The Political Memes Thread (memes too spicy for Channel Zero)

[abrasivesaint]

5 minutes ago, Kults said:

Ya, get fucked retard. I can do it too.

The difference is i’m backing up my claims and you are not. The link you sent about Australias “disaster” gun laws didn’t prove a thing. 

 

Mercer and Raven have both argued against me and said things i agree with. I have admitted when Raven called me on being too vague about red flag laws and i admitted he was correct and i wasn’t specific enough. 

 

I have yet to see any of the same from you. I’m typing long winded responses, addressing specific points and you’re throwing out vague statements. Then accusing me of ignoring everything you post when i clearly have not. I have read and looked into everything you’ve sent. 

Edited August 8, 2019 by abrasivesaint

[Kults]

17 minutes ago, abrasivesaint said:

The difference is i’m backing up my claims and you are not. The link you sent didn’t prove a thing. 

 

Mercer and Raven have both argued against me and said things i agree with. I have admitted when Raven called me on being too vague about red flag laws and i admitted he was correct and i wasn’t specific enough. 

 

I have yet to see any of the same from you. I’m typing long winded responses, addressing specific points and you’re throwing out vague statements. Then accusing me of ignoring everything you post when i clearly have not. I have read and looked into everything you’ve sent. 

Except you dodge what doesnt suit you, are needlessly aggressive when youre on the defensive and argue in bad faith. I linked you an academic study with multiple citations explaining how gun bans are counter productive and dont work. You responded with wiki screenshots and "my friend said so". 

 

You cant debate for shit.

[abrasivesaint]

- i did not respond with wiki screenshots. The wiki screenshot was in reference to a BBC story about a prior post i had made and forgot to link the story. Pretty straight forward. I have done a little research into Australian gun laws myself. I’m waiting for my friend to point in his direction of where he would look, because again, he is someone i generally DISAGREE with politically. He’s not pandering to me. 

 

- please point out specific things i have dodged that didn't suit me.

 

- I’m not arguing banning, i’m arguing regulation. 

[abrasivesaint]

I have asked you to quote me numerous times and point out where i’m dodging arguments, and ignoring points or ignoring articles you have cited. I’m still waiting. 

 

Edit: I specifically left my fuck up in my search of the Dayton shooting when i typed in Daytona. I have quoted you and others directly. Elaborate on my bad faith. 

Edited August 8, 2019 by abrasivesaint

[Kults]

Read the study, that would be a great start.

[misteraven]

11 hours ago, abrasivesaint said:

You’re right about this. I meant to clarify that i understood they vary state to state and forgot to do so. 

 

Violated, no, amended, possibly. Not repealed, amended. It is in fact itself an amendment. Why must the Bill of Rights being so locked in stone? We amend laws all the time, they become out dated. Yet for some reason, guns laws are deemed untouchable. 

 

Obviously, like you said Raven, guns are low hanging fruit to previously discussed issues. There are plenty of factors involved in gun deaths. Guns are simply the means to the end. 

They were engineered to be locked in stone. No disrespect, but it might not be a bad idea to brush up on your civics as its critical if we're to have an intelligent discussion on this very topic.

 

Here's the cliff notes, but I encourage you to look it up and study it for yourself. Honestly, I think that if people had a better understanding of the subject, half the debates would go away.

 

The US Constitution was drafted as a response to the failure of the Articles of Confederation. The 13 colonies after having won the war of independence recognized they couldn't survive, let alone flourish without cooperation amongst themselves. Considering the sacrifices made to earn their freedom from the crown, none were too keen on the idea to replace one ruler with another. The first attempt at an agreement to work together was under the Articles of Confederation, but this agreement restricted a centralized governing body to such a degree, it literally could not operate and collapsed. After years of dialogue and debate they eventually drafted the Constitution. The only way the Constitution could be ratified was with the inclusion of the Bill of Rights, which in fact are the first 10 Amendments to the Constitution. The Bill of Rights was basically the best bits and pieces from the existing Bill of Rights maintained by most of the individual colonies, which they were quick to define after winning their Independence from England. Without the Bill or Rights, the United States would not have been formed. The US Constitution is the charter for how the United States is to operate, with the first part, the Bill of Rights, being a declaration of unalienable human rights. They're drafted in such a way as to be specifically structured to not be rights granted by government, but rather intrinsic human rights for all, granted by God. This last bit is particularly notable and there's a lot of historical data on this since the entire debate and ratification process was thoroughly documented (The Federalist Papers) and there are both biographies and auto biographies written by the founding fathers themselves. As such, we know most were Deists and a significant number were atheist. If you have any type of understanding of Deism, it's a far cry from Christianity or the Puritanism, we often hear and essentially posits that there is likely a supreme being, but absolutely rejects the idea of a spiritual being that mettles in the affairs of man. The reason all the founding fathers, Desist or not, accepted this, was because by attributing these rights as granted by God, was a method to insure that man could never supersede that entity, in turn meaning that there is zero way for the right to be taken away until God himself shows up to tell us he's changed his mind.

 

This is extremely important to understand, as well as the fact that the first 10 amendments are presented in a specific order from most important and general to a free society, to increasingly more specific. Each subsequent amendment, is intended to protect the preceding ones. The rest of the amendments (11th and onwards) have a system for repeal, revision and amendment. The first 10 absolutely do not. The United States was very specifically founded as a Constitutional Republic, not a Democracy, which means that there are certain things that cannot be put to a vote, namely the Bill of Rights. All that follows is subject to Democracy, so long as none of it violates what's been defined in the first 10 Amendments.

 

So to your point... In order to change that, you'd need to dissolve the United States and issue a new charter. There is no other method to accomplish it legally. Morally, at least according to the founding fathers, it still wouldn't matter and no doubt they'd expect it to kick off yet another revolutionary war.

 

 

[misteraven]

You cannot ban guns in the USA. Its simply impossible from a legal stand point, but culturally it goes far beyond that. There's plenty of studies that show the effectiveness (or lack thereof) of gun control laws, and there's specific data on an "Assault Weapons Ban" since we've tried that before. The data is available on the FBI.gov website so feel free to look it up. Violent crime went up during the assault weapons ban and actually went down when the law was allowed to sunset. Columbine took place in the midst of the assault weapon ban.

 

But interesting to note of if you look at the numbers according to the FBI, is that violent crime, minus the period during the assault weapons ban, has steadily declined year over year for decades despite gun ownership growing exponentially. Since the government is legally forbidden from keeping a database, we can look at NICS requests to get a fair idea of what gun ownership in the USA looks like. 

 

Source: https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/nics_firearm_checks_-_month_year.pdf

 

The growth is exponential... Last month alone, more than 2 million gun applications were submitted. Over 26 million applications were submitted to the NICS system in 2018. Since the system was put into place in late 1998, there have been more 320 million applications and we can assume that there were tens of millions, if not 100's of millions of guns in circulation prior, especially since veterans of WW2 often came home with guns. Overall firearms related deaths are approximately 30k a year for an approximate population of 320 million. That 30k includes about 20k suicides, which any reasonable person would see as an entirely separate issue. Of the remaining 10k, 70% is gang on gang violence or justifiable homicide by police and legal gun owners. This leaves 3000. Of that, you have accidents, as well as murders... So statistically, we're talking under 1% of the population. If you look up the tables for weapons used, most are handguns. Of the long guns, only a fraction are the media definition of an assault weapon, and zero are the military definition of an assault weapon. Data is all there, look it up.

 

Far from the media portrayal of the epidemic. In fact, gun death doesn't even rank in the top 10 of what kills Americans and is barely a fraction of what fills the top 3 preventable deaths for Americans. Just hard to stir people up with sensationalist stories about obesity and heart disease.

 

Whole thing is political theater, orchestrated by mainstream media on behalf of government the ones pulling strings.

 

*Last sentence is opinion, but all that proceeded it is straight fact. Again, feel free to verify each bit of it.

 

 

NICS_Firearm_Checks_-_Month_Year.pdf

[abrasivesaint]

19 minutes ago, misteraven said:

They were engineered to be locked in stone. No disrespect, but it might not be a bad idea to brush up on your civics as its critical to have an intelligent discussion on that very topic.

 

Here's the cliff notes, but I encourage you to look it up and study it for yourself. Honestly, I think that if people had a better understanding of the subject, half the debates would go away.

 

The US Constitution was drafted as a response to the failure of the Articles of Confederation. The 13 colonies after having won the war of independence recognized they couldn't survive, let alone flourish without cooperation amongst themself. Considering the sacrifices made to earn their freedom from the crown, none were too keen on the idea to replace one ruler with another. The first attempt at an agreement to work together was under the Articles of Confederation, but this agreement restricted a centralized governing body to such a degree, it literally could not operate and collapsed. After years of dialogue and debate they eventually drafted the Constitution. The only way the Constitution could be ratified was with the inclusion of the Bill of Rights, which in fact are the first 10 Amendments to the Constitution. The Bill of Rights was basically the best bits and pieces from the existing Bill of Rights maintained by most of the individual colonies, which they were quick to define after winning their Independence from England. Without the Bill or Rights, the United States would not have been formed. The US Constitution is the charter for how the United States is to operate, with the first part, the Bill of Rights, being a declaration of unalienable human rights. They're drafted in such a way as to be specifically structured to not be rights granted by government, but rather intrinsic human rights for all, granted by God. This last bit is particularly notable and there's a lot of historical data on this since the entire debate and ratification process was thoroughly documented (The Federalist Papers) and there are both biographies and auto biographies written by the founding fathers themselves. As such, we know most were Deists and a significant number were atheist. If you have any type of understanding of Deism, it's a far cry from Christianity or the Puritanism, we often here and essentially posits that there is likely a supreme being, but absolutely rejects the idea of a spiritual being that mettles in the affairs of man. The reason all the founding fathers, Desist or not, accepted this, was because by attributing these rights as granted by God, was a method to insure that man could never supersede that entity, in turn meaning that there is zero way for the right to be taken away until God himself shows up to tell us he's changed his mind.

 

This is extremely important to understand, as well as the fact that the first 10 amendments are presented in a specific order from most important and general to a free society, to increasingly more specific. Each subsequent amendment, is intended to protect the preceding ones. The rest of the amendments (11th and onwards) have a system for repeal, revision and amendment. The first 10 absolutely do not. The United States was very specifically founded as a Constitutional Republic, not a Democracy, which means that there are certain things that cannot be put to a vote, namely the Bill of Rights. All that follows is subject to Democracy, so long as none of it violates what's been defined in the first 10 Amendments.

 

So to your point... In order to change that, you'd need to dissolve the United States and issue a new charter. There is no other method to accomplish it legally. Morally, at least according to the founding fathers, it still wouldn't matter and no doubt they'd expect it to kick off yet another revolutionary war.

 

 

Fair and valid point. It had completely escaped me that the Bill of Rights itself could not be amended. No offense taken, and i will follow up on the advice. I would consider arguing the placement of importance of the 2nd amendment in the time it was ratified in comparison to today, but that’s a whole different can of worms. It is also frankly something i hadn’t considered until just now and its level of importance really isn’t existent as for as i’m concerned, so my argument would be trash and i don’t know if i would even end up agreeing with it. 

 

Some people would argue we are well on our way to a revolutionary war, or the fall of the American empire altogether. 

[abrasivesaint]

1 hour ago, misteraven said:

You cannot ban guns in the USA. Its simply impossible from a legal stand point, but culturally it goes far beyond that. There's plenty of studies that show the effectiveness (or lack thereof) of gun control laws, and there's specific data on an "Assault Weapons Ban" since we've tried that before. The data is available on the FBI.gov website so feel free to look it up. Violent crime went up during the assault weapons ban and actually went down when the law was allowed to sunset. Columbine took place in the midst of the assault weapon ban.

 

But interesting to note of if you look at the numbers according to the FBI, is that violent crime, minus the period during the assault weapons ban, has steadily declined year over year for decades despite gun ownership growing exponentially. Since the government is legally forbidden from keeping a database, we can look at NICS requests to get a fair idea of what gun ownership in the USA looks like. 

 

Source: https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/nics_firearm_checks_-_month_year.pdf

 

The growth is exponential... Last month alone, more than 2 million gun applications were submitted. Over 26 million applications were submitted to the NICS system in 2018. Since the system was put into place in late 1998, there have been more 320 million applications and we can assume that there were tens of millions, if not 100's of millions of guns in circulation prior, especially since veterans of WW2 often came home with guns. Overall firearms related deaths are approximately 30k a year for an approximate population of 320 million. That 30k includes about 20k suicides, which any reasonable person would see as an entirely separate issue. Of the remaining 10k, 70% is gang on gang violence or justifiable homicide by police and legal gun owners. This leaves 3000. Of that, you have accidents, as well as murders... So statistically, we're talking under 1% of the population. If you look up the tables for weapons used, most are handguns. Of the long guns, only a fraction are the media definition of an assault weapon, and zero are the military definition of an assault weapon. Data is all there, look it up.

 

Far from the media portrayal of the epidemic. In fact, gun death doesn't even rank in the top 10 of what kills Americans and is barely a fraction of what fills the top 3 preventable deaths for Americans. Just hard to stir people up with sensationalist stories about obesity and heart disease.

 

Whole thing is political theater, orchestrated by mainstream media on behalf of government the ones pulling strings.

 

*Last sentence is opinion, but all that proceeded it is straight fact. Again, feel free to verify each bit of it.

 

 

NICS_Firearm_Checks_-_Month_Year.pdf 17.92 kB · 0 downloads

I was never promoting the banning of firearms. I have only talked about possible further regulations. You could argue that the gun violence has been going down since the enactment of “Brady’s Bill. “ This article doesn't specifically name Brady’s Bill as one of it’s factors in the decline, it actually doesn’t even mention it at all,  but the graph/timeline in this photo could be a case for it.  

 

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/12/03/weve-had-a-massive-decline-in-gun-violence-in-the-united-states-heres-why/

 

 

Edited August 8, 2019 by abrasivesaint

[Mercer]

This is turning into a good debate in here, good read.

 

Props all around and please continue.

 

 

on an unrelated note pertaining to victimless crimes:

 

[misteraven]

1 hour ago, abrasivesaint said:

Fair and valid point. It had completely escaped me that the Bill of Rights itself could not be amended. No offense taken, and i will follow up on the advice. I would consider arguing the placement of importance of the 2nd amendment in the time it was ratified in comparison to today, but that’s a whole different can of worms. It is also frankly something i hadn’t considered until just now and its level of importance really isn’t existent as for as i’m concerned, so my argument would be trash and i don’t know if i would even end up agreeing with it. 

 

Some people would argue we are well on our way to a revolutionary war, or the fall of the American empire altogether. 

I've spent a lot of time reading up on it. Always enjoyed history, especially American history. But about a decade back I kept seeing politicians and reports making statement that just seemed wrong so I took the time to start looking into it. The more I read, the more fascinating it all became, particularly when you get deep enough to realize that the reasons that led to all of it are nearly being played out in an identical way today. In those days legislators wrote their own legislation. Likewise, they were their own lobbyists as well and in order to rally support, they'd regularly publish articles in the newspapers of that day. All of it is very thoroughly documented for that reason and virtually the entire dialogue and discourse has been very well preserved. As such, long after the fact, we're able to know the full context of the discussion and result and there's little, if any, interpretation needed. So the debate really becomes, do we dissolve their great experiment with a Constitutional Republic and start over or is there something to be learned about the choices they made, how they came to be and how they apply to our society 200+ years later.

 

In my personal opinion, the more I read and learn what they did, the more brilliant it becomes in my eyes. These were men that were far ahead of their time and there's very few talking points or counter arguments I've seen today that were not specifically addresses by them two centuries ago.

 

Anyhow, I'm happy to keep discussing it with you and sure I can continue to give you food for thought, that I would hope you would take the time to seek out and understand for yourself. We would all be far better off understanding these subjects and I can say for certain that politicians are very heavily taking advantage of the fact that so few people have even a general understanding of it. I've come to genuinely believe its been planned this way. Far easier to win a game when nobody else playing knows the rules. But again... Learn for yourself and draw your conclusions based off the facts, backed up by evidence taken from the source.

[misteraven]

1 hour ago, abrasivesaint said:

I was never promoting the banning of firearms. I have only talked about possible further regulations. You could argue that the gun violence has been going down since the enactment of “Brady’s Bill. “ This article doesn't specifically name Brady’s Bill as one of it’s factors in the decline, it actually doesn’t even mention it at all,  but the graph/timeline in this photo could be a case for it.  

Do you really need a law beyond making it a crime to assault another person? There's many thousands of laws at only the Federal level that don't seem to keep evil people from doing evil things. Why would 1 or even 1000 more make any meaningful difference?

 

Also, gun control laws are only good until the next act of violence. Then suddenly we need more "common sense gun laws" until the next one, ad infinitum. Soon we find ourselves stripped of a right that was declared to be unalienable and of which according to the laws of the land, outside the jurisdiction of man.

 

The Brady Bill was instituted in 1993, the crowning achievement of which is the NICS system (that and gun free zones at public schools). The downward trend in violent crime predates the Brady Bill. In fact many sociologists have theorized that the decline in violent crime can actually be attributed to Roe vs Wade. I'm not a criminologists and its not a subject I've focused on, but the theory is compelling. It simply postulates that abortion led to many less unwanted babies, especially in the lower income bracket, which eventually led to less criminals. Though I think the idea is worthy of study, I'm of the opinion that in this case correlation might not necessarily equal causation.

 

You do need to be careful with graphs and ensure you have a proper perspective. I can crop a graph to produce whatever evidence I want. But when you zoom out a little bit, peaks and valleys have a tendency to change significantly and you'll see that the trend could be entirely different. Generally I try to look at the entire timeline.

 

But the facts I stated above are pretty clear evidence that statistically there are exponentially more guns in circulation and likewise, there is an incremental decline in overall violent crime. Also important to note, is that the gun death statistic includes suicides, which in turn is about 66% (2/3) of the overall figure. The vast majority of which are active and veteran military that saw extremely sharp increases in suicide rates since the wars in the Middle East. It would be fair to say that had we stayed out of the region, we would have no wars and can rightfully assume we would not have seen such a steep increase in suicide by that subset, which would in turn show an even steeper decline than we already witness in regards to gun deaths. Coupled with the truly staggering numbers of NICS application, interpreted as new gun sales, its hard to not dismiss it as a non issue. So considering this topic dominates the news cycle, arguably more than just about any other topic, it would imply that there is another reason driving this subject. This is the point where we move from evidence based discussion of facts, to crawling down the rabbit hole of speculation.

[Mercer]

3 hours ago, abrasivesaint said:

I can somewhat agree to this. As far as i recall in any past discussions he said most people were willing to comply and turning in certain guns, and those who werent just didnt and they didnt do all that much about. 

 

Well Brady's Bill was passed under Clinton if i’m not mistaken and was named after Brady who was caught in the fire. I’m curious exactly what about their rights were infringed upon. I feel most background check requirements are pretty fair, and they specifically exclude me from purchases firearms, and again, i thoroughly enjoy firearms. 

the Brady bill is considered by many to be the most infringing gun law to date, I banned some weapons, including took away the right for the general public to own fully automatic machine guns of even small caliber. Even more significant is how the bill outlines several technicalities, and made changes to federal law that for example: made drilling a hole in a lower receiver a felony. Before then, you could buy/sell a fully automatic weapons like the popular Thompson machine gun, or a fully automatic M-16's for example (the military version of an AR-15). Today, some of the licensed M-16's are still technically allowed to be sold legally to the public and they go for a premium. Outside of these rare cases the only entity allowed to have fully automatic weapons is ironically the entity responsible for the vast majority of murders.

 

As far as Regan/Clinton goes, in U.S. Politics the President can use their political clout to sponsor, or promote a bill. The actual negotiations and work of passing of the bill is done by the legislative branch. Technically the bill did pass under Clinton's Presidency, but it's no secret the bills main sponsor was Regan, and this bill was his final parting gift of any political significance. He was able to pull enough Republicans into voting for it allowing it to pass. The guy the Bill is named after (Brady) took a bullet along with Regan when a crazed fan of Jodi Foster's (American actress opposed to Regan) tried assassinating Regan. Regan fully recovered, I think Brady was paralyzed from the incident if I remember correctly.

 

On a more positive note, from this tragedy a band named themselves JFA, short for" Jodi Foster's Army" and they turned out to be very influential contributors to the Thrash scene late 80's. Before I leave this on a positive note I have to say Fuck Clinton, Regan, and Brady.

[Mercer]

7 minutes ago, misteraven said:

Also, gun control laws are only good until the next act of violence. Then suddenly we need more "common sense gun laws" until the next one, ad infinitum. Soon we find ourselves stripped of a right that was declared to be unalienable and of which according to the laws of the land, outside the jurisdiction of man.

You don't say?

 

This can only be described as extreme political dicklessness, anything sharper than a butter knife and the state will violently kidnap and if need be kill you just to enslave you.

 

 

 

[Mercer]

[Mercer]

[Kults]

I cant..my sides

 

 

[Kults]

The red pilling of Gervais continues

 

 

 

 

 

[Mercer]

 

 

 

 

[Mercer]

[misteraven]

1 hour ago, Mercer said:

including took away the right for the general public to own fully automatic machine guns of even small caliber.

Not quite correct. NFA of 1934 took away the right of most to own fully auto weapons. Brady Bill extended it to limit to pre ban fully auto weapons only (class 3). An American without a felony or violent crime on their record can still own a fully automatic weapon, but you need a class 3 license and you're limited to pre ban weapons sold through a class 3 licensed FFL only. This in turn made it a rich mans game, since it sky rocketed the value of those weapons. A select fire colt M16 lower for example, will often go sell for $20k+ despite it being inferior to a modern AR15 lower that can be had for about $150. Both are mil spec, meaning parts are interchangeable. The physical tweak necessary to turn it fully auto costs about $1 and takes maybe 15 minutes using info freely available online. Obviously you would be breaking Federal law to do so and I strongly suggest nobody try, but fact is that the law is basically symbolic more than anything.

[Mercer]

@misteravenWhat are your thoughts on these new milling machines people can buy like the ghostgunner? It's designed to allow random citizens the means to mass produce their own unregistered weapons in their garages.

 

I believe drilling the full auto hole in any receiver is still illegal, but unless you're in NJ this decentralized production process is still completely legal minus the full auto of course.

 

Edited August 8, 2019 by Mercer

[misteraven]

Sorry, you kind of expanded it in follow up sentences and sort of clarified it.

 

For the record since you have a lot of understanding on the subject... The AR15 is a Stoner design platform put out by Armalight (AR stands for Armalight Rifle). The differences between then lower receiver of an M16/M4/AR15 are pretty minimal. Each follows the Stoner pattern and so long as they're stamped "mil spec" it means the parts between them are interchangeable. The M16 was a rifle, wheras the M4 is a crabine. Carbine is the designation for barrel lengths under 20 inches, which is the requirement for a small arms minimum barrel length. A carbine is either 14", 16" or 18" but in order for the 14" barrel to be legal under NFA rules, it has to have a pinned or welded muzzle break or flash hider that brings it up to the 16" minimum barrel length. Anything shorter is an SBR (short barreled rifle), meaning it requires a $200 tax stamp from the BATF in order to be legal or has to have the stock removed, in which case it's legally considered a rifle calibered piston and needs no stamp. Shouldering a rifle caliber pistol is sort of a grey area and can be either ignored or lead to a world of hurt since breaking NFA laws carry very stiff penalties, including jail time in the Federal system.

 

It's all mostly feel good bullshit from politicians since to your point, these classes of weapons represent the extreme minority in real world crimes. They look *scary* so they get more attention than they deserve and considering those involved in the legislation, I have no doubt it's intentional. North America actually has some of the largest predators on the planet, as well as wild game that's far larger than what's seen on most continents, including Europe. As such, we have calibers that can stop a 2000+ lb charging animal. I've mentioned in past comments that the AR shoots .223 (as well as 5.56 if its configured for multical). 5.56 is the NATO standard for .223 and is being abandoned by the USA military, one of the few that bothered adopting it widely, because it simply under performs.

 

You can buy hunting rounds like 6.5 creadmore or 3.38 lapua magnum that'll literally turn a human being into pink mist at ranges out to about two miles (assuming the shooter is good enough), yet those are never ever mentioned. They are never used in crimes (to my knowledge), but probably more important to the conversation... Are shot from bolt action rifles that don't look *scary*.

 

 

[misteraven]

1 minute ago, Mercer said:

@misteravenWhat are your thoughts on these new milling machines people can buy like the ghostgunner? It's designed to allow random citizens to mass produce their own unregistered weapons in their garages now? I believe drilling the full auto hole in any receiver is still illegal, but unless you're in NJ this decentralized production process is still completely legal minus the full auto of course.

Its more hobby stuff or a symbolic statement more than anything. The tolerances required to put a round on target accurately, especially at distance, precludes manufacturing from anyone except talented professionals. Most manufacturers dont even do all that great a job with it, so I wouldn't run a DIY gun except to fuck around for fun.

 

Yes, there's limits to how a lower can be modified and converting it auto is one of them. It takes more than a hold being drilled, but not much more. Interesting fact is that I read of someone that registered a bunch of tweaked paperclips back during the ban, so they're now officially recognized as a pre ban, class 3 machine gun and are literally worth thousands of dollars as a result. They're just paper clips.

 

NJ has some of the tightest regulations in the country. Not a state I'd live in, but if I had to, not a state I'd be testing limits in.

[Kults]

Sure, that makes sense

[Kults]

[misteraven]

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++

NOTICE: I feel the conversation just got way too heavy for a public forum. The last several messages have been moved. I'll likely filter out a few more, so if you see them gone or want to continue the discussion (Interesting but was falling off topic), then continue here: https://forum.12ozprophet.com/topic/87716-continued-the-political-memes-thread-memes-too-spicy-for-channel-zero/

 

Group link: 

 

 

Note that the link goes to a private group. Some of you in this thread are already members. Anyone that isn't is free to join. If I recognize you as a regular 12ozProphet member, I'll grant access. Anyone else will need to wait around until we know you aren't some kind of kook or lunatic.

 

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++

[Fist 666]

[aimer]

33 minutes ago, misteraven said:

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Note that the link goes to a private group. Some of you in this thread are already members. Anyone that isn't is free to join. If I recognize you as a regular 12ozProphet member, I'll grant access. Anyone else will need to wait around until we know you aren't some kind of kook or lunatic.

 

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Can you add me in? The link just sends me to a "You do not have permission to view this content." page

Being from Aus I dont have too much insight into US politics so I don't have anything to add really, just enjoying following the debate and learning a bit haha

[abrasivesaint]

29 minutes ago, aimer said:

Can you add me in? The link just sends me to a "You do not have permission to view this content." page

Being from Aus I dont have too much insight into US politics so I don't have anything to add really, just enjoying following the debate and learning a bit haha

You could certainly add to the bit where we started talking gun laws post Port Arthur, haha.