I’ve had a car with where the oil pressure sensor failed; combine that with an oil leak, and you quickly have a major problem. So, what happens when the sensor telling you the oil level fails? A dipstick is extremely unlikely to ever fail to work correctly, so…?
You can use DOT 5.1 to significantly increase that wet boiling point, but it’s expensive for normal car use. I usually use it in my motorcycle, since I’ve experienced brake fade on that before, and it’s… Not fun.
Depends on how much you drive, and what the recommended interval is. If the interval is 7k miles, and you drive 18k in a year, yeah, you need to change the oil 3x/year.
It seems to me that counting the number of cycles each makes, and basing your intervals off that would make more sense than mileage. If I’m constantly running at high RPM, that should require more frequent oil changes in terms of mileage.
Wut?
No, silencers weren’t regulated into the NFA by the ATF; congress put them in there, way back in '34. You can read the text of the act here. It’s in the very first section:
AN ACT
To provide for the taxation of manufacturers, importers, and dealers in certain firearms and machine guns, to tax the sale or other disposal of such weapons, and to restrict importation and regulate interstate transportation thereof.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of American in Congress assembled, that for the purposes of this Act -
(a) The term “firearm” means a shotgun or rifle having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length, or any other weapon, except a pistol or revolver, from which a shot is discharged by an explosive if such a weapon is capable of being concealed on the person, or a machine gun, and includes a muffler or silencer for any firearm [emphasis added] whether or not such a firearm is included within the foregoing definition.
It’s right there in the text.
Aside from that, the ATF per se didn’t even exist prior to '72; before that, it was part of the IRS, rather than an agency within the DoJ, and before the IRS, it was part of the Bureau of Internal Revenue.
It’s not up to the ATF to make laws; congress is supposed to do that.
Also, “sensible” gun control is functionally no different from “sensible” abortion restrictions. If you want to fix gun violence, fix the problems that lead up to it. If you want to stop abortions, it’s easier to teach factual sexual health and make sure that everyone has free access to birth control.
First - the place to shoot is the hard part for many people. Indoor ranges don’t allow you to do the kind of practice that you would need to do in order to become proficient with an automatic firearm. Outdoor ranges are quite a drive for most people.
Second, and more important - the fact that people can learn doesn’t mean a lot. Most people, including most gun owners, don’t. A shockingly large percentage of gun owners don’t practice regularly, or at all.
Hard pass on discussing anything with your denialist guns r gud mentality
Yeah, isn’t is strange that someone doesn’t want the state to have the monopoly on violence, and believes in civil rights? Weird, right?
From your article:
“Platkin said Glock is profiting by continuing to sell the adaptable version in U.S. markets, even as they make and sell handguns in Europe that cannot accommodate such a switch.”
This is something I've having a really hard time finding a source on. Everything I can find says that that about half of the Glock pistols that are sold in the US are made in Austria. And, as I said, sales in Europe for pistols are very tightly controlled, meaning that very few pistols--relatively speaking--are getting into the hands of anyone other than cops and military, so I'm not sure that there's a strong motive for them to make the design alteration in the EU.
Aside from the assertion from New Jersey's AG, I just can't find a source for that. I'm not saying that it doesn't exist, and, if the AG is correct, then yes, Glock should change their design in the US. There's already precedent for this; open bolt semi-automatic firearms manufactured after 1986 are banned because they can--in general--be readily converted to full auto. However, given how many Glocks currently exist in the US, that would be an enormous legal mess that could possibly result in the National Firearms Act being declared unconstitutional.
“Also known as “auto switches,” the devices, which are already illegal in New Jersey and some other states, […]”
They’re illegal in EVERY state; it covered under federal law, specifically the National Firearms Act (1934) and Firearm Owners Protection Act (1986). Even if it was legal in New Jersey, it would still be a felony to possess or use one.
How many people actually go out to a range every single week and burn through a couple hundred rounds working on training drills though? I did shooting at distance today (100-550y with .223) and burned through about 140 rounds, and most ranges don’t even have that kind of distance available. (Thank fuck the RSO had a spotting scope; I couldn’t see my splash in the grass to see where my rounds were going when I didn’t hit. He was able to see trace with his scope though.)
Do you have evidence to support that? Because AFAIK, the Glocks made both in the US and Austria have exactly the same design. OTOH, in most of Europe, it’s very difficult to get the appropriate license for a handgun, so it’s largely irrelevant.
Yes. Trump is not actually friendly to gun rights.
If he was, he’d be pushing to get the Hearing Protection Act (HR 404) and the Stop Harassing Owners of Rifles Today (HR 2395) out of committee and to the floor for a vote.
Biden wasn’t friendly to gun rights either. I don’t think most politicians are friendly to gun rights, since if they actually managed to expand them to what they should be, they wouldn’t have any major issue remaining to campaign on.
But it doesn’t.
An automatic firearm shoots multiple bullets each time you pull the trigger, until you release the trigger; the trigger does not reset.
With most semi-automatic guns, you have a light spring that resets the trigger once you release your finger. A forced reset trigger (FRT) forces the trigger to reset. The FRT pushes the trigger forward, even if you’re trying to keep the trigger pulled back. If you keep tension on your finger, as soon as it’s reset, you’re pulling it again. So, legally, you are pulling the trigger multiple times, because the trigger is resetting each time a bullet is fired.
Based on the way that a machine gun is defined in the National Firearms Act of 1934, an FRT is not a machine gun. The ATF can’t re-write the law to say what they want it to say; that requires an act on congress.
The is compounded by the fact that Rare Breed ran the idea by the ATF before they went into production, and they have/had a memorandum from the ATF saying that an FRT was not a machine gun, and not subject to the NFA. After they had approved it, and *after Rare Breed had produced and sold a few hundred/thousand, the ATF raided Rare Breed, and also showed up at customer’s homes demanding items that the customers had legally purchased (e.g., unreasonable search and seizure, a 4A violation).
Machine guns have been illegal in the United States since 1986, a notion that even gun rights groups have come to accept.
This is… Not true. The Firearm Owners Protection Act–among other things–made it illegal to transfer automatic firearms manufactured after '86 (i.e., “post ban”) to non-police/military people. Machine guns produced prior to '86 that were already in the hands of non-police/military people can still legally be own and bought/sold. A pre-ban select-fire AR-15 will run about $30k+ these days.
Secondly, there are a number of groups and people still actively fighting to overturn the NFA as being a violation of 1A. There was a case out of the 5th circuit (?) not that long ago that points out the circular logic of the gov’t in re: machine guns. E.g., per Heller, guns in common use can’t be banned, and machine guns aren’t in common use, so they can be banned. But they aren’t in common use because they were largely banned by the gov’t. The gov’t created the condition of them not being in common use by banning them, and then used the lack of common use–due to the ban–as justification for the legality of the ban.
Unfortunately most commercial farms aren’t putting in what they’re taking out, even with the industrial fertilizers. Most of the industrial fertilizers are just nitrogen, potassium, and phosphates, often as a liquid. You are absolutely right that you can’t take and never return; that’s why in pre-industrial revolution times, people would rotate fields between crops, and lying fallow/being used for grazing (where sheep, cattle, etc. were leaving free fertilizer) You also ended up with fewer years where all your crops got wiped out by a single pest, because you weren’t farming just one thing. Efficiency in farming–esp. monoculture–is great for profits, not so great for the land itself.
Good news is that good water treatment plants will pull phosphate out of the waste water.
Eh. High levels of phosphates end up running off fields into waterways, and then you get things like algae blooms. Waste water treatment plants will clean up runoff that goes into the sewers and storm drains, but it’s not really cleaning up entire rivers. IIRC, that used to be a much more significant problem; I remember water in rivers near where I grew up–which was all surrounded by farms–often had white, sludgy scum anywhere that the current was forming eddies. If I remember correctly the high levels of that white shit was due to worse regulations governing agricultural run-off.
fertiliser is applied in tightly controlled doses based on aerial analysis
Gotta say, this should be a huge red flag for everyone. Soil quality is declining sharply, and fertilizers simply aren’t making up the difference. Switching to robots farming will almost certainly accelerate this.
Use some Rokset on all your fasteners; the only way to break the threadlocker is with heat, and heat would also destroy the bodywork. So you could still replace damaged panels, but you couldn’t steal them.
Here’s one source on immigrations, although the numbers are slipping as the cases of illegal and wrongful deportations continue to make headlines. Even with that, Americans are fairly even split. Here’s a solid source on transgender policy; while some things that are positive for transgender people have broad support, some things that are unequivocally bad–like preventing minors from accessing gender-affirming care, including puberty blockers, bathroom bills, etc.–have net +10 and greater support. (+31 on only allowing people to play sports that correspond to the gender they were assigned to at birth means that it’s about a 65/35 split, with 65% in favor of preventing transwomen from participating in womens’ sports.)
I’m really tired of voting for better candidates that are in favor of reproductive rights, and LGBTQ+ rights, that want religion out of politics, that support genuinely free speech, and then also want to eliminate 2A rights. We’re already seeing what 75 years of libs and progressives working to disarm themselves has done, and the result is that ICE agents aren’t getting gunned down in the streets when they’re kidnapping people, and the fash are free to do whatever the fuck they want with zero fear of consequences.
Most people are for gun control
There’s a big problem with that.
Right now, the majority of people in the US are in favor of deporting all undocumented immigrants. Right now, the overwhelming majority of people are opposed to transgender rights (e.g., using bathrooms that correspond to their gender, participating in sports, having access to gender-affirming care, and so on). Going back to the late 80s/early 90s, most people would not have believed that Satanists had the right to free exercise of their religion (and many people still don’t today). If you go back 75 years, the majority of the country believed that ‘separate but equal’ was entirely reasonable; sure, let those negroes have rights, but letting them live in our neighborhoods, go to our schools, get married to our women…? Absolutely not!
This is what is referred to as “the tyranny of the majority”.
The whole purpose of the bill of rights is that they are RIGHTS, and not intended to be something that is up for a popular vote. All gun control is intended to prevent people from exercising their right to keep and bear arms.
I agree with the older Dems, but not for their reasons.
No, we should not support the candidates that Hogg supports. Because Hogg is very opposed to 2A rights, and ipso facto any candidate that he supports will also be opposed to 2A rights. And if you think that we’re gonna just vote our way out of this, I’ve got some very, very bad news for you.
Primary the old fucks with young leftists (hopefully ones that actually understand economics and tax policy)? Absolutely! Primary them with ones that ideologically aligned with Hogg? No.
I have an earlier version of this (got it on sale from Costco, and it was the highest-rated model by Consumer Reports at the time); I love it. It’s not great for carpets, but it’s fast and easy for hardwood floors.
Would I have bought it if it needed to connect to my cell phone? Absofuckinglutely not. Not in a million fucking years. It could have been the best goddamn vacuum in the world at sucking, powered by a miniature black hole, sucking dirt to the event horizon, and I still would have passed.
I need LESS connectivity in my life, not more.
Not where I am; DOT 5.1 costs 2-3 times as much as DOT 5 locally.
DOT 4, $.375/oz.
DOT 5.1, $1.42/oz.
It’s 3.8x more expensive to buy DOT 5.1 locally.