I'm currently very happy with my Ferro Concepts Slickster despite the limitations I have with it
]]>I am already familiar with the D2D manual, but need something that critically analyzes the state apparatus coercion.
We know the state has a monopoly on physical violence, so I am seeking a primer of what to know and or look for while in a metropole.
This is purley for theoretical study and nothing more.
Thank you for you time and patience.
]]>Now there are two main situations where one would use a gun for self defense. Most likely a conceal carried pistol for in public and arround ones home and less likely in the situation on an attack on a home or home intruders with a rifle or shotgun. Now the second is far less likely and I have already said my peace on why killing home intruders is fucked up.
Now I don't really believe in the sanctity of lufeor that life really had value and should be preserved. So my argument will largely center around archy. Now for the begginer and basically to those not really well trained in firearms the problem isn't very obvious. If someone attacks u and u shoot them dead there is no issue.
Let's run a couple scenarios of a situation which would look anarchist to those who lack proper firearm and self defense knowledge. CW mention of fictional hate crimes.
So let's say a trans woman is at the store. She is carrying a 9mm pistol with hollow point ammo. She has a good holster and proper concealment and has great awareness of her souroundings. I'll use Walmart as the layout of said stores is fairly common and would have less explaination needed for most Americans as that's who this discussion is really relevant for.
She is in the produce section tryin to decide between firm or extra firm tofu. There is no one in the produce isle and she has just entered the store and doesn't know how many people occupy it. Out of the corner of her eye she sees a man and his shopping car approaching. He comes close and kinda stares at her. Then starts to angrily say some transphobic shit. Now he is between her and the entrance. So she backs up and repositions so she isn't backed against a wall and about 10 foot away to be in a more effective self defense distance. She tries to deescalate but to no avail and he brandishes a gun and days I'm going to kill u.
According to appropriate self defense u don't wanna be the aggressor but u gain the advantage by being ready to explosively respond with lethal force. So she draws her gun and fires 3 rounds into the chest of the man and he falls. Now why would I say this isn't anarchist. Seems pretty unobjectionable right? Wrong
See the problem even with small pistol ammo that is hollow point penetration is still a factor. Much smaller than even a low power rifle but still massive. Sure if u hit your target a hollow point ammo most likely won't penetrate. But due to the reactive nature of self defense u will never be in an idea scenario. Let's say she fires 3 rounds and two hit and before the 3rd can land the man falls so it misses. Where does the bullet go. Well it keeps on fucking going.
And it's a Walmart do there are lots of sleeves and walls blocking visibility. Even with great awareness is pretty damn hard to know what's behind walls. And due to the lack of time u can't check. So the 3rd bullet will continue on and possible and potentially penetrate through a shelf or wall or whatever and possibly hit whoever's behind it.
And if u don't know if someones behind it u gambled with others safety. Prob would be nothing but could be a kid, woman nursing her baby ect ect. So in this situation the only reasonable way one could realistically fire a gun is that they are okay with the pretty low possibility of killing innocent people to save their own hide.
And let's be honest people are going to miss, things won't go ideal and there aren't many situation in self defense shooting where all bullets hit their target and don't over penetrate. And most situations where u will run into a threat there are going to be people around. Be it a suburb or an apartment.
In an urban or suburban setting if u walk outside your door, the 180 degrees most of the times the angles will head into another dwelling, bussiness, parked care or street where cars drive.
Because of these factors of limited info even if u do everything right, extremely limited reaction time, failures just happenings everyone and guns being a ranged weapon I would say they aren't really something I find to be to anarchist.
If killing a kid or a baby is an okay possibility to save ur own hide that feels cowardly and not anarchist. Now there are a few scenarios where u can be pretty damn u're, such as extremely rural or u are in a fully concrete basement where no one is inside where a gun would be useful. But it becomes so small the gun itself is useful in such a small amount of times that's it's just a waste to carry.
So idk, I've read a shit ton of manuals and have done some dry fires with not real guns and tbh, it's just not something appealing to my anarchist sensibilities. The risk albeit small to just main or kill random people to save my own hide makes me feel like a cop or a government official and I want nothing to do with it. And I think most people who carry guns havnt read enough or played out enough scenarios to have come to this conclusion so I wouldn't say it's a consciously being archist.
If u wanna gun to kill people in a nonreactive situation sure that's a discussion to be had but the whole arm yourself for self defense is not a anarchist policy in my eyes
]]>U fund a lot less arms dealing bc you buy and spend way less
From an environmental perspective all ammo is fairly practical to make from reclaimed materials
Basically simple enough you can DIY most of it tho to make the only real practical version of black powder the revolver it's way easier to just buy it. Plus u can get it used u could snag it for like a bitt more than 150 dollars. Which is dirt cheap from a bun.
Black powder revolvers are actually fairly useful as a handgun. Less an accuracy problem and more only having 5 shots (yes I said that right), lot more maintenance and if u do it wrong are much more prone to mechanical failure.
Mostly it just seems weird to me that guns which u can make all the bullets yourself out of mostly recycled materials seems like something anachists would like.
Plus I think they are actually legal in more countries than the US since they are in a different legal category.
I'll pass on it bc I have a hard enough time getting friend without being a killer. Plus I don't have the disposable income for firearms and it's illegal for me to own firearms bc I'm addicted to drugs.
]]>If there is anyone here in the know, is it actually worth joining for a non-toxic gun culture?
]]>The U.S. 10th Circuit, based in Denver, Colorado, agreed to an en banc petition in the case of Utah gun rights advocate W. Clark Aposhian, backed by the nonprofit New Civil Liberties Alliance, which takes issue with how government regulators moved to outlaw the devices in 2018.
While a 2-1 panel of the same court previously upheld the ban in May by relying in part on what is referred to as the Chevron deference, which allows courts to default to agency interpretations of ambiguous statues, Judge Joel Carson III, a President Trump appointee, dissented at the time, describing the ban as an overreach, saying, “turning a blind eye to the government’s request and applying Chevron anyway—the majority placed an uninvited thumb on the scale in favor of the government."
Now, the full 12-judge court will rehear the challenge, with a special focus on if and how Chevron applies.
“The full Tenth Circuit has recognized the troubling consequences of the panel’s prior decision," said Caleb Kruckenberg, Litigation Counsel, NCLA. "Chevron deference cannot guarantee a win for an agency even when the parties agree it doesn’t apply, because it contradicts the constitutional rule that criminal laws should be construed against the government. We look forward to the Court setting a major precedent limiting Chevron’s unconstitutional reach."
The original lawsuit, filed in 2019 in a Salt Lake City U.S. District Court, challenged the proper role of administrative agencies– such as the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives– and whether their regulations may contradict a law passed by Congress, specifically the definition of a “machine gun” as set by lawmakers in 1934 and 1968. The case argued that ATF essentially rewrote the definition as set out by previous laws, something that was not in the agency’s power to do.
Between 2008 and 2017, the ATF had issued several classification decisions concluding that certain bump-stock-type devices were not machine guns.
Upwards of 500,000 bump stocks were sold with current possession of an unregistered device punishable by up to 10 years in federal prison for first-time offenders. Last October, a federal court held that the government had the power to take the property without compensation.
]]>During her failed primary campaign, Harris was one of only a handful of candidates to explicitly advocate for the confiscation of what she estimated to be tens of millions of legally owned firearms.
"We have to have a buyback program and I support a mandatory gun buyback program," she said during an October policy forum hosted by the gun-control group March for Our Lives. "It’s got to be smart. We've got to do it the right way but there are five million [assault weapons] at least, some estimate as many as 10 million, and we’re going to have to have smart public policy that’s about taking those off the streets but doing it the right way."
While Hillary Clinton advocated for a sales ban and even the reversal of the Supreme Court precedent overturning Washington, D.C.'s total ban on handgun ownership during her 2016 campaign, she never expressed support for any form of direct firearms confiscation. And though Joe Biden has advocated for even more stringent gun-control policies than Clinton—including a ban on all guns without "smart" features—he told CNN's Anderson Cooper last year there is "no legal way" to confiscate guns Americans already own.
The Biden campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The addition of Harris moves the Biden campaign further to the left on gun control—beyond any other major party campaign in recent history. Gun-rights groups argue it may also damage the perception Joe Biden has cultivated as a more moderate Democrat.
"I think you're dealing with a guy who's got a complete and total anti-gun platform," Jason Ouimet, head of the NRA's political action committee, told the Washington Free Beacon in a recent interview. "And for that little bit of moderate that he wanted to purport, I think that went out the window."
Mark Oliva, a spokesman for the National Shooting Sports Foundation, said Harris's track record in Congress and on the campaign trail indicates she would push Biden even further to the left on the issue.
"During her short-lived presidential campaign, she demanded gun-control legislation within 100 days and threatened executive action if Congress didn’t deliver," Oliva told the Free Beacon. "Senator Harris was clear when she said gun control would be an administration priority. Her platform included entertaining forced confiscation of lawfully owned semiautomatic rifles, redefining ‘sporting purpose’ for lawful firearm possession, criminalizing private firearm transfers and repealing the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. In fact, she supports politicizing the Department of Justice and using the weight of the federal government to harass a constitutionally protected industry in a series of frivolous lawsuits to bankrupt manufacturers."
Oliva called the pick a danger to gun owners.
"Joe Biden’s selection of Senator Kamala Harris as his running mate makes this ticket the most serious threat to American Second Amendment rights ever faced in a presidential election," he said.
Gun-control groups, on the other hand, cheered Biden's decision to name Harris his vice-presidential nominee. Giffords, the gun-control group headed by former congresswoman Gabby Giffords, emphasized Harris's support for expanding background checks to private sales in a celebratory email to its donors and didn't mention her support for confiscation.
"Joe Biden just announced his pick for Vice President and we are so thrilled to have Senator Kamala Harris join the fight to defeat Trump in November," the group said in an email to supporters. "Like Joe Biden, Kamala Harris is a gun safety champion with a proven record of fighting the NRA and standing up for common sense. They will work tirelessly together to pass universal background checks and make every community safer from gun violence."
Kris Brown, president of the gun-control group Brady United, described the pick as "a game changer for gun violence prevention" in an email to the group's donors. She said Biden and Harris would pass gun-control measures like expanding and better funding the background check system, a ban on so-called ghost guns, and a ban on the sale of so-called assault weapons, but also did not mention Harris's support for gun confiscation.
"By choosing Harris, Biden takes a bold stance," Brown said in the email. "He proves he understands a fundamental problem our country is facing: gun violence. And with two gun violence prevention champions on the ticket, we can finally overcome the NRA, Donald Trump, and Mitch McConnell."
Oliva sees Biden's pick of Harris in a very different light.
"Senator Harris is a willing partner with Joe Biden to reinstate the failed ban on modern sporting rifles," he told the Free Beacon. "His selection of Senator Harris as his running mate suggests he’s comfortable with setting aside fundamental American rights."
]]>The decision affirms a ruling last March by Federal District Court Judge Roger T. Benitez, who ruled, unequivocally, that the California law was unconstitutional.
The panel’s lengthy and considered opinion was written by Judge Kenneth K. Lee, joined by Judge Consuelo M. Callahan. Judge Barbara M. G. Lynn wrote a dissenting opinion, arguing that the California ban was constitutional.
The case centers on California Penal Code §32310, which prior to 2016, imposed restrictions on the manufacture, importation, sale, transfer, and receipt of magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds. In 2016, the law was amended to add an outright ban prohibiting nearly everyone in the state from possessing such magazines. California residents who owned LCMs were given the option of removing the magazine from the state, selling it to a firearms dealer, permanently modifying the magazine so that it was incapable of holding over ten rounds, or surrendering it to law enforcement for destruction. Failure to do so could result in imprisonment for up to a year.
Judge Lee, who was appointed to the Ninth Circuit by President Trump last year, begins by observing that California’s near-total ban of LCMs “strikes at the core of the Second Amendment –the right to armed self defense. Armed self-defense is a fundamental right rooted in tradition and the text of the Second Amendment.”California’s law not only banned standard-issue magazines for many handguns commonly used for self defense, but made “half of all magazines in America …unlawful to own in California.”
Using a two-prong test to determine the constitutional validity of Cal. Penal Code §32310, the court first asked whether the law burdened conduct protected by the Second Amendment; if so, the second inquiry focused on the appropriate level of review (level of scrutiny) to apply in evaluating the law.
Under the first prong, the court found the law did burden protected conduct. LCMs were “arms”protected by the Second Amendment “for a simple reason”–without a magazine, many weapons, including “quintessential”self defense weapons like handguns, “would be useless.”LCMs were neither dangerous nor unusual, and firearms or magazines “holding more than ten rounds have been in existence –and owned by American citizens –for centuries.”LCMs had “never been subject to longstanding prohibitions”on possession or use.
Not only did Section 32310 “strike[] at core Second Amendment rights”by prohibiting LCMs for self-defense within the home, “any law that comes close to categorically banning the possession of arms that are commonly used for self-defense imposes a substantial burden on the Second Amendment.”
Significantly, in the second prong determination of the appropriate level of review, the court selected strict scrutiny, the highest possible level, as the proper standard. Strict scrutiny requires that a state law be narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling interest. While the government interests here were compelling, a “statewide blanket ban on possession everywhere and for nearly everyone”was not narrowly tailored or the least restrictive means. The law failed even if a less demanding level of scrutiny was applied, and for many of the same reasons –a lack of anything approximating a reasonable fit between the restrictions imposed and the government’s asserted objectives.
Addressing California’s “implicit suggestion that the Second Amendment deserves less protection”than other fundamental rights, the court rejected this outright. The Second Amendment is not some outdated “relic relevant only during the era of Publius and parchments. It is a right that is exercised hundreds of times on any given day”by law abiding Americans, including women fleeing abusive relationships, members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) communities who are disproportionately the victims of hate crimes, and communities of color that “have a particularly compelling interest”in exercising Second Amendment rights.”The Second Amendment “provides one last line of defense”when the state cannot or will not “step in to protect them.”“We mention these examples,”declared Judge Lee, “to drive home the point that the Second Amendment is not a second-class right,”nor is “self-defense a dispensation granted at the state’s mercy.”
The ruling is a gratifying one by the Ninth Circuit, a court that, in past rulings, has been not especially protective of the Second Amendment.
It is anticipated that the State of California will seek en banc review of this ruling. Your NRA will keep you updated on the developments in this important case.
]]>My first handgun purchase was a Taurus snub nose revolver. It turns out it wasn't the best choice for me, for a few reasons. The grip was so small I could only get two fingers on it, and the trigger was akwardly positioned, so that my finger was overly bent and it was difficult to have a consistent trigger pull. The sights were very difficult to see in the dark, and they were un-adjustable fixed sights. Unfortunately there was extremely limited availability of other grips and the only feasible one I could find was blocking the ejection of one of the rounds from the cylinder. It was chambered in .357 and even .38 in it had a kick discouraging for a beginner to practice with.
I learned a few things from this mistake obviously. I encourage anyone purchasing a handgun to research and think about it beforehand extensively. This includes making sure it is ergonomically friendly for you to use, reliable enough for your situation, and making sure you practice with it.
Trigger Pull
Handguns are greatly affected by a bad trigger pull and grip. When I first started shooting them, my shots consistently landed down and to the right of the target, because I was pulling the trigger very quickly and unevenly, and because I was anticipating the shots when I was pulling the trigger. Your trigger pull should be a slow, steady application of force until the firearm discharges. You should be surprised when the firearm goes off. Practice slowly at first until you get the concept and then start pulling the trigger more quickly, but make sure it is still that steady increase of force. Finger placement also matters, and the trigger should be about in the center of your pointer finger's tip.
One way to realize the mistake of anticipating the shot is to fire with a gun that you do not immediately realize is empty. A revolver is a good choice, just make sure not to count the shots. When the hammer drops you might notice you push the nose of the gun downward a bit, because you were anticipating the shot. Don't do that, just let it surprise you.
I also realized that I was anticipating the shots so much, that I would occasionally have flyers that were way off target. This was partly because I was practicing at first with a heavy recoil revolver, and I encourage beginners to practice with a cheap .22 handgun to get the basics down and then start practicing with a practical handgun that you intend to use.
Grip and stance
The hand pulling the trigger should be as far up the grip as is comfortable and possible. The best way I've heard a good handgun grip described is that the hand pulling the trigger only pulls the trigger, the other hand does all the work.This will make more sense after I describe the weaver stance.
Although there are other stances, the weaver stance is very simple, practical, and it is what I use. Your feet should be shoulder width apart and your right foot should be slightly back, with the toe even with the heel or the arch of the left foot. Your right arm should be straight, and you should bring the handgun up to your eyes without moving your head. Your left hand is placed in front of your right hand, almost gripping it like a baseball, and you put pressure back towards you on your right hand while bending your left elbow straight downward and rotating your left and right shoulders forward a bit. There should be constant pressure from your left arm/hand which helps absorb recoil. Make sure your right arm is kept straight.
Also make sure that you are gripping the handgun firmly enough that it doesn't slip in or even out of your hands, but not firmly enough that you are shaking, ruining your accuracy.
]]>This is an international website, technically there are "illegal" gun parts in various jurisdictions, so this just doesn't make any sense.
]]>Been wanting to test out mineral oil for myself, heard both great and awful things about it.
]]>