Political environment keeping you from buying AR15?

[theLBC]

if nothing else, lanagan understands the odds of biden winning is about the same as my dna matching michael jordan.
i should note that criminal and civil cases are decided on evidence that doesn't prove a dna match, but merely the unlikely odds that the dna would match anyone else.

 

[theLBC]

 

[Blutroop]

View attachment 7510881

I will not accept this fraud.

 

[theLBC]

I will not accept this fraud.

i'm going to have 10 more kids next year if they install biden.

 

[LRRPF52]

Oh, me again...

What do you mean was it legit? It was clearly illegal. I don't think she should be in jail, not because she is innocent but because I think jailing political enemies is the road to ruin. I don't know why they would have bleached it if it was only about yoga or somesuch, and I don't believe Hillary can do yoga anyway.

I don't know its connection to the Russia hoax other than that they were running the Russia op against Trump, got desperate with the emails and saw a way to sling shit at him.

Security manager: “So have you mishandled or removed any classified materials over the past 12 months?"

Me: “Well, I didn’t like the classified headers, so I ordered my subordinates to copy the files, remove the classification headers, then email them to an unauthorized email I use on a non-secure server I hid in my basement bathroom."

Security manager: “Ha ha, that’s a funny one. Can we get serious now? Have you had any contact with foreign agents, received any money from said agents, or own any property abroad that you haven’t disclosed?"

Me: “Well, it wasn’t me, but my spouse has been flown to foreign countries to help with some deals, and we took $145 million from one of those countries’ businessmen over the past 10 years. Something about them wanting to buy our Uranium, I don’t know. I was really more interested in yoga and my daughter’s wedding dresses."

Security manager: “Well, sounds great. You’re all set. We’ll review in another year and see if there have been any changes."

 

[addertooth]

This has to be one of the most interesting and diverse threads I have read in quite some time. So many other forums I participate in have hard and fast rules against discussing politics, so it is quite refreshing to see open (and spirited) discourse here.

Now that the pleasantries are out of the way, let me grab the skunk by the tail (swing a polecat in the room). Everyone has discussed steps a, b, d, e, f, g... But for some reason, step "c" seems omitted. Step c interests me. If the government wants to intentionally squeeze off the use of firearms, they only need to do a couple things.

1. limit (or stop) access to Primers and Ammo. Eventually, everyone's ammo will start to be less reliable due to age (or just get shot off).
I know a lot of reloaders, and NONE of them can make their own primers. They lack the knowledge of chemistry to make the compound, and they don't have the gear to make the metal cup body and anvil in the cap.

2. Guns and gun parts. Probably the hardest part to fabricate is a good barrel. Many gunsmiths don't have the tooling to do even a basic button rifling of a smooth bore (let alone hammer forged), or to even make a straight 20 inch smooth bore barrel (long drill bits like to wander, and reaming a wandering hole still makes a wandering bore). Even a 20 inch solid carbide boring bar is an awfully wobbly thing.

I do hear a lot of talk about what people might do if restrictions are put in place, but if primers were banned tomorrow, there would be few working guns in 50 years. I am actually more concerned about primers, than gun parts. There will always be people who have a Mill, a Lathe, and a Hydraulic Press in their garage. I would be so bold to suggest for the people who are concerned about someone taking their weapons is simple. Get some machining tools, and learn that craft. It might not hurt to learn some basic chemistry as well. The up front cost might set you back the cost of 5 Good (2k) guns.

I realize that right now we are only in the "erosion of rights and possible registration phase", but trust me, those who dislike guns are making long-term plans. It is not unreasonable to be as forward thinking as those who would consider it a wonderful thing to strip you of your rights.

 

[theLBC]

This has to be one of the most interesting and diverse threads I have read in quite some time. So many other forums I participate in have hard and fast rules against discussing politics, so it is quite refreshing to see open (and spirited) discourse here.

Now that the pleasantries are out of the way, let me grab the skunk by the tail (swing a polecat in the room). Everyone has discussed steps a, b, d, e, f, g... But for some reason, step "c" seems omitted. Step c interests me. If the government wants to intentionally squeeze off the use of firearms, they only need to do a couple things.

1. limit (or stop) access to Primers and Ammo. Eventually, everyone's ammo will start to be less reliable due to age (or just get shot off).
I know a lot of reloaders, and NONE of them can make their own primers. They lack the knowledge of chemistry to make the compound, and they don't have the gear to make the metal cup body and anvil in the cap.

2. Guns and gun parts. Probably the hardest part to fabricate is a good barrel. Many gunsmiths don't have the tooling to do even a basic button rifling of a smooth bore (let alone hammer forged), or to even make a straight 20 inch smooth bore barrel (long drill bits like to wander, and reaming a wandering hole still makes a wandering bore). Even a 20 inch solid carbide boring bar is an awfully wobbly thing.

I do hear a lot of talk about what people might do if restrictions are put in place, but if primers were banned tomorrow, there would be few working guns in 50 years. I am actually more concerned about primers, than gun parts. There will always be people who have a Mill, a Lathe, and a Hydraulic Press in their garage. I would be so bold to suggest for the people who are concerned about someone taking their weapons is simple. Get some machining tools, and learn that craft. It might not hurt to learn some basic chemistry as well. The up front cost might set you back the cost of 5 Good (2k) guns.

I realize that right now we are only in the "erosion of rights and possible registration phase", but trust me, those who dislike guns are making long-term plans. It is not unreasonable to be as forward thinking as those who would consider it a wonderful thing to strip you of your rights.

good points. counterpoints:
1. i remember when pot was illegal here and druggies had to do without any. lol
2. spitballing, but i think if you add up the available barrel life of existing guns already in american homes and gun safes, it would take decades before there was a barrel shortage, but there would be a thriving black market and organized crime behind it, like drugs.
hell, eric holder or the cia might run the cartels.

/i don't mean long range precision rifle barrels, but guns in general.

 

[Keel Haul]

The incoming climate doesn’t make me want to buy an AR but it does make me not want to commit to the couple of form 1’s and form 4’s I was planning to submit in the new year.

 

[addertooth]

To actually answer the Original Poster's (OP) question. It made me evaluate any purchase in the vein of "does it have any features which will Trigger regulators to see it as an "assault weapon"" (should regulations become more stiff after purchase)... things like Bayonet Lug, vertical forward grip, shorter barrel, etc.

 

[Blutroop]

Gotta have a bayonet lug. What else you gonna do when you’ve used up all 3 cases of 20 rounds and aunt tiffas runts start coming at you like you just found the last crack rock in the entire republic.

P.s. don’t forget to buy a bayonet.

Oorrrr, get one of those “adaptors” that can shoot coke cans and do sum xperi mint.. ing

 

[Winny94]

I don't have to. It's the AP. Do you really think that a person with Giuliani's reputation is going to sit in front of a senate hearing with the actual voting tabulation report in his hand and falsify those numbers? Not a chance. I watched that hearing. They never even so much as tried to rebut those numbers.

Now, do I think think the AP will lie to push an agenda? No doubt about it. They do it all the time.

You are delusional - the numbers are verified by the PA DOS - but guessing you'll say they too are part of this grand conspiracy.

 

[addertooth]

You are delusional - the numbers are verified by the PA DOS - but guessing you'll say they too are part of this grand conspiracy.

I am not taking a side on this, but I will point out that we have had a decade of "officials making clear and emphatic statements which have proven untrue". I have reached the point where Government "statements/promises/validations/best-science exhortations, and yes, verifications" are looked at with a jaundiced eye; I am not alone in this view. "It was a video, You can keep your insurance, there were no guns sold in Mexico, There is no proof of human to human transfer, You shouldn't wear a mask, you should wear a mask, a vaccine won't be ready for at least 18 months, 17 agencies agreed that Trump colluded with..., there was no spying, etc". We have grown accustomed to those "in the know" giving bad information, and asserting questionable facts. I am surprised how readily the public still laps up information from some sources.

I love it when people check me on the facts (if I am speaking the truth); this gives me a pleasurable moment when I watch the person who challenged me "eat crow". When I am challenged, I will make it easy for others to verify my statements are accurate, as a minimum, to frame a thoughtful discussion. Currently, we ARE running into circumstances where the "certifying person/body/state" is blocking access to the voting machines. This DOES seem odd, if they are certain of their truthfulness, I would expect them to openly invite inspection, which would only PROVE their certifications were accurate. Instead, they have fought access to the voting machines, which (as a minimum) seems odd.

An often quoted phrase (which is likely true) is: "There was no systemic voter fraud". It is the shield which is currently being broadly applied as a platitude. The key question is, do you need Systemic Fraud to change an outcome? The answer to that question is No. When elections are close, each candidate has a "pathway to victory" which requires them to win in specific states. You don't have to cheat/manipulate in all 50 states to assure victory for your candidate. You don't need systemic fraud. You only need to cheat (a little) in the key states (specifically large cites) which are part of the "pathway to victory" for your preferred candidate.

I would like to see more transparency. If for no other reason, it will reduce the divide which currently exists. The longer the delay on access, the greater the legitimate concern that the data reviewed on the voting machines may have been tainted in some fashion. Transparency offered too late will not settle the divide.

 

[GT1975]

it's like the Milgram experiments, many people are just likely to bend to an "authoritative" voice i suppose it's in their animal nature. Combined with their susceptibility to powerful, easy to manipulate, religion-like memes like "systemic racism" and "russia collusion" ...;.