Lord Ratner

Sort of. Bruen was pretty substantial in that established a new rule by which to weigh all cases. A historical precedent for restriction. And it it set the historical timeline basically all the way back to the founding and before. It was a huge win. However, and the name of the case escapes me right now, but it was followed up by a case that had a very ambiguous allowance for reasonable restrictions, without much of a definition. So it was very much a two steps forward one step back type of deal. While it's still more substantial firearms case law than we've had in decades, it has been incomplete. I think it's just a matter of time now, with all of the changes a foot and what seems to be a pretty dramatic increase in gun and accessory sales over the last few years. Suppressors are a perfect example. You didn't see many of them in the past and now they are being sold by the millions each year. Forced reset triggers are another interesting one. The bump stock ruling certainly made FRTs more defensible, but at the end of the day, bump stocks and bump firing were were a workaround to simulate an automatic weapon. It was never going to be a widely practiced or consumed technique. FRTs on the other hand require no technique or understanding, and effectively bypass the entire NFA restriction on automatic weapons. I think that's going to end up at the supreme Court sooner rather than later.

I'm in favor of these laws only because they are forcing the issue to SCOTUS faster. SCOTUS has been hiding from the 2nd amendment my whole life, and only recently have they finally given it some respect. But not enough, and obviously "high capacity" magazines, assault weapons, NFA, CCW, and FRTs all need to be addressed definitively. But Roberts is a coward. 🤷🏻‍♂️

Yep, that should account for about 1 trillion in infrastructure spending 🤣😂

If the aforementioned Gulfstreams are certified in the US and EU, expect some posturing from Canada followed by quiet but swift certification of the planes. That's my bet

When people lie as the entry point of a conversation, it's pretty difficult to take anything else that they say as serious. So we have all of these "peaceful" protesters who are just "monitoring" law enforcement with their cell phone cameras. Yet with all this peaceful monitoring going on, I have yet to see a video of a poor illegal immigrant mother being torn from her children while at the park, or an illegal immigrant doctor being kidnapped from the surgery suite. The closest thing I've seen are heavily edited videos that try to remove the part of the interaction where the illegal immigrant was fleeing either on foot or in a vehicle, in many cases putting the people around them at risk. So if these peaceful protesters aren't actually monitoring anything, why are they there and why are they being encouraged to be there by politicians? I suspect if you were to ask the protesters in a candid moment, they would admit that what they're really trying to do is just get in the way and disrupt as many deportations or incarcerations as they can, because fundamentally they believe that illegal immigrants have a right to be, well, anywhere I guess. But I think if you were to ask the people funding and directing them, you would get an answer far more similar to what Clark and Smokin and a couple others have proposed. Distract from the Somali welfare story and de-legitimize the entire premise of immigration control with whatever or distorted accounts of police violence. Those two goals alone help a wide range of progressive policies. As usual, no one on either side actually gives a shit about the illegal immigrants.

Cliffs notes? I can't stand that guy's videos. He always interprets rulings as way, way, way more consequential than they really are. I can't tell if he's a moron or just click baiting for more views.

I'm interested in what y'all think about the Minneapolis situation. Specifically, the Alex Pretti shooting. I'm a licensed concealed carry holder, and I can't imagine ever resisting arrest or in any way fucking with the police while I have a firearm on me. Not that I would be doing it unarmed either, but when I have a gun on me, legal or not, my decorum with the cops is at a maximum. I feel like the narrative has gotten so warped and biased that we're somehow expected to accept obstruction of justice and resisting arrest as normal parts of "peaceful" protesting. I do not. And I don't believe either Alex Pretti or Renee Goode should be dead, nor do I believe they intended to harm the officers they were interacting with. But I also think their actions were easily interpreted as hostile by officers with only seconds to assess the situation and act in self defense. Neither of these people would be dead if they were holding signs on the sidewalk and chanting anti-ICE slogans.

I'm confused. You just came here and posted this without reading anything?

I suspect the 5.7 round will be similar to 9 mm, where it is poo-pooed by the shooting world for years and then suddenly enough interest is put into it, and enough research that some incredibly effective and tuned rounds are developed. I think the 30 years of poo pooing is about over, and now that all of the manufacturers are releasing their own 5.7 guns, we're going to get the ballistics improvement that 9 mm experienced once it was widely adopted.

Bro. No. There will be no agreement on meaningfully increasing military spending by any of the nations that have committed themselves to devastating deficits to fund limitless social program spending. The closest we'll get is printing a little more money to send to proxies like Ukraine. Anything that involves the participation of the civilian population, or God forbid a sacrifice by them, is completely dead in the water. Until people start dying, we are going to whistle our way into catastrophe just like Europe did in the 30s while Germany was obviously gearing up for war. Someone in the administration, maybe Trump, maybe someone he trusts, knows this and is at least trying to clean up the cheap victories in preparation. Unfortunately for Maduro.

No. You didn't miss anything. I think straw men are the only arguments they can make anymore.

It's a valid consideration. Granted, the pellets aren't going to spread that much, and they're going to go in the direction you're pointing it at, so I don't think it's a massive collateral risk increase compared to rifles and pistols, but it's definitely a real risk. I think I would still grab the shotgun first and rack it loudly, to make sure the threat is transmitted. At that point I can grab another option sitting next to it, and hand the boom stick to my wife. What did you get in 5.7? I got that wretched PR57 from Keltec and love it, so now I have to start looking at more 5.7 options. The PSA uzi-looking gun they are developing sure looks fun.

Who is justifying that?

For Greenland? Any military action. Diplomatic and economic I can't think of a line outright.

First line of defense is a pump action shotgun, unchambered. I know some people are very paranoid about announcing themselves, but to me it's far more likely that the person in my house is going to be one of my kids or someone I know who's being dumb, and I don't want to shoot that person. Hearing a shotgun rack will cause 99% of people to either announce who they are or start running if they shouldn't be there. If it happens to be that 1%, buckshot is a very persuasive crime deterrent.