Search results

I don't think it deserves a discussion. I think it deserves a well defined clinical definition.

Use the cash for daily expenses. Sell the bourbon. I've had just about every bourbon on the planet, and the best is fantastic...but no fucking way lose to $10k fantastic. Sell it to some dumb ass.

You heartless bastard. How many more Allisons do there have to be?

Ambiguity also leaves the door open, ie the 1994 AWB.

And we have no legal footing to stand upon when our rights are infringed without those legal definitions, lawyers, and judges. In essence, our rights cease to exist when the ability to legally defend them does.

I'm pretty sick and tired of having to justify my rights after every single incident where a murderer chooses to use a gun vs. a knife or bomb or car or whatever. Where's the damned outrage when drunk drivers kill someone. Where's the call to repeal the 21st Amendment? Nope, then it's just a...

Carrying might not have helped at all, but that's not even the point. A certain number of tragedies will happen no matter what. In a country with 350,000,000+ we can't expect there to be zero murders with firearms. How many more "allisons" will there be? Statistically, very few.

The problem with guys like this is that they are talking out of both sides of their mouths. He claims he wants more "gun control", but doesn't want to take guns away, he just wants to make it harder for people with mental illness to get firearms. A certain number of people are going to commit...

That's for the upper and lower. $279 for just the lower.

I just got an email with a ship notice. http://angstadtarms.com/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=shipping_notification_2

Legal definitions are what give our rights power.

A simple demonstration involving a pistol being near their ears would have proven effective.

Thanks Hollywood fiction.

I do, in fact that's the purpose of the thread. The ambiguity around the legal definition is a double edged sword for sure.

That's still extremely ambiguous. I could easily carry a suitcase bomb, but less easily carry a quad Ma Duece. Does the law reflect what the average human can carry, what's "designed" to be carried? What I can carry versus what my grandmother can carry? Ambiguity also allows for legislation...

The most recent challenges to the Second Amendment have come in a couple forms: Who is allowed to possess "arms" , where are we allowed to possess them, and which features can arms have? Probably the most under-talked about point is what exactly are considered arms, and are rights infringed...

I would. I honestly can't stand Thorlo's. They don't hold a candle to Smartwool.

The biggest misconception around our rights is that they are inalienable, and un-revokable. They are not.

You'd be screwed, justified or not. A court of law is rarely a place where exceptions are made, and justified out of "common sense". Don't bank on "self-defense" getting you out of jail free. It won't happen.

Yeah, wear and tear aside, how many years would a Glock or HK last that had 100 rounds/year put through it? I'm more interested in the life of the materials when faced with age vs wear and tear.