raz-0

Studies were done covering other states. 3% rise in collisions, no change in fatalities. So basically, no the sky isn't falling if they legalize it.

Yeah I'd say you missed on the meaning of famous.

Every famous gun brand has been a dog name. Gun related, recognizable, but not popular. Pyrodex. You can call him pyro for short. Hodgdon is also a famous name I've never heard a dog named after. Don;t think I 've ever heard hornady, or nosler come up as dog names either. If it's a smaller dog, especially if female, you can call it mini ball. Just goes by mini most of the time. If it's gonna have papers, you can always call the dog Weeda. Register it as Weeda People.

Well if you purchase a black powder handgun in NJ, you will be required to have an FPID and PErmit to purchase as they are not exempt form firearm status. So the existence of conversion cylinders doesn't really enter into it. I'm sure people will be by to brand you and anti troll for basically trying to bring up the "blackpowder loophole" talking point even though it doesn't really apply in NJ proper.. so...

Dude if there was an incident, it would have blown up this board like you wouldn't believe. Hell, made up shit with no proof gets out of control regularly. Real stuff with evidence and lawyers and such isn't going to stay quiet. There's a dipshit out ther whose MO is to spread stories like this to getting attention and seem important. It wouldn't surprise me if he's bored and at it again. He used to like to always tell everyone that the state police were planning to raid OB or CJ on a particular weekend.

Dunno. It seems like consolidation was being considered by someone. Might be the pro or anti side of the court, we don't know. NJ has officially said we are super busy with other cases, so please give us more time. Whatever is going on, I think that only opens up one new possibility, which is SCOTUS feels they are similar cases, but they DO grant the extension, and thus it basically gets pushed to the next session because of the delay. Should the court hand down a decision in the NYC case that they feel is binding on this case, I believe they can then remand the case back to the lower court to say that the decision seems fundamentally flawed due to existing law and precedent. At which point the lower court would have to reverse the decision or come up with some new ruling that fits within previous rulings. Or as the case with RKBA stuff. Make up some new flavor of bullshit out of whole cloth that completley ignores existing law and precedent via some new fanciful means that will have to be kicked to death.

Maybe I'm parsing this wrong, but in multiple decently sized municipalities, all my reference forms looked the same, and did not look remotely like the application questions. They were all basically the following: What is your relation to XXXXX? How long have you known XXXXX? Do you know of any reason XXXX may be disqualified form owning a firearm or be otherwise unfit to own firearms. Do you attest the above answers are honest and true etc? (about a 60% chance this is just verbiage integrated into the sign here part, and not a question with a field to put an answer) sign here... I'm curious what the new online process mails. don't have the spare cash to buy something just to find out right now though.

I've explained this before and I'm sure I will have to explain this again. Politicians are SOCIOPATHS, or at least very, high scoring on the sociopathic inventories. So are most of c-suite crowd and a good chunk of the media world. Even the ones that aren't are immersed in a that world and those world mostly NEVER deal with individuals, but with grouped abstractions of individuals. So it becomes very easy to have weird attitudes towards them fostered by your environment. NO politician cares about you. They care about themselves and power. They care about you and your group as aids or obstacles to them accruing and exercising power. PERIOD. They can justify it any way they like, and they do. In this case, most media outlets are aligned with the DNC. Right now, that means Trump is evil, etc. Their job right now is to stir up people who agree or kind of agree with them and to try and drive the opposition out of power by undermining their base. Currently the fashion is intersectional politics. It's 100% emotion, no need for facts or reality, just some semi-reality based seasoning to a grand emotional narrative. We have already been through the very non-reality based, spewed on large market mainstream news, meme that Trump is litterally hitler, and hitler is the universal bad guy you can't side with. QED.. we win.. duh. They world will happily supply them with an endless feed of bad shit happening. That will be the way of 7+ billion people not really getting along and the powers that be making it less and less tenable through emotional manipulation. They will pick from that stream any thing they can plausibly use to smear their opposition with. The message at the end of the day, EVERY DAY, must be that the opposition is pure evil, and that we are the virtuous other side that is the only thing protecting you from those purely evil people. You get Islamic factions slaughtering Christian populations, you don't use that because it won't stick. The best match you have to other the opposition and pain them as evil is pointing at the Christian fundamentalists which haven't been up to much lately and pointing fingers at religion. Except that when you have been trying to integrate the Muslim community on your side because they are one of, if not THE, largest immigrant group in the world, and thus extremely useful for doing the functional equivalent of block busting... but for political issues that have geographically constrained influence, you can't paint the opposition with the Islamic fundamentalist paintbrush. Your side owns the evil doers, and the opposition you want to other owns the victims, so you just don't bring that one up. It won't help you . But the wackadoo in NZ? They talk english, look like Americans, and if we are in control of the two sentence excerpts form the dude's manifesto well this looks like a fine opportunity to manipulate the folks who won't ever read any of the actual evidence. People they are trying to control through fear were the victims? Check. The perpetrator looked more like the opposition? Check. It involved firearms? Hmm.. was it the police or governmet? No? double check! We'll run with it. The narrative is Trump basically did it himself and the only reason he didn't was he is old, orange, and unfit for leadership. Make sure to not bring up that the government "protectors" and civilian disarmament did not slow shit down one bit but actually helped the bad guy. Hit the presses get it out the the news wire and prep services. BAM! The only thing that has changed since we were young was that somewhere along the line, media became the lap dog. In the past some rich media mogul would make a point of reminding powerful fucks they didn't have all the power. That era ended, and we wound up with idealists speaking truth to power. Which looked like it might be acceptable when truth had a capital T and power meant anyone in power, but these days it means just call everyone a nazi and pretend it's being truthful. So...

Your Forbes article is a fanboy who says the used ice market will collapse by September 2021 or 2022. While simultaneously quoting Porsche as saying 2030 for an all electric lineup.

Their response has always been a desire to track how much you drive and institute a mileage tax. Usually involving some invasion of privacy rather than simply mandating checking the odometer.

Imagine the most face palmy of face palm gifs here. Seriously.. this fucking argument is about when EVs will be the norm. The one you seem to see as a deal breaker is huge and hard to overcome. It will take time. That time will be > 10 years IMO, but it will definitely be slightly longer than the time it takes to: 1) bring the cost of an EV in line with the average american's budget. 2) make home ownership without some dipshit HOA not be a prerequisite of successful ownership (i.e. $2 30,000,000,000kwh batteries won't solve lack of a viable charging point for the rate of ocnsumption). 3) It will have to have a viable maintenance and repair lifecycle. Once those elements are met you STILL have a period of time left to convert the used market. The presence of a new brand X EV that meets all the above doesn't negate the fact a used tesla, even if cheap second hand, still has #2 as an issue. One thing to remember with Tesla is that the idea was that they'd be expensive, and the solution to that was "it's a 40 year car". And the solution to "affordability" was the notion that new financing models would show up. Then the notion was that you'd fix it because autopilot would mean your robot car could be working for you while you were at work/asleep. Now the solution is to just actually make the price lower. But lower is STILL $35k.

Their firehose pants go to 36. Although only in their browns and beiges. IF they introduce a new color, it is sometimes avialable in 36, but for a few years now if it goes out of stock, it never comes back.

It seems at this time Tesla is further down that hole than anyone else. Given the prices of storage, there's no reason it can't be maintained at a reasonable price. The real issue with electric is the price and charging it. That's really it. Unless you have a driveway and 220v, owning electric gets to be a REAL pain in the ass. Even if you DO have a driveway, just google "HOA EV charger" for more fun.

Based on crash responses, I'm guessing data logging might happen, which is high wear. If they use enterprise grade drives we'll know in the next couple of years unless they seriously over provision.

Wtf? SSDs don't even bother with a mtbf for actual use. They are rated by wrote cycles, because that's what will kill them under normal use. Failure is guaranteed, but is pretty predictable if you have predictable use patterns. Only tesla knows how much they write to them how often, and how over provisioned they are.

I think they have FFLs and different rules than us consumers.

Super simple. Insure the package. It will ask as to the contents and value. Put firearm and the value of said firearm. Granted I usually do UPS and do it at a UPS customer counter, not pickup, but you get a receipt and everything. Pretty unequivocal proof you told the carrier.

This is the ignorance that annoys me when this subject comes up. It is really the ultimate example of people believing their emotions are facts. Not to single you out, it's just the human nature of it, and we are generally awful at this kind of assesment. People are actually quite good at driving. Seriously.. you remember that asshole that almost killed 10 people on your commute home yesterday, but the reality is immediately around you during rush hour there are what? 100 cars? And 99 of them did their job and kept that asshole from killing someone, including themselves (unfortunately). If people were really not very competent at this task, it'd be a freaking apocalypse. The last time I calculated this, which was not quite a year ago, the average driver does between 11-12k miles a year and on average goes between 100-110 thousand miles between accidents. (those numbers are likely in flux as the great recession there seriously reduced driven miles). Currently google tech, which is the only one that has published stats, removing incidents where a parked vehicle was hit, or a human was operating their vehicle, goes about 89,000 miles between accidents. Google's tech is currently waymo, so the robot driver has even racked up at least one pedestrian fatality. And to date, autonomous vehicles still don't do heavy rain and snow. If you yanked out accidents related to bad weather, the human numbers would improve, and the robots still haven't caught up with an uneven playing field. Tesla's auto pilot has plowed multiple people into things. NVIDIA's driving AI CONSTANTLY illegally cuts corners on left hand turns and they think it's good. That shit will be accidents all over the place when you aren't cherry picking time and location for "real world" tests.

When a pricey car is easy to total and unlikely to be repaired in a collision, you have to be a lot more careful about how you pay for it so you don't wind up riding the bus. Almost everyone I know is either upside down or leading. Basic insurance rates might be good, but what is gap insurance like on them?

A company restricting access to the features of the car you paid for? Personally if rather they reduce the autopilot crap to get the price down. The model 3 interior is already dismal.

My bad, my brian just didn't process that document correctly for some reason. As for the not talking to the petitioner thing. That's if information is lacking. The case you cited has a petition and is a poorly worded and critically typoed document, but it is there. The petitioner did in fact get to state their argument. The fact they are a self represented jailhouse lawyer who's central argument, because they can't type straight is that a .32 special can't be fired out of a .32 special.. well. SCOTUS doesn't hold hands. They don't make your argument for you, and even when they ask, they don't necessarily care if they get the response, jsut that it's on record they asked.

That's an example of the court asking for stuff from the petitioner before denial. That basically makes up the case they are being asked to hear. Denying without at least asking for that would be bad judicial juju as it would be essentially uninformed denial. By nature of the appeal, there is the assumption the petitioner has issues with previous courts' decisions. SCOTUS would, in that case like to know what they are trying. In something like the NJ case, the petitioner submitted their case, and those who have not responded were happy with previous courts' decisions. Being in possession of the lower court decision and the petition means they fully know what they are being asked to consider. If they wish to deny cert, it is not required for the defendant to submit anything. To grant cert they need to at least demand it. Is it a slam dunk? No. They could get both sides and decide it is too broad, or well represented by another case they like better or got there earlier. Or it could just be a tactic by one (or more) of the judges in hammering out the NY case. IMO, worst case scenario? There's bargaining going on over the NYC case and someone on the RKBA side said basically.. hey.. you can vote yes for a narrow decision in the NYC case, or you can roll the dice the RBG doesn't go on an indefinite worm feeding expedition, and vote no. Because this is the next one up in the queue and if we have one more Trump appointee there is every chance we hand down a much more broad decision for that case instead of remanding it back to the lower court saying see our NYC ruling. This would be something along the lines of being willing to say that an effective ban on transportation for general sporting use is definitely in violation of the 2nd, but we won't say here the line is and some regulation is ok. Best case scenario? they remand to the lower court saying WTF? Regardless of the outcome, there is definitely material harm to those affected and an injunction is appropriate until the case is finished. Vast middle ground? It's just book keeping.

Please... tell me the physics that says the forces of X amount of expanding gas contained in volume Y is significantly less than the forces of expanding gas contained in a volume of 3Y. Please explain, sine you apparently know something special. An actually full on squib with no charge that lodges a bulled near the chamber end of things usually results in a KB in rifles and pistols. When a squib or undercharged round lodges it near the muzzle different stuff happens. But seriously. Either stop saying what is essentially nuh-uh over and over, and try to explain your reasoning. PIstol caliber round. Fast burning pistol powder. Powder is chosen to mostly be burnt up by the end of a 6" test fixture. placed in a longer rifle barrel, the powder is completely burnt before the bullet reaches the end once thta point is reached, pressure is DROPPING. The only thing changing that in a situation with a blocked barrel is the compression of the volume of air in the bore. Which is basically rounding error for most of the trip.

I don't see why not. That's essentially what happened in US vs. Miller, except on the side of Miller.

OK. so in a semi auto pistol... where there is no gas bleed off until after lockup. You have a blockage and fire into it. If a blockage of a PISTOL caliber cartridge in a pistol length barrel with LESS VOLUME is only ringing the barrel on occasion, how is a rifle where a PISTOL caliber cartridge is hitting an obstruction at the far end of a much longer barrel thus with a much larger volume, you are saying the thing will dramatically explode because... reasons. I'm with your idea on rifle cartridges. A 60k psi round with powder that may still be burning by the time the bullet reaches the muzzle, yeah a barrel that isn't supposed to be sealed is dealing with some severe hardships if you follow up with a full house round after a squib.