Lord Ratner

That's fair. You need something to clean the guns with.

Honestly, get both. Not just because more is better 🤣😂. You're getting too fundamentally different shooting experiences with the two suppressors you mentioned. With 22 you can have the spooky silent experience, which is really neat. Especially if you put it on a bolt action rifle. My buddy and I were out at the range recently and it was quieter than a normal volume conversation. 556 is supersonic, so it's not going to be quiet per se, but it does dramatically improve the shooting experience. You'll still want hearing protection on if you're the one shooting, but when my friends shoot suppressed 556, as long as I'm 10 or more feet away, hearing protection is optional. If you insist on only getting one, get whichever one you shoot more. My intention is to convert as many of my weapons over to suppressed as possible. It's just more enjoyable to shoot suppressed. Kind of makes me angry, because if the NFA hadn't included silencers for the last hundred years, it's crazy to think of how much quieter all firearms would be in general as suppressor technology would be incorporated at a base level. Oh well, at least now that can happen.

https://archive.ph/ Though in this case I did not need a subscription to CNN to read it

Now all the prices are going to skyrocket for a while I suspect as everybody scoops up the existing inventory. But once everything balances out this should be a fantastic win. I'm one step closer to an FRT Tommy gun...

There's another danger. The ruling is based entirely off tax collection. And as everybody knows, our taxes are done through the incredibly fuzzy process of reconciliation. Unless something is done to modify or repeal the NFA, Democrats will only need to reinstate a $1 tax on short barreled rifles and suppressors to put them right back under the NFA. Now, 2 years of unrestricted sales of these firearms would do a lot to make it less likely to change back, but the ruling is only useful if it is one step in a continuing process of deregulation.

I have flight attendants who weren't alive for 9/11 and we're just now getting the barriers. We're a joke.

Christopher Nolan has always had the most realistic take on the balance between freedom, ignorance, and safety. The Dark Knight was another excellent metaphor.

Shit man, I passed every class this semester

I think as long as you're willing to buy a bunch of guns, which obviously most of us are, 5'7 is a cool round to add. I loved the pr-57 from Kel-Tec, and they have another cool gun that uses p90 mags. The round is finally catching on and unlike so many others, it offers something unique ballistically to add to the collection

It makes all the sense in the world. That being said, I would never ever do it. You don't want to be in front of a jury having used a gun that is anything but a normal, boring gun. No punisher decals, no quippy phrases, and no "scary" accessories.

Thankfully, Congress didn't remove the tax from fully automatic weapons. That will make it much more palatable for the supreme Court to uphold this ruling, since a shorter barrel or a suppressor is a really stupid thing to regulate anyway, and they very easily fall under the common use test.

Now it's leftist? This is a semantic game at this point. Kamala was very progressive. It's funny because we were supposed to take everything Trump says literally, but now we don't worry about what kamla says? This conversation is at least useful in demonstrating how successful the extreme leftists have been at moving the goal posts. Personally I think anybody who supports cutting the tits off of a 14-year-old has no business being considered moderate in any capacity, or run of the mill.

The few times she was able to put enough words together to stake out a position, it was not at all establishment. Medicare for all was her most mainstream position, but the other were... Not Abolish all private health insurance Federal Jobs guarantee Green New deal Banning fracking and offshore drilling Mandatory gun buyback for "assault weapons" Bail for protestors/rioters Abortion until birth Trans surgery for prisoners on government dime Prisoners voting Pack the supreme Court/dump the filibuster Sanctuary cities On and on and on Again, I disagree completely with the notion that Trump is the one creating interest in the DSA. For starters, it predates Trump. And second, I view Trump as the conservative version of the DSA. It's just a politician who tells the voters everything they want to hear with no ability to follow through on most of it. Some of you guys weren't paying attention. Then Trump showed up and all of a sudden the absurdity of it all made you look around and now you see the rot and corruption, but some of us have been watching that for decades. All Trump did was pull the mask off of DC. The DSA was coming regardless of who won on the conservative side. Same false premise., was not an establishment Democrat. Or at least not a Clintonian/Kennedy Democrat, if we need to get specific on what establishment means anymore. And remember that Joe Biden was supposed to be the moderate choice and he ended up regurgitating Bernie Sanders' platform for 4 years. The moderates are not going to win for now. The Democrats have one, he had a debilitating stroke and yet is somehow the only sane voice in the room. He's not very popular in the party these days.

Sure. But I think it's more likely that we're in an environment where the American people want everything for nothing and there is no shortage of politicians willing to offer it. The failure to provide the impossible will keep ping ponging the party in power. Terrible execution, no argument there. But I think the DSA surge has more to do with what I said above. We're in the bad part of the cycle, and the politics are going to reflect that Sure, but I listed a lot of very good policy from the conservative perspective. Trump pairs it with unhinged social media posting and rampant lying. And familial corruption now. That'll drive voters away for sure, but again, not more than the unrealistic voter expectations. The flaw in the logic is that: @No One is trying to say Kamala would have been better. Trump may drive voters to the Democrats, but the response to that isn't to give crazy Democrats power earlier. Just like I wish the Republicans picked a better candidate (DeSantis), I wish the Democrats did too. But they didn't. We got two idiots, but with very different policy. And Trump's policy is overwhelmingly good. Everything else about him sucks. I don't care about hypothetical candidates. There wasn't a Clinton Democrat to vote for.