Felonious_Monk

That's why you didn't register, right?

Ugly story Shawn. Workin', and now doing the single dad thing. Spare time hasn't really been a frequent feature of my recent life. Huntin' time's upon us though. Thought I'd check in and say hi.

A modern, accurate reproduction of the Girandoni put a .46 ball through a 1" pine board at 100 yds. It was every bit as effective as powder arms of the day without muzzle flash or clouds of smoke giving away your position.

If the Iranians can bring down a classified stealth drone operated via encrypted control signals across redundant repeating networks, it can be done. Do you not think any scientists, RF/Electrical engineers, engineering techs, or other people that understand how these systems function would be on your side?

This will meander through the courts where it will eventually wind up in the 2nd Circuit, and ultimately be upheld as lawful, just like Westchester. As WNY said, comply or don't.

Prosecute the first offenders to the fullest extent, offer no plea bargains, incarcerate for the max - which I think for an E is 1 1/3 - 4 years - to force the rest of us into compliance.

I give you The Miller-Urey Experiment Myself, if I had to label, would be an agnostic, trending atheist. Why? Because there iss too much we do not know. Also, no one was present at the beginning of the universe to be able to say with 100% certainty "There is no god." I do not believe in god, (none of them for that matter), and THINK he/she/it does not exist. Can I say with ABSOLUTE certainty god does not exist? Nope. My deal is this, don't preach or proselytize, or otherwise try and sell me on religion, and I won't try to convince you evolution is real. "The beauty of science, is that it's real whether you believe in it or not." - Neil DeGrasse Tyson

I love the part where the interviewer is like "You're armed right now?" and Morgan is just like "You're not?"

It's not that he doesn't believe it, it's that he thinks HIS PARTICULAR SEGMENT of the sport won't be affected, so he doesn't care. It's okay to infringe on your rights, so long as they leave HIM alone.

Me and the fam are gone, southwest bound as soon as the wife finishes her doctorate. Constitutional carry, eleventy gazillion rd magazines, and NO SNOW.

Some of the commercial/Industrial grade stuff (You can't use it in the home-brewed ones, the thermal element doesn't get hot enough to fuse it) is reinforced already for high tensile strength applications. This is amazing technology, and it had made leaps in applicability in the last 3 years. As you said, it's uses are nearly limitless. I can't wait to see where it is in another 5 years. That is unless it becomes a highly regulated industry, which I fear might happen.

I put 'em next to Hoffa

Resurrecting this thread for informational purposes Don't mind me, just printing out AR-15s in my house Firing an AR chambered in 5.45 3D with a printed lower - one FTF You can build a 3D printer in your own house using a $20 microcontroller for under $500. Gun control is dead folks. You're witnessing it's death throes. With the appropriate CAD file, you can print magazines as well. Interesting days ahead sirs and madams. Interesting days.

Oh, naturally. I mean, look at Michelle Rodriguez. She's a high school drop out, and is a multi-millionaire. I'm sure that has everything to do with her intellect and nothing at all to do with her glorious cleavage.

I'm pretty sure it was about Chris Rock, but why point out only one celebrity nimrod when there's so many to choose from?

Now now Master Martin, let's not endorse violence. Well, until it's necessary.

lol.

Proxies bro. Proxies.

O'Reilly's a populist liberal with Catholic social conservative tendencies. He uses his social conservatism to masquerade as a "Conservative". I got news for you Mr. O, most of us don't buy it. I'm not a conservative in the modern sense of the word. I'm a classical liberal, more commonly referred to as libertarian. Perhaps this helps me see through Mr O'Reilly's charade. O'Reilly has come out in favor of gun control before, as well as supporting many limits on personal liberty. He's just another talking head who thinks his opinion is greater/of greater worth than yours or mine because he has a larger audience. He and Mr. Glenn "Crocodile Tears" Beck can both take the express train to screw you ville.

Jury nullification. Jurors are the final arbiters of fact and the law. The concept of jury nullification is an ancient one, and was practiced in the United States historically until the early to mid 20th century. If jurors feel that a law is unjust, or that a prosecution should not have been brought, it is their duty to acquit. Let's return to my example from before. If I am seated on a jury tasked with the prosecution of a man with a prior felony conviction found in possession of a firearm, but has harmed no one with said firearm, I can guarantee him a hung jury, and I will work to convince other jurors to acquit. Conversely, if I am seated on a jury tasked with prosecuting a person with a prior conviction who has used a firearm to do harm, and the state proves guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, I would not hesitate to convict. I see no harm in the mere possession of an object. As the arbiter of fact and the law, it is my duty to insure a person undeserving of prison is not sentenced for a crime.

There is a process, several in fact. There's pardon, which is really only ever granted to the wealthy -- Richard "Slick Rick" Walters comes to mind. There are also the certificates of good conduct and relief from civil disabilities. My BiL had to get a CRD to get his professional license. The CRD can restore the right to own firearms, but it rarely does. It's a shame really. How many of us have had youthful indiscretions where if we were caught, we might be in the same position? I'd say quite a few. I think it's fair to say that a guy who has genuinely reformed and is a productive citizen, with only the occasional traffic ticket being the extent of his legal trouble for 2+ decades doesn't really present a threat. I honestly have no issue with felons owning firearms. If they commit a crime with them, lock them up. This will start getting into a discussion of the failure of the criminal justice system though, and the failure that is the war on drugs, which we neither have time for, nor is it on topic for this discussion.

As I've mentioned, I'm an agnostic. However, being of Puerto Rican extraction, I was raised Catholic. I've always understood it to be "Thou shalt not murder." Which I'm certain we can both agree is different than a blanket prohibition on killing. As for the career criminal who used his firearm to commit a crime, I'd gladly convict him on any actual crime he committed. If he is sitting in front of the jury solely for having a firearm, I will not convict. If he's there because he used said firearm to do harm, and the State proves it's case beyond a reasonable doubt, he's going to prison.

I lol'd

Actually, it's thou shalt not murder. It's more than a technicality. In response to your earlier post, I see what you're saying, but I disagree. The right to self defense is as natural as the right to procreate. It is a preprogrammed biological behavior. The idea that a person, regardless of his background or previous transgressions should not be permitted the use of what the SCOTUS has ruled "the most effective tool for self defense" is fallacious at best. If a man is free, then he has every right to defend himself, his family and his property. To believe that barring him the use of a gun is just is to believe that it is the object which is the problem. Once a man has served his sentence, has "paid his debt to society" I cannot condone the creation of a second class citizen with less than the full rights of a man. The right to self defense predates any document wherein such right is enumerated. The Constitution does not grant rights, it merely recognizes that certain rights exist, and prohibits government from infringing upon those rights. Yet they do so anyway. I have said it before, and I will say it again. If a man is too dangerous to be trusted with the full rights of citizenship, why is he out of prison? If he is out of prison, why should he be denied his full rights as a human being? There are some people who should never see the light of day again lest it be filtered through razor-wire and bars. The scumbag in Webster, NY was such a person. "No free man shall be debarred the use of arms." So spoke the father of the Declaration of Independence. The only felon a law barring felons from owning firearms affects is the felon whom is inclined to follow the law, meaning he is by definition law abiding. The felon whom wishes to return to his lawless ways already has a gun. No law will stop him from acquiring one. I'll give you an example. My Brother in Law. In his 20s he was stupid, and accumulated 3 DWIs, and pled guilty to a felony. Fastforward to today. He is 49 years old. He owns a small home in Quogue. He owns a small but relatively successful roofing business. He is married, but has no children. He is prohibited by law from owning a firearm to use in the defense of his home, his family, his life and his property. However, no law written by men can overcome the natural law. Say, as an example, that there were a string of home invasions on his block, one of which resulted in the homeowner being murdered. If he came to me and asked me for a gun, I would provide him one without batting an eyelash. He has as much right to defend his life, liberty and property as anyone else. I do not recognize title 18 section 922 of the United States code as just law. I have never been called to serve on a jury to prosecute a felon in possession of a firearm. Were I ever to be, I would never vote to convict. Never.

You cannot lose a right. It may only be infringed by a law written by man. You are born with them, and you will die with them.