cOoTeR

I didn't watch it' date=' but is the bank denying the use of the customer's money, or the use of credit?[/quote']

Debit so basically money.

And here's another thread about them being pretty controversial but kind of just pushing the line of what they can do.

http://www.ohioriders.net/showthread.php?t=101494

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4f2h5EiWPY

Some more Bank of America bull. How's this justifiable?

I posted a really similar one maybe a year and a half ago asking where to get something like it here. At the time it was crazy expensive over $1,000 due to customs expenses. I wonder if their patents are good in the US? If not make a similar design and start selling it on here super cheap have us use em at track days tell everyone where we got them then up the price a little. After a while you can be making big bucks.

I grew up using lard to season, but I don't think it matters too much most any cooking oil works. 2 hours at 350 degrees will season 'em just fine. Using it is the best seasoning, tho, really...especially bacon...gets that flavor in there plus you get bacon.

This bacon and eggs after the first seasoning is the way to go.

For someone who's such a staunch enforcer of your Second Amendment rights, it surprises me how quickly you're willing to cede your Fourth Amendment rights.

What rights are being given up? The supreme court has upheld the legality of the checkpoints. Probable Cause is still needed to perform a search. You don't have to answer any of the questions asked but the agents cannot allow you to continue on your way until they have determined that you are in the country legally. Unless they have a reason to detain you further the time spent at the checkpoint is similar to that at a traffic light. The busier roads take a little longer due to traffic.

No. My opinion is that CBP should enforce the BORDER, and land surrounding said border, to a reasonable distance. 100 miles inland is not a reasonable distance, even worse is stopping American citizens while traveling inside of the US border without even so much as reasonable suspicion. They just transplant their border powers that I would have been governed by if I was crossing the port of entry to the checkpoint well inside the border.

I'm willing to bet a substantial amount of money that if you went through one of these checkpoints and saw how absolutely futile they are, you'd be just as pissed off about them as I am.

Actually I go through those checkpoints a lot. Did you know that congress has to approve of the location of those checkpoints? Congress also decided that they had to be that distance from the border.

Futile huh? In the past 3 months I've been involved in the seizure of over 500lbs of pot at one of those checkpoints. But hey they are pretty futile I guess. You only have a hard time at those checkpoints if you choose to be difficult.

Ordinarily, Customs authority starts and ends at the ports of entry. CBP has started (like 5-10 years ago) setting up checkpoints WAY inland, easily 40 miles from the established border, and well within United States territory, for the sole reason to do spot checks and generally harass "possible" human smugglers. Feel free to do some searches on it, it's a well-established fact and I've personally been through several in Arizona. The arbitrary "100 mile zone" is to give CBP the authority to conduct these checkpoints past the point of entry.

So your opinion is that once they cross the border they should be scott free to continue north?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wx9GxXYKx_8

Have you seen it? What are your thoughts? The parts about the donation pages are crazy especially if this video is truthful.

Shit...I like the skulls!!! Maybe I need to come hang out with you tonight and help play

Bow-chicka-bow-bow. Lol.

Agreed. The 100-mile zone is just CBP fucking with people, and they are shitstains as a result of it.

You have no idea what you are talking about here. I live within that 100 mile area of the border and have never been fucked with.

I'm gonna change my name to osumjchick or osumjgirl.

If you do that be prepared for the leg humping.

No, didn't watch the vid. Not lazy or stupid. If I watched every video posted on ORDN I wouldn't have any time left for yo momma.

Way to make friends on a new forum, your member status is 'learning the ropes', you got some learning to do bud.

You obviously don't realize who he is.

Maybe they will no longer allow semi auto rim fires at the range or the class.

You're right, it isn't, and that's what's fucked up. Land/Sea/Air ports of entry? Them's a constitutional free zone, with precedent dating all the way back to the 1790's.

Yes but that's a necessary evil for the greater good.

Now this is where I flake out a little with regard to the regulations of Class 3 gun ownership, so I'm sure someone will be along to correct me shortly. Is it a prerequisite to have a FFL in order to own a NFA firearm, or is that just preferred by the buyer in order to make the process easier?

As far as the customs regulations goes, Customs authority derives all the way back to the Founding Fathers themselves. Customs can fuck with you if they got a rash this morning, and they (for better or worse) are within their Constitutional authority to do so. What shouldn't be within their authority (and where they've massively over-reached) is the 100 mile "constitution-free zone" they've been using on inland searches. I've been personally hassled easily 40 miles inland from the US/Mexico border crossing, and it's bullshit. Ports of entry and inbound/outbound foreign ships in port? Fair game.

You don't need the FFL but I believe people get it because it is easier then finding and paying an FFL that will deal with class 3. But there is paperwork that you need to have to own the class 3 weapon.

That's because you look like the worlds biggest Mexican. (im joking). But its not a constitution free zone by any means.

Not by much, the closing slide on one side (which is only as firm as the recoil spring) the face of the chamber on the other. Far cry from an enclosed chamber that it can expand evenly as the powder burns. The forward momentum of a bullet is provided (momentarily) by being secured into the chamber by the bolt face as the primer detonates. Once the brass expands and seals the powder burn completes it. This is all out of whack in the above scenario - there's nothing behind the rim to "start" the bullet so the complete energy of the detonation happens to the powder, and that tends to expand (bell) the front of the case first when there's partial hold on the bullet itself (both sides in this case)....and the bullet usually limps out rather than shoots out forcefully.

You can try this (if you're brave) by holding a .22 in a pair of pliers and whacking the primed end. It'll detonate, it'll be loud and the bullet will fly out - but not with much momentum. Bench vice might be a better idea.

I'd be really interested to see the fired case, cause I can see a rimfire detonating this way for sure but not retaining a lot of energy for propulsion...not enough for two wounds.

You could stick the .22 round in a straw tape it and throw it in the air over pavement to get a similar affect.the straw is there to make sure it lands rim first.

I think big brother may be shutting it down ^^^^. Moar fear! Lol. It worked for me yesterday.

Don't break the law in view of the front door. Or at all.

You'd be surprised what people do.

Seems like a really odd angle for a stove pipe of an unfired round to go from shoulder height in hands forward of the line of fire to thigh height behind the line.

Are you saying the BATFE can enter your house without a warrant just to "check your papers" on an NFA firearm?

If there is "another agency there and the violation falls under their jurisdiction" then that suggests there is a violation they are investigating and likely have a search warrant. That's different from BATFE just showing up unannounced at a law abiding NFA owner's house and entering without a warrant to search for evidence of wrongdoing.

They could not that they will come to your house and knock on the door to review the papers. If they see a violation from the door it will fall under plain view. If the evidence of a violation could be destroyed or they are witnessing a criminal act then they can enter to seize the evidence or perform enforcement duties as needed. It is also common to have back up from another agency when going to someone's house so it is likely that the ATF agent may be accompanied by a local deputy. Once again I have never heard of the ATF actually doing a "knock and talk" to check paperwork of Joe schmoe NFA holder. All the ATF agents I know use it with the FFL holders to check them.

Similar to the title 21 authorities of customs officers. They can board any vessel in water that connects to the ocean to check their documents. Part of checking the documents is checking the keel numbers which are located normally in the hull of the ship towards the front. While they are checking the keel number if they pass anything that gives them probable cause to believe there is a criminal violation they can handle it accordingly.

Citation needed on the ATF home inspections, the only thing I'm coming up with is if you are a FFL.

Again, you're twisting my argument, so I'll state it again. Magazine capacity is a stopgap, a "lesser of all evils" from clawback of existing guns (which won't happen for Constitutional reasons, and rightly so). It's not the "great savior", it's a small preventative measure. Nice "No True Scotsman" as well, there are plenty of people that don't have the training to reload in 2 seconds, I can think of the Arizona shooter right off the top of my head. As a result of his "incompetence", the situation was defused by a bystander.

Yes, exactly. This would be a "perfect" measure, much better than a magazine restriction. However, we tried something similar to this with the ACA, and look where that ended up. Besides, you just want to give them one shallow psych exam, label them crazy or not, and send them on their way? That doesn't seem like it would do much good to fix the problem, just affixing another label. As you point out, they would still get a gun anyway, so why don't we give them the help they need?

That's great, except the Constitution doesn't apply to private property. Never has. I can open up a restaurant and put up a big NO GUNS sign, and if I see you printing/OC I am well within my rights to ask you to leave. As a private business, my rights as the business holder to be free from guns trumps your Constitutional right to carry, as you've made the conscious choice to enter my shop and abide by my rules for the time that you're in there.

You mean a weapons ban will INCONVENIENCE you and your family.

Your quick to point out my reasons as being hypothetical but the thought of a weapons ban doing any good is hypothetical. It may reduce gun violence but that will only be replaced with violence using another tool.

Ah, the good ol' Slippery Slope. I don't want to ban magazines, I don't want to ban guns. I do want to have a outlet where people that need mental health help can get it, and have that outlet be available for everyone. That's my "great savior", and that's the absolute core of my argument. Apparently, from the level of vitriol that was leveled at the ACA, we can't have those nice things as a country.

While they can only enter if you have an ffl they can still come to your house and request to review the documents for you NFA firearm. While waiting at the door if they see a criminal violation under their scope of duties then they can enter. Or if they have another agency there and the violation falls under their jurisdiction they can enter. Now none of the ATF agents I know have ever gone to someone's house just to check the paperwork for a NFA but they could.

It doesn't take much time to reload magazine type firearms it also doesn't take training to be proficient at it. Maybe 2 seconds is a bit quick but it doesn't take much time. Allowing people to carry in restricted areas would be better than hoping a person is quick enough to close the distance between them and the shooter and over power them. It would be safer and easier for the person to use the 1-5 seconds while the bad guy is reloading and shoot them from across the room behind cover.

With the psych it was a one time exam to determine if they are competent to own a firearm. If not there will be appeal processes. Like I said the whole mental health system needs rebuilt. Right now its just families take care of who they can unless they can afford assistance such as assisted living or a nursing home. The current state mental hospitals are over crowded and under funded. Leaving some with no help at all. Their only hope for treatment is to get locked up in the prison system which is a horrible environment for the mental people. What the prison system calls treatment is a few talks with a psych Dr. And a shit ton of meds. Meds only work when they are taken and even then sometimes they still fail. This nation needs to get away from throwing pills at its problems.

I respect businesses decisions to not allow firearms. I was referring to public places more so.

What is the ACA you are referring to?

" Go back and re-read my argument. EVERYONE DOESN'T HAVE EQUAL FIREPOWER. Not in Mexico, not in Chicago, not in Ohio, and not anywhere else in the US. Police departments have easy access to full-auto rifles, not to mention surplus gear direct from the DoD, for free even. Do you have a APC? Do you have access to a LAW to attempt to penetrate the armor of a APC, thereby evening the odds? No, you don't. You also don't have easy access to full-auto weapons, unless they were made prior to 1986 and even then they're a little cost prohibitive. Just because you can tacticool out your AR15 to look like a SWAT rifle, doesn't make it on par with one."

No not everyone has equal fire power all the more reason to not restrict what I can have or any other law abiding citizen.

Actually I think I know a little more about the law enforcement aspect than you do. I actually do that stuff its not something I read in a book. I have quick access to a full auto M4A1 so you are wrong there. I have talked with several ATF agents recently and they are also against a weapons ban because they too know it will stir the pot and piss off the real gun nuts like the guy in the video. Especially if its done by way of an executive order. I know that a gun in the hands of a good person is not bad at all. The large majority of who I work with are of the mindset that (as I originally said) if the government gets to big with its gun control laws (not just a magazine restriction) they would not give up theirs or take other peoples guns. When I made the comment about them fighting right beside someone, that was referring to your statement that no one will ever do anything as far as picking up arms because police have full auto. If it got bad enough that people were picking up arms many police and military would also take up arms right beside them. Need an example how about the Revolutionary or Civil wars? Both were sparked out of oppression from the government. Police and military choose sides. If you think the military has the fire power to easily fight rebel groups how do you explain why there are still enemies attacking our troops in Afganistan and Iraq? It's because the military can't see off hand who is friend or foe same as here if it got that bad.

This is why people like me hate discussing this, because you constantly base the discussion on completely false "facts". A AWB isn't unconstitutional, if was there were 10 years where someone could have challenged it's constitutionality in court. Once again, YOUR FREEDOM TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS IS NOT BEING INFRINGED. Period. You have guns? Keep them. You have guns that are about to be more tightly regulated? Keep those too. You want to buy a gun that's not a part of the AWB after it's passed? Fine, as long as you jump through whatever regulatory hoops there are after it's passing.

YOU CAN STILL BUY GUNS. YOU CAN STILL KEEP GUNS. YOU CAN STILL SHOOT GUNS. YOU CAN STILL HAVE A CCW THAT YOU OBTAINED PRE-AWB. YOU CAN STILL OBTAIN A NEW CCW AFTER THE BAN GOES INTO EFFECT.

Seriously, how hard is this to understand?

As for the police/military, I'm not taking that bait other than to say that they follow orders. Your argument is purely hypothetical, and the assumptions you make that the police will immediately jump ship and join the side of the "protestors" has no basis in any recent American history. Unless you got something to back that up where a police force of any stripe disobeyed orders en masse in the face of a protest, I'm calling bullshit. By the way, nice strawman you have there with inserting the "invading army" thing.

Go back and re-read my argument. EVERYONE DOESN'T HAVE EQUAL FIREPOWER. Not in Mexico, not in Chicago, not in Ohio, and not anywhere else in the US. Police departments have easy access to full-auto rifles, not to mention surplus gear direct from the DoD, for free even. Do you have a APC? Do you have access to a LAW to attempt to penetrate the armor of a APC, thereby evening the odds? No, you don't. You also don't have easy access to full-auto weapons, unless they were made prior to 1986 and even then they're a little cost prohibitive. Just because you can tacticool out your AR15 to look like a SWAT rifle, doesn't make it on par with one.

My point is simple, instead of trotting out the nirvana fallacy, there is headway to be made. You can start with drum magazines. In the event of a mass casualty situation, would I want someone that has a round capacity of 80 or a round capacity of 10? This would cause him to carry less ammo, and therefore inflict less casualties, even more so when he tries to reload, that could possibly create the opportunity for someone to pounce on him and stop the incident (see Giffords shooting) You can hit me with retrospective determinism (found my Logic textbook), or my favorite red herring of "well, I can reload in 1.5s, that's not enough time to do anything!", but out of all the mass shootings in the US in recent times, the VAST majority were from people with no formal firearms training.

What benefit did the ban have for columbine? Absolutely none. What benefit does the firearms ban have in Mexico? Absolutely none. What benefit do the strict gun laws have in Chicago? Absolutely none? That's all the proof I need that any type of firearms ban is ineffectiveand pointless. Why should I or any other person have to pay extra and jump through hoops because some crazy person does some dumb shit? Should every motorcycle rider have to pay a portion of a speeding ticket because some squid got caught speeding? The hoops you've got to go through to a full auto now would most likely be the same that they would use on a future ban. Such as a super high tax. Not to mention the one that is the most bullshit of giving up your 4th amendment right and giving the ATF the ability to enter your house at any time for inspections. So its not as simple as some extra paperwork and a couple extra bucks to own these restricted weapons like it is to get a ccw.

So having less rounds limits how many people you can kill? A pair of cargo pants and a jacket can old a lot of magazines even if they are 10 round capacity. I can carry several 30 round magazines without a back pack or tying up my hands. How would a person carry an extra drum magazines without a back pack? Basically I could carry the same amount of rounds if I wanted to I would just need to reload more. The shooting continues until someone shows up and confronts the shooter. How many rounds were actually fired in these mass shootings anyways? My point being 10 10 round mags can easily be carried and kill around 40 or more people in a crowded area.

Your argument about reloading being the great savior is total crap. If it takes a person longer than two seconds to reload then they probably don't have the mental capabilities to operate a weapon.

A better solution is prevention. Such as better mental health checks. Hell I would even say it is ok to have to take a 1 time firearms course including the standard background check before being able to purchase a gun similar to the hunter safety courses. As long as the price was minimal, just enough to cover the cost of classes. Maybe even a psych evaluation with minimal cost. Pass that then you receive a permit to purchase firearms. We need to bring back the mental institutions and have help for those that need it. Instead of putting the burden of taking care of people with mental illness on their families and the legal system when the family fails. Do away with gun free zones. The same as you mentioned earlier about cops having M4s being a deterrent, if every person could possibly be armed it would make shooters think twice about shooting the place up. If people were able to be armed in these places you wouldn't need to wait for the shooter to reload and hope you can get to him while he's reloading if he can be shot from a distance.

A weapons ban will affect me and my family. Say I teach my son to shoot using my AR-10 when he gets old enough if he wants to get one it'll cost him a lot more for the taxes to get the same weapon.

Your quick to point out my reasons as being hypothetical but the thought of a weapons ban doing any good is hypothetical. It may reduce gun violence but that will only be replaced with violence using another tool.

Sent and shared. Wonder if this can/should be done daily?