Please wait...
Propellant isn't hard ( but may not be smokeless, so dirty ). Primers, can be done too. Making casings from scratch, its a bit tougher but its not impossible.
Problem will be when getting caught with one = life sentence + all your assets ( so your family loses everything too )
Sun Jun 05 2022 10:54:38 PM EDT from zelgomerWhich reminds me: as we've already covered, making a gun in your garage is relatively easy. What we need are people figuring out how we're going to make propellant and primers from readily avaiable uncontrolled products.
Ramifications of getting caught with one are irrelevant. When it gets to that point, it's time to start using them.
There will be a 'buffer' period where you dont need it yet, but you cant have it and if you get caught hiding it ( or if you are forced to use it in self defense .. ) you are f-ed.
They may be passing a new bump stock ban, over 15 round mag ban, and mandated storage. At the federal level.
The time for the decision is coming soon i'm afraid.
2022-06-09 22:33 from Nurb432 <nurb432@uncensored.citadel.org>
They may be passing a new bump stock ban, over 15 round mag ban, and
mandated storage. At the federal level.
The time for the decision is coming soon i'm afraid.
I'd be curious to see whether the SCOTUS upholds it. If the military can have it, then civilians can have it. 10 minutes worth of research on the intent of the 2A authors reveals this in no uncertain terms. If they don't shoot it down, then yes, dark days ahead.
First there has to be a suit, that makes its way to them, with all those steps involved.. Then they have to be willing to accept it.
So many places for it to die before we would get a ruling.
2022-06-09 23:14 from Nurb432 <nurb432@uncensored.citadel.org>
First there has to be a suit, that makes its way to them, with all
those steps involved.. Then they have to be willing to accept it.
So many places for it to die before we would get a ruling.
Yeah something like this won't die.
2022-06-06 11:34 from zelgomer
From what I've been hearing, it sounds like primers are the bottleneck
in the current shortage. All of the reloaders have plenty of slugs,
powder, and cases, but they can't find primers.
The problem with primers is that good ones require you to use Nitric Acid, which is hard to come by in meaningful ammounts from Chemical industries who are willing to sell to private individuals. Not to mention that buying Nitric Acid is highly suspicious because it acts as a core ingredient for lots of explosives.
It is also hard and expensive to produce in meaningul ammounts because the catalyzer (Pt) is kind of expensive and oxidates into nothingness quickly.
Well a positive common sense ruling this week on this topic too. That we have a right to carry and bear, anything that is considered an "arm", in public.
In theory it strikes down nearly every gun law in the country. In reality they will just ignore the ruling and enact more laws.
Our founders missed the boat on this one. There should be severe penalties if you create/cosign/vote/etc on a bill or law that egregiously violates the Constitution. Accidents, sure it can happen, but clear over reach should be punished. Oh and mandated term limits on ALL elected AND appointed positions. They never dreamed people would make life long careers.. didnt really feel it was needed to put it in writing.
2022-06-24 20:02 from Nurb432 <nurb432@uncensored.citadel.org>
Well a positive common sense ruling this week on this topic too.
That we have a right to carry and bear, anything that is considered
an "arm", in public.
In theory it strikes down nearly every gun law in the country. In
reality they will just ignore the ruling and enact more laws.
Our founders missed the boat on this one. There should be severe
penalties if you create/cosign/vote/etc on a bill or law that
egregiously violates the Constitution. Accidents, sure it can
happen, but clear over reach should be punished. Oh and mandated term
limits on ALL elected AND appointed positions. They never dreamed
people would make life long careers.. didnt really feel it was needed
to put it in writing.
Wholeheartedly agree with the sentiment, but how do you penalize oathbreakers without giving them the opportunity to defend themselves on taxpayer dime? I suspect the founders imagined the voter base would hold them accountable at the polls. Remember in their world view only land owners were voters. They didn't imagine a constituency made up by vast majority of uninformed dead beats with no stake in the game.
Also does this ruling immediately invalidate (at least in theory) the recent NY ban on armor? A contemporary interpretation of "arms" is supposed to include armor.
Immediately remove them from office. They have to sit out a session then they can run again. 2 strikes, they are out permanently.
Personally id say any restriction across the country is now instantly invalid, including the NFA.. but i know it wont really work that way.
2022-06-24 22:31 from Nurb432 <nurb432@uncensored.citadel.org>
Immediately remove them from office. They have to sit out a session
then they can run again. 2 strikes, they are out permanently.
Right, so it basically turns into impeachment and then they get to defend themselves and the whole dog and pony show happens on our dime. And you know it will be used against political opponents. That was the whole point of running Trump through 50 impeachments - they'd hoped it would disqualify him from running again.
Of course in theory, if it SCOTUS that does the deciding that you over stepped, it should remove a lot of the politics out of it.
Not that they are above it, but they tend to be immune from the daily swings in public opinion.
In theory it strikes down nearly every gun law in the country. In
reality they will just ignore the ruling and enact more laws.
When I'm being hyperbolic I summarize it as "people who support gun control laws should be shot" but the longer version of it is that 2A is the only amendment out of the original ten that actually states *why* it is there. It would make more sense to the modern reader if you read the second phrase first, because it says what the law is, and then the first phrase explains why it is there.
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
That's the rule. It's not up for debate. It doesn't say what kind of weapons, it doesn't say that the people can only have small weapons, or guns that fire slowly. The second amendment guarantees that citizens are permitted to be armed to the teeth if they want to. And the other part says why:
"A well regulated militia [is] necessary to the security of a free state."
The framers felt the need to point out that an armed citizen militia is important.
Not a standing army, as the Hollywood pedophiles claim is the meaning of "militia". This document was written for a newly minted nation that had just won its independence by having its citizen militia successfully fight off the strongest standing army in the world. So it sure as hell doesn't mean that only a standing army can have guns.
Back to the statement about shooting the gun control people -- 2A exists because the framers knew that the people need to be able to defend themselves against a government that has gotten out of control. The people who support gun control are aiding and abeting that exact threat. Every totalitarian regime in the last 300 years began its rule by disarming the people.
The reason for 2A is manifesting. Those people are an active, dangerous threat to liberty and should be considered a military enemy.
Or the ones that try to conflate it with 'Hunting rights'. ( or even self-protection from other loony citizens.. really, the 2nd isn't about that either. )
Founders never dreamed either of those would be attacked too. Dropped the ball on that one. "self apparent", ya, but it needed to be spelled out.