking. You've got my attention. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/11/2016 10:31:27 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryListening now. |
|
|
|
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.
