Search results for query: *

It is different by state. In my state if it goes bang it is a firearm and some air guns are also firearms. We need a license to own or possess firearms, ammunition, primers or powder.

There are better reasons to stock up.

She is much safer with the bear. Just ask any feminist.

It will happen if Harris wins and has fifty D senators.

Cloning sheep is illegal?

The local farm and fleet still has ammo. I have not been in lately to see how much but they used to have as much as Walmart did in their ammo hayday.

Firearms are a tough thing for volume sellers like Walmart. There are a lot of rules that have to be followed and training up people to do it is not as easy as some might think. The typical turnover makes it tough to keep people and once trained does the guy really want to spend most of his time...

I think they are safe to reload but I would just toss them. No reason to take chances.

I am pretty sure that "the people" does not include those who are not here legally. I am pretty sure the phrase includes citizens. Beyond that, I have no idea what the phrase means. Someone will likely have to investigate what the phrase meant 200+ years ago.

I don't know if I would put it that way, but it seems clear that the writers of the 2A deliberately excluded those who are not part of "the people". That means they have no 2A rights and whether they can keep or bear arms is a matter of law not rights.

I am curious what political positions you consider "far right" and what positions you consider "left leaning moderate".

I seem to recall a number of us cities with substantial rioting, looting, and arson back in 2020. All Da and their hired antifa thugs. Don't recall any Ds objecting much.

Not much you can do at this point other than open your checkbook and go vote. There are enough people who care about certain D issues like unrestricted abortion and massive welfare programs that will never vote R that it will be close. There are other issues but those are probably the biggest...

I have not seen much in the way of extremism from one side. It is mostly from the other side. There just are no rioters in the streets burning things to the ground from one side like there has been on an almost routine basis from the other side. And that has been going on for 7 decades or more.

You can't really control anything except yourself. Provide for yourself as best you can and see what happens. I agree things look bad. The D's have already proven they are willing to go the brown shirt way and burn cities down if they don't get their own way. But, I am hoping enough of them that...

It's worth whatever they can convince someone to pay for it. Like anything else. There is no magic to it.

I am not buying guns because I have enough. In fact I am seriously considering doing some reductions in force with my firearms assortment. At my age I worry that my executor will not know how to deal with them. On the other hand, there is never enough ammo

I saw that reported somewhere. It seemed really odd to me, like the defendants they chose did not want to challenge it at all, which might be why they were selected. It almost seemed like collusion to me. But, I might be wrong about the collusion.

Some gun control is constitutional. The fight is over how much control is constitutional. I think the best argument presented is that the issue should be decided in state court first. If the result is unsatisfactory to the plaintiffs, they can bring it to federal court.

Cool