Smoking Barrels - LTT's Unnofficial Gun Club!

[Drak3]

So Magpul is releasing a D50 drum for AR10s, for about $150.

 

Hopefully they'll continur the trend and release drums for the AKM and Glock platforms.

 

It'd also be nice if they released an metric pattern FAL drum.

[Drak3]

@Jito463 Magpul is going to release 35 round mags for the Scorpion Evo, as well as a mag release, and grips for the G3 and Scorpion.

[kaiju_wars]

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/66

 

Got some bad news my dude.  Apparently Trump is even entertaining the idea of it.

[Drak3]

1 minute ago, kaiju_wars said:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/66

 

Got some bad news my dude.  Apparently Trump is even entertaining the idea of it.

It's our duty as American citizens to not comply.

[kaiju_wars]

Just now, Drak3 said:

It's our duty as American citizens to not comply.

Oh definitely, but it's still infuriating.

[Drak3]

Just now, kaiju_wars said:

Oh definitely, but it's still infuriating.

Given the Supreme Court's decision to hear the case regarding New York's anti American gun laws and the members, I don't think it would last if anyone tried to take it to the court.

[kaiju_wars]

Just now, Drak3 said:

Given the Supreme Court's decision to hear the case regarding New York's anti American gun laws and the members, I don't think it would last if anyone tried to take it to the court.

Same, still infuriating it's even being brought up, let alone if it actually passed.

[Drak3]

Just now, kaiju_wars said:

Same, still infuriating it's even being brought up, let alone if it actually passed.

TBH I think that if it were seriously considered, we might start seeing more push back against tyranny by the bulk of citizens that have been tolerating the bullshit.

[knightslugger]

37 minutes ago, kaiju_wars said:

Same, still infuriating it's even being brought up, let alone if it actually passed.

Well the good thing is that it reaffirms precedent. GOA has a strong case.

[Jito463]

5 hours ago, kaiju_wars said:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/66

 

Got some bad news my dude.  Apparently Trump is even entertaining the idea of it.

From the very top of the bill:

Quote

to ensure that the right to keep and bear arms is not unlimited

They literally put that in the bill.

[The Friendly Elite]

6 hours ago, Jito463 said:

From the very top of the bill:

They literally put that in the bill.

Just remember... we have guns

[knightslugger]

26 minutes ago, The Friendly Elite said:

Just remember... we have guns

and they have tanks, rockets, helicopters, and very well trained men.

 

If you think you can take on the US Government by force... you sir are wrong. dead wrong.

[Drak3]

1 minute ago, knightslugger said:

and very well trained men.

Most of whom are very pro 2A and not exactly loyal to to the US government if it means turning on the US citizenry.

[knightslugger]

Just now, Drak3 said:

Most of whom are very pro 2A and not exactly loyal to to the US government if it means turning on the US citizenry.

Right. Just like the police who took an oath to uphold the constitution will suddenly tell their Superior Officer to pack sand and favor the unemployment line to feed his family.

 

"Just doin' my job..."

 

Delusional thinking.

[Drak3]

5 minutes ago, knightslugger said:

Just like the police who took an oath to uphold the constitution will suddenly tell their Superior Officer to pack sand and favor the unemployment line to feed his family

1. Police taking an oath to uphold the constitution isn't all that common. It's the SHERRIFFS that do that.
2. They simply don't try to enforce unenforceable law.
3. There have been stories last year of police chiefs and sherriffs refusing to support or enforce these anti American laws.

[knightslugger]

9 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

1. Police taking an oath to uphold the constitution isn't all that common. It's the SHERRIFFS that do that.
2. They simply don't try to enforce unenforceable law.
3. There have been stories last year of police chiefs and sherriffs refusing to support or enforce these anti American laws.

And that should tell you all you need to know about enforcement drones. They will do what they are told until they are told to do otherwise. It's ironic that I call them drones since their ferocity and resolve strengthen one hundred fold if you attack them, much like hornets and wasps.

 

Something else to consider: When the feds get involved in a situation, the state or local authority has little to say about it. How often do you NOT see BATFE or FBI agents on the ground during a confiscation or standoff? One look at the Bundy standoff, or hell Waco, TX for that matter, should give you all the evidence you need that supports "Just doing my job". The american people are out-trained, outnumbered, and out-gunned. You couldn't gather enough like minded people in one place with enough firepower to make the government shivver. Those kinds of folks are few and far between, and this is a really big country.

[The Friendly Elite]

correct me if i'm wrong but i believe the Constitution states that we can overthrow it if it becomes to tyrannical 

[knightslugger]

7 minutes ago, The Friendly Elite said:

correct me if i'm wrong but i believe the Constitution states that we can overthrow it if it becomes to tyrannical 

Good luck with that at this stage. I'd love to impeach pelosi and schumer, but they are not reps/congressmen from my state, so there isn't anything Wisconsin can do about it, even if the entire state wanted it. Or even the surrounding 4 states. Only Congress can remove a congressman. not likely to happen with a 2 party majority. There is nothing short of broad daylight murder that could remove them, and there are days i even doubt THAT.

 

This is why I favor a lower threshold for impeachment and term limits for all elected and non-elected officials across the entire spectrum of government, as well as de facto sunset clauses and a full repeal of the 17th amendment.

[The Friendly Elite]

25 minutes ago, knightslugger said:

Good luck with that at this stage. I'd love to impeach pelosi and schumer, but they are not reps/congressmen from my state, so there isn't anything Wisconsin can do about it, even if the entire state wanted it. Or even the surrounding 4 states. Only Congress can remove a congressman. not likely to happen with a 2 party majority. There is nothing short of broad daylight murder that could remove them, and there are days i even doubt THAT.

 

This is why I favor a lower threshold for impeachment and term limits for all elected and non-elected officials across the entire spectrum of government, as well as de facto sunset clauses and a full repeal of the 17th amendment.

i think you and me share the same view on this.

[RedAV8R]

1 hour ago, knightslugger said:

....and a full repeal of the 17th amendment.

Um... What? Explain. Why?

[Jito463]

5 minutes ago, RedAV8R said:

Um... What? Explain. Why?

The 17th amendment made senators directly electable, which makes the whole reason for having two branches of Congress moot.  The House is meant to represent the interests of the people, while the Senate is meant to represent the interests of the states.  With Senators directly elected by the people, it greatly reduces the power of the states (which was the original intent, in my opinion).

[RedAV8R]

11 minutes ago, Jito463 said:

The 17th amendment made senators directly electable, which makes the whole reason for having two branches of Congress moot.  The House is meant to represent the interest of the people, while the Senate is meant to represent the interests of the states.  With Senators directly elected by the people, it greatly reduces the power of the states (which was the original intent, in my opinion).

As originally written, the Senate was filled by state legislature, which in turn is elected by the people... I guess I'm not seeing any sort of balance of power shifted by getting rid of the middle man. I mean I'm open to ideas, but I don't see any major upset here. I mean feel free to continue on. I'm all ears. I guess of all the Constitution, the 17th wasn't even really on my radar for being repealed.

I mean the Senate still holds valuable identity for two houses even if being directly elected. One where simply population control determines leanings and the senate where states do matter.

[Jito463]

4 minutes ago, RedAV8R said:

As originally written, the Senate was filled by state legislature, which in turn is elected by the people... I guess I'm not seeing any sort of balance of power shifted by getting rid of the middle man.

It's the same concept as having the Electoral College for Presidential elections, rather than popular vote (and they're gunning for that next).  Popular vote is far too easy to manipulate.  There's a reason we were setup as a representative republic, rather than a democracy.  The framers knew that a democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where the majority can take away the rights of the minority.  This is the road we're headed down, with these protections being removed one by one.

[RedAV8R]

You are still failing to justify how a mob rule people elected state legislature then electing senators is so fantastically different than the mob rule people directly electing the senators themselves.

The concept of the Senate (2 per state) regardless of population still keeps things 'equal'.

[knightslugger]

3 hours ago, RedAV8R said:

You are still failing to justify how a mob rule people elected state legislature then electing senators is so fantastically different than the mob rule people directly electing the senators themselves.

The concept of the Senate (2 per state) regardless of population still keeps things 'equal'.

Because Wisconsin wouldn't be burdened with people like Sen. Baldwin. Considering there isn't ANYTHING we can do to remove her prematurely from her post, a senator that is appointed by the state legislature could otherwise be fired and replaced at any time, at the behest of the represented, without 17A. There is a LOT fewer people involved without the 17th in the way, and my rep can better represent me, because he lives where i live, and there aren't 10,000,000 voices being shouted constantly.

 

If she's not best representing wisconsin (and she isn't) she needs to be shown the door. No different than any other appointed official. They serve at the pleasure of their appointee. Perhaps that would make them actually work together and in the interests of their state rather than independently in the interests of their party.