Polymer80 may survive the court battle but not their own reputation....

[A229]

I don't think it's entirely a bad thing. A 100% "echo chamber" can get stale. And being aware of the opposition's perspective can be strategically advantageous.

Very hard to take it seriously when the supposed "opposition" in this case is someone flip-flopping and vomitting out random comments and nonsense over and over. His "exactly." replies after someone says "wtf??" to one of the ridiculous comments is particularly amusing.

Obviously it was entertaining and engaging enough to get me to come out of my "cave" to comment.

Elitism is not helpful in the gun community. Calling us "toy builders" is ridiculous and hilarious. These so called "toys" could take/protect a life just as easily as something made on a lathe/mill. If nothing else P80s help people to get into the gunsmithing world and teach important fundamentals.

If he really has as much skill as he claims, he should probably be writing and teaching, not insulting fellow gun owners online.

Apparently, we have a 6th grade builder level, ok sure, but at least my intelligence and level-headedness is far beyond that. I don't think I can say the same for "our friend" here.

 

[bkbrno]

Anyone do a Google photo search on posted pictures? If they were from the 90's, they would show up in more than a few places. If AI generated, there would be no trail.

I don't have the time or curiosity to do it, but some of you retired people might want to go down this rabbit hole.

 

[Racer88]

Anyone do a Google photo search on posted pictures? If they were from the 90's, they would show up in more than a few places. If AI generated, there would be no trail.

I don't have the time or curiosity to do it, but some of you retired people might want to go down this rabbit hole.

I do believe the photos are real... taken by @Hvymax.

 

[serger]

Having built enough Bulgarian Circle 10's using Tapco flats and
a Harbor Freight 10 ton press, the pic's are the real deal. I have
an almost identical flat forming jig. One thing I did different was
to shoe shine the barrel a little along with the barrel pin and
tap both the barrel and barrel pin in. I was skeered of marring
the barrel crown and didn't use the press for that just used a
brass hammer.

 

[James Moore]

The same thing happens to those people who stay in their oppressive states when they try to win back Freedom. They are willing to compromise that Freedom, because in reality, they are not comfortable with true Freedom.

I hope that doesn't happen to me.
I had considered fleeing Colorado, to a Free state, but have decided to stay and support the various groups that are trying to win back our Freedoms through the courts.

 

[James Moore]

Anyone do a Google photo search on posted pictures? If they were from the 90's, they would show up in more than a few places. If AI generated, there would be no trail.

I don't have the time or curiosity to do it, but some of you retired people might want to go down this rabbit hole.

I don't doubt that the pictures are real. I just think he's been mixing his whiskey with the liberal kool-aid.

 

[Knack]

Freedom is lost when people become lazy, dependent or complacent about government. The other risk to freedom springs from those who think freedom means no rules, no governance, and answering to no one. Anarchy is not freedom.

 

[Racer88]

Freedom is lost when people become lazy, dependent or complacent about government. The other risk to freedom springs from those who think freedom means no rules, no governance, and answering to no one. Anarchy is not freedom.

False dichotomy. It's not one or the other, necessarily.

Advocating for the 2A as a textualist is not "no rules" or "anarchy." "Shall not be infringed" is very clear. So, the actual RULE is that the gov't cannot infringe our Right to Keep and Bear Arms. PERIOD. No exceptions. No special circumstances or "emergencies" or "conditions." The rule is imposed upon the gov't, not citizens.

Same goes for Free Speech... and all the other Constitutionally-protected Civil Rights. There are no exceptions. No Prior Restraint. Not without amending the Constitution, at least.

 

[Knack]

False dichotomy. It's not one or the other, necessarily.

Advocating for the 2A as a textualist is not "no rules" or "anarchy." "Shall not be infringed" is very clear. So, the actual RULE is that the gov't cannot infringe our Right to Keep and Bear Arms. PERIOD. No exceptions. No special circumstances or "emergencies" or "conditions." The rule is imposed upon the gov't, not citizens.

Same goes for Free Speech... and all the other Constitutionally-protected Civil Rights. There are no exceptions. No Prior Restraint. Not without amending the Constitution, at least.

We can agree freedom is not just a Second Amendment issue. Nor is free speech what a lot of people think it is. Or civil rights. I'm referring mainly to people who dont care or even know what the Constitution says. And others who lack the intelligence to understand the right to bear arms, free speech or equality under the law. The worst choose to pervert the definition of those fundamental rights and freedoms for their own self interest. All of these personas I mentioned are just as corrosive as overreaching government. I could argue that the reason we have overreaching government is because of them. They either allow overreach out of ignorance or are enablers of it because it serves them.

 

[Racer88]

The worst choose to pervert the definition of those fundamental rights and freedoms for their own self interest. All of these personas I mentioned are just as corrosive as overreaching government.

For example? (Just so I understand what you're saying.)

 

[Knack]

I'll try to simplify. People who take no interest in government get what they are given. Or deserve. Half the country doesn't bother to vote, couldn't tell you the names of the representatives, or describe the branches of government. Others are diabolical. They work the system to exploit the rights and freedoms we have. They advocate for laws or regulation that they say refine or modernize our fundamental rights. Like writing laws that regulate certain types of guns or devices. Or mandate diversity and inclusion with quotas vs. assuring opportunity for everyone based on merit.

Humans do need rules to live by. Everything in a civilized world needs to have some guardrails to assure order. The guy next door should not be able to buy a Howitzer and ammunition for it or six pounds of Semtex at Home Depot. But the need for provision of rules and guardrails gets exploited by people with an agenda.

My observation is a staggering number of people confuse freedom and individual liberty with anarchy. I'll give an intentionally overdramatic example: Some truly believe that their inability to buy a Howitzer or plastic explosives at Home Dept is infringing. These people are stupid. Their dislike, often hatred, for any sort of government is a product of their low IQ. Ironically, one reason we have restrictive laws and regulations is because of them. Because good judgement and common sense eludes them.

This has become cliche, but it sums up my point of view about people who talk about the Constitution, Bill of Rights and the motivations and philosophy of our founders but really never read any of it:

Wanda: Calling you stupid is an insult to stupid people. Apes are smarter than you.
Otto: Apes don't read philosophy
Wanda: Yes they do Otto, they just don't understand it.

Petulant government haters are just as dangerous to ordered society as the lowlife who riot, shoplift in mobs, or otherwise dismiss the rule of law and even basic decency.

I dont disagree with your thoughts and writing about the 2A or other freedoms. I'm simply suggesting that the number of people who understand all that is a very small club. I am firmly planted in the 80/20 philosophy. Twenty percent of humanity does all the thinking. The rest are dumb as rocks. Our founders were not a bunch of musket toting bubbas who simply resented authority. These were educated, intelligent men with a vision who among other things believed men should not be governed by kings and despots. I think we can agree on that too. The question is, where are those leaders in today's world? That intellect cannot be found in Obama, Biden, nor Trump. They are all game show hosts playing to their audience.

 

[Racer88]

Humans do need rules to live by. Everything in a civilized world needs to have some guardrails to assure order. The guy next door should not be able to buy a Howitzer and ammunition for it or six pounds of Semtex at Home Depot. But the need for provision of rules and guardrails gets exploited by people with an agenda.

I agree with most of your post, including the general nature of people and widespread willful ignorance about our form of government.

And yes, societies need "rules to live by." In the USA, those "rules" (aka laws) are created by two representative chambers in Congress. And Congress is subject to the Separation of Powers, which mitigates the possibility of Congress acting outside the bounds of the Constitution when it creates those laws.

Our Constitution is UNIQUE in the WORLD in that it is a set of "rules" for the GOVERNMENT to live by. It is genius and even has a defined mechanism for amendments to be made. The amendment process is genius in itself, as it is designed to be difficult with a high bar to be met. Our Rights are not subject to the simple democratic process nor to arguments grounded in social utility. Amendments are not enacted by a popular vote of the public. Rather, it requires 2/3rds of each chamber in Congress to pass it AND THEN 3/4 of the states to ratify it.

I submit the Founders were more than just "educated." They exhibited a collective genius that may even be interpreted as divinely inspired (and I'm NOT a religious man). Sadly, I agree with you that it seems such men and women are very scarce today. Perhaps non-existent, hence my "divinely inspired" comment. The only other explanation is that they were aliens!

But, I strongly disagree with your indulgence in the same Reductio ad Absurdum as the anti-Liberty faction's, "Well, I guess you think you should be able to own tanks (or 'Howitzer,' as it were) and nukes!" It's an extreme form of Straw Man, and therefore an invalid debate point.

The 2nd Amendment and its context are VERY clear in the Amendment itself and the historical letters, speeches, and documented arguments that led to its ratification. It refers to arms in the sense of man-portable arms. Keep and BEAR arms. Artillery pieces are not "bearable" or man-portable. The 2A is not subject to "emergencies" nor does it stipulate exceptions due to contemporary circumstances or fickle prevailing cultural sensibilities. The same is true for ALL of the Amendments in the Bill of Rights.

 

[James Moore]

My observation is a staggering number of people confuse freedom and individual liberty with anarchy. I'll give an intentionally overdramatic example: Some truly believe that their inability to buy a Howitzer or plastic explosives at Home Dept is infringing.

To stick with your overly dramatic example.
Why shouldn't I be able to buy a Howitzer and plastic explosives from Home Depot?
If I don't use them to break laws that protect others lives, property or the pursuit of happiness, why shouldn't I be able to buy a Howitzer?

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and assume that you'll tell me that most people are stupid and some are going to use those Howitzers and plastic explosives to harm others and break existing laws.

If you have another reason, I'd be glad to hear it, but basically you're going to tell me that my rights should be infringed because others abuse them.
That's the Libtard Kool-aid my friend, no matter how dramatic you make the example.

 

[Racer88]

That's the Libtard Kool-aid my friend, no matter how dramatic you make the example.

Their arguments REQUIRE "dramatic" examples, because their arguments are fallacious and disingenuous. That's why I mentioned the logical fallacy known as "Reductio ad Absurdum" in my previous comment. They HAVE to resort to logical fallacies, because they don't have actual logic or facts to back up their emotionally-held positions.

They also engage in psychological projection by endowing others with their OWN violent tendencies as a delusional "justification" for their thinly-veiled quest for tyrannical CONTROL over others.

It also explains their apparent PARTNERSHIP with the criminal element to foment social chaos by implementing so-called "no cash bail," "defund the police," and appointing weak-kneed prosecutors who refuse to bring charges against criminals, releasing them back into the public. This chaos creates the environment that, once again, "justifies" more onerous laws to control citizens.

 

[Knack]

It's not a straw man. The actual numbers of nincompoops who think every gun law is infringement is not fallacy. It's an easy pattern to detect in what people say in forums, reddit, social media. Wackos. It's disproportionate to the sensible people in those same groups.

I said was being intentionally overdramatic mentioning a Howitzer. But if arms in the context of the 2A are anything a person can 'bear' that includes a lot. How about hand grenades? Full auto weapons? Why are knives of a certain length or brass knuckles restricted in most states? The answer is because irresponsible people who use them for the wrong reasons.

I'll say it again. An excess of regulation is enabled by the stupid and irresponsible among us. I read that Col. Jeff Cooper once wrote that owning a gun doesnt make someone armed any more than owning a guitar makes someone a musician. Paraphrasing the Colonel, owning a gun doesn't make anyone smart, righteous, or a right-fighter. Or a hedge against tyranny. There's no IQ or civics test required for buying one. So we have a lot of regulation.

As a newcomer to the gun community I may see things differently. It could be that what I'm observing is that the knobs do most of the talking on gun forums, especially the big ones like Reddit. The sensible, reasonable members of the community are more reserved. A silent majority? Perhaps that is the case.

With that I have to get to work. Maybe we can resume this at another time.

 

[brian]

Some truly believe that their inability to buy a Howitzer or plastic explosives at Home Dept is infringing. These people are stupid.

Yes I believe it is infringing because the 2A was written to underscore that the people may have the tools needed to keep government in check. The Constitution is about what power(s) the people offer to government and what limitations exist on that power. "Shall not be infringed" is an absolute statement. It is not about what "rights" the government gives to the people.

 

[A229]

But if arms in the context of the 2A are anything a person can 'bear' that includes a lot. How about hand grenades? Full auto weapons? Why are knives of a certain length or brass knuckles restricted in most states? The answer is because irresponsible people who use them for the wrong reasons.

So I'll go ahead and say it before literally everyone else here does. CRIMINALS DO NOT CARE! Take a look at how many Glock "switches" are running around in the hands of people that shouldn't have them and yet they still do! It is wild right? B-but.. those are illegal?? how are they doing that!?!?

It is because they don't give a shit what the law says.

Despite what people seem to think, guns are lethal tools meant to defend and take life. They are not just
toys that we parade around with at the range. They are an equalizer. Any sorts of restrictions on them really only effect the people that care about the law.

When you remove firearms or neuter them so much that they are not effective, you allow government to get so bold that they will do whatever they want to you, because they know that you do not have an effective means to resist. Please take a look at China and their massive police surveillance state and all the times they murder their own people for protesting the status quo.


* I didn't even bother addressing the comment on knife restrictions because they are completely and totally worthless. So long as we can walk into any store and buy kitchen knives any sort of attempt to stop bladed weapon violence is just a joke. Brass knuckles are also a joke, simply put some coins between your fingers for the same effect. Trying to restrict such things for the sake of safety is just "virtue signaling" and accomplishes literally nothing. Humans are resourceful and can make weapons out of just about anything. The problem lies within civil unrest and hatred in this country. Not with the tools at our disposal.

 

[CECannonJr]

It's not a straw man. The actual numbers of nincompoops who think every gun law is infringement is not fallacy. It's an easy pattern to detect in what people say in forums, reddit, social media. Wackos. It's disproportionate to the sensible people in those same groups.

I said was being intentionally overdramatic mentioning a Howitzer. But if arms in the context of the 2A are anything a person can 'bear' that includes a lot. How about hand grenades? Full auto weapons? Why are knives of a certain length or brass knuckles restricted in most states? The answer is because irresponsible people who use them for the wrong reasons.

I'll say it again. An excess of regulation is enabled by the stupid and irresponsible among us. I read that Col. Jeff Cooper once wrote that owning a gun doesnt make someone armed any more than owning a guitar makes someone a musician. Paraphrasing the Colonel, owning a gun doesn't make anyone smart, righteous, or a right-fighter. Or a hedge against tyranny. There's no IQ or civics test required for buying one. So we have a lot of regulation.

As a newcomer to the gun community I may see things differently. It could be that what I'm observing is that the knobs do most of the talking on gun forums, especially the big ones like Reddit. The sensible, reasonable members of the community are more reserved. A silent majority? Perhaps that is the case.

With that I have to get to work. Maybe we can resume this at another time.

"The actual numbers of nincompoops who think every gun law is infringement is not fallacy."

The ONLY legitimate gun law is the 2nd Amendment. Every other law IS an infringement. These people you speak of as "nincompoops" are EXACTLY right.

 

[Racer88]

It's not a straw man. The actual numbers of nincompoops who think every gun law is infringement is not fallacy.

Actually, yes... it IS a straw man. It's the most extreme straw man aka Reductio ad Absurdum.

I said was being intentionally overdramatic mentioning a Howitzer.

Yes. Because that is the ONLY way anti-Liberty folks can make an "argument." I would challenge you (and other anti-liberty people) to formulate a cogent NON-over-dramatic argument. You can't. And won't, I'm sure. Howitzers, tanks, and nukes... are your go-to.... in the effort to ban or regulate ordinary firearms.

But if arms in the context of the 2A are anything a person can 'bear' that includes a lot. How about hand grenades? Full auto weapons?

What about them? I don't see any problem with them. The NFA is unconstitutional. Though, I'm not holding my breath for its repeal.

Why are knives of a certain length or brass knuckles restricted in most states?

Most states? Ummm... no. YOUR state, perhaps. I don't recall where you are. But I have found it somewhat amusing that those who live in oppressive states IMAGINE that most other states are like their own. Northerners (New Englanders, mostly) who come here will even INSIST that their previous home state's laws are universal. They are astounded to find out, for example, that MOST states do not have "gun registration." It's kinda fun to tell them that NONE of my guns are "registered." It makes me feel a little "naughty" in their eyes.

The answer is because irresponsible people who use them for the wrong reasons.

Wrong. LOL! You really really believe that? If so, I won't spend the time on that one.

An excess of regulation is enabled by the stupid and irresponsible among us.

Wrong. (see above). But at least you (seem to) agree that there is an excess of regulation! But, yeah... the reasons for that "regulation" isn't for the reasons you have accepted as fact from those who seek to rule over you. You really believe it's for your "safety???"

As a newcomer to the gun community I may see things differently.

Yes. You have a lot to learn. I used to harbor some of the same beliefs (as you) when I was also naive. I've learned a LOT through EXTENSIVE research and study for almost 30 years now. I'm almost ashamed to admit (but feel it's an important qualifier) that I even once penned an essay advocating for a ban of handguns that THANKFULLY was rejected for publication. LOL! True story. And I was a registered Republican even then!

PS... My 19 year old daughter asked for brass knuckles for her birthday. She doesn't carry them. And she's not a fighter. She's TINY! LOL! But she likes the artistry, form, and function of weapons. Milspin makes some cool... umm... they call them "paperweights!"

My girl is also a helluva rifle marksman! Her first 5 shots ever at a 300 yard target (bottom target was me confirming zero). Sub-MOA on her first try!

 

[Knack]

You are missing the whole point of my argument.

I'll say it again on my lunch break then I'm done. I dont really care who agrees. The greatest threat to gun ownership is of course anti-gun sentiment among the public and the politicians they elect. The second biggest threat is gun owners themselves. In the past year I've watched a great number of foolish man-children on YouTube and their commentaries in forums. Especially those who imagine 1776 V2 would be like a day at Six Flags then wipe the drool off their chin and the larger set who view guns as range toys. Is that everyone? Of course not. Those who come unhinged when this subject comes up are exactly the people I'm talking about. Commodore Perry said to William Henry Harrison after the Battle of Lake Erie: “We have met the enemy and they are ours.” With all due respect, I have seen the enemy and it is a large faction of gun owners who will ruin it for everyone.

Criminals are not part of this discussion. One thing we can agree on is that criminals dont care what the laws or rules are.

Nothing more to say. I'm out.