Firearm BS thread

Meh. I already spent more than I figured I would, even when most of the stuff I found was on sale.

War is something I am clearly not preparing for having fired only ~20 or so rounds in 2 years. :frowning:

Besides, the way I enjoy hobbies, war will be here before I get around to putting all the bits together.

Do ranges really babysit shooters for their configuration?
I don’t have any IDGAF land, so 'm pretty limited.

Edit: Uh. FBIATF, I don’t want to build a rifle. I hear they are great architecturally, but I don’t plan to visit your prison someday. (or have my family and dog burned alive)

1 Like



Now let’s see what Hochul does, she’s said the state’s attorneys are ready to fight this in court. What argument could they even have?

During a press conference after the decision, Hochul referenced the 1700s, saying:“And I would like to point out to the Supreme Court Justices that the only weapons at that time were muskets. I’m prepared to go back to muskets.”

Let’s not forget, this is the cunt that said “WE MAY NEED TO RESORT TO DRACONIAN MEASURES” regarding COVID mandates not being followed.

1 Like

and to what court might they take this argument?

1 Like

She’ll end up having the state sue the federal government, it’s a tale as old as time. States vs Federal

1 Like

Good luck with that cunt. The ruling referenced how Heller SPECIFICALLY addressed this.

The test that the Court set forth in Heller and applies today requires courts to assess whether modern firearms regulations are consistent with the Second Amendment’s text and historical understanding. Of course, the regulatory challenges posed by firearms today are not always the same as those that preoccupied the Founders in 1791 or the Reconstruction generation in 1868. But the Constitution can, and must, apply to circumstances beyond those the Founders specifically anticipated, even though its meaning is fixed according to the understandings of those who ratified it. See, e.g., United States v. Jones, 565 U. S. 400, 404–405. Indeed, the Court recognized in Heller at least one way in which the Second Amendment’s historically fixed meaning applies to new circumstances: Its reference to “arms” does not apply “only [to] those arms in existence in the 18th century.” 554 U. S., at 582.

That she was dumb enough to go on record saying she’s going to try and pass new gun laws to bring us back to only allowing the guns that were around when the 2nd was written will actually hurt any chance those laws have of standing up in court. Attorneys will argue that the new laws intent was to do just that, limit NY to guns similar to what was available at the time the 2nd amendment was drafted and case law clearly establishes that is illegal. A judge will ask, “And what proof do you have that this was the law’s intent?”. Attorney: “Here is Governor Hochul literally saying we’re going to pass laws to take us back to having nothing but muskets”.



Kunty Whorecul can go suck a shit covered cock. She’s as big a fuckstain as the asshole she took over for and I hope they bring back the gallows specfically for her. I wouldnt piss on her if she were on fire and wouldnt take a holiday turkey dinner from her if my family was starving in the streets. I hope she gets cancer in that cockholseter she opens in press conferences and her face rots off. She"s not a governor or a leader, just a fucking tyrant who think this whole fucking state belongsbto her. I pray tonlive to see the day her and her liberal demtard shitbag snowflakes all suffocate to death with COVIDEXTREME as they gasp through their useless fucking masks.




1 Like

It’s amazing how the text of the decision is out there for anyone anyone to read, but people are just making stuff up like "you now don’t need a permit to carry a gun in NYC"

There are some immediate / short term repercussions of this decision. Some project it will have further reaching effect on other 2nd Ammendment restrictions. Time will tell.

In typical whore fashion, Kunty Whorecul and her libtard minions are already (have probably had this previously prepared) drawing up a shit ton of legal workarounds to the decision, basically making their bullshit laws restictive enough geographically to counter the supreme court.

She has already stated she will not repsect the decision, which as far as I’m concerned, flings the door wide open for everyone else to do the same. Be careful what you wish for whore, you just might get it.


Is it me or does this seem VERY staged and reek of BS?

This sounds…fishy. How convenient. Look, we found a person that literally checks all the boxes for the laws we just put into place. See? It works. We stopped a bad guy with our laws.

He just so happened to be carrying a “ghost” gun and wearing the now illegal body armor?

He was “under surveillance” apparently.

I don’t buy any of this.

So the guy basically did nothing wrong. I fail to see how you can have a law outlawing body armor for certain people. This will be a neat case to see how it goes. I’d bring this up the latter as high as it can go.


That sounds expensive.
I think i quickly read somewhere (or even here) that the lawyers that won the NY case were fired then started their own practice. Doubt they would do pro-bono so soon.

oh i’m not saying I would have done it or that it’ll be cheap lol

This is lovely.

Just turn it into a virtue signal. “In this business we allow ALL genders, ALL colors and ALL carrys”

Is anyone familiar with the Keltec line of guns? There’s a few dealers on my route and these guns seemed to be well made, priced right, and loaded with features for the price. I was looking into something for plinking and the SU22CA and SU22E fit the bill nicely.