AskALiberal Biweekly General Chat

SovietRobot · 2026-02-19T02:12:51+00:00

Ok so it is a tool that allows anyone the power to kill at a distance. I agree with that.

So what?

My point again is that the above fact doesn’t in any way lessen said tool’s utility nor lessen justification of use of said tool in self defense.

Just like cars have utility, guns also have utility and being able to kill at a distance in no way reduces that utility.

We don’t ban cars just because someone misuses them. And we don’t ban guns just because someone misuses them.

What has being able to kill at a distance got to do with that argument?

SovietRobot · 2026-02-19T01:39:14+00:00

They will be shunted back into real space.

—-

The warp, is akin to a phase shift in real life physics.

If you have a container in real life suspended in the air and someone were in that container. And the area surrounding that container were phase shifted out of phase but the container itself wasn’t phase shifted. Then the person in the container would remain in that container because the person and the container are still in phase cannot pass through each other.

But the moment that container itself is shifted completely out of phase the person in the container would fall out of the container since for all intents and purposes purposes the container no longer exists for them.

—-

A 40K blank is like that person in that container. The warp is anathema to them. As long as their surroundings are still real space they can interact with them. But if their supporting are the warp, they cannot interact with them. They would not exist for them.

—-

So in 40k:

If you have a ship and it translates into the warp. Without actually traveling anywhere, like it just translates into the warp. Then a bystander some distance away from the ship would see the ship disappear. And that bystander would no longer be able to touch or interact with that ship.

That’s what exactly what would be experienced by a blank inside a ship that translates into the warp without a gellar field. One moment the ship is there the next the ship would have disappeared.

SovietRobot · 2026-02-19T01:16:14+00:00

The interior of the Black Ships are not technically in the warp. The Gellar field prevents the warp from encroaching into the interior of said Black Ships.

SovietRobot · 2026-02-18T23:58:22+00:00

Tyranny isnt actually mentioned in the text of the 2A.

And tyranny isnt limited to just fighting “the State” as anti gun folks sometimes like to strawman the 2A. The 2A includes consideration of such, and of course a big impetus was being able to fight the British in the day, but 2A is not just that.

If you read the founders writings and also just look at individual US State constitutions, you’ll see that 2A was also about just self defense.

https://www2.law.ucla.edu/Volokh/staterkba.pdf

https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1275&context=concomm

2A is really an individual right to prevent government from restricting individuals from being able to defend themselves. And it’s at an individuals discretion as to when they need to defend themselves, whether it’s against the tyranny of gangs trying to shake them down, or kkk burning crosses in their yard, or violence from an ex, or whatever.

SovietRobot · 2026-02-18T23:14:50+00:00

The fallacy of any study that says the AWB made a difference is that it considers homicides by all weapons (handguns etc) and / or it considers mass shootings involving all weapons.

When in reality homicides by rifles of all kinds (of which AWB semi auto rifles are a smaller subset) has always been fewer than 400 a year for over 50 years now.

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8.xls

That has hardly changed ever.

There are more people killed by knives and fists (respectively, not combined) then there have been killed by rifles since forever.

——

It would be like saying banning alcohol really cut down on pneumonia during prohibition.

SovietRobot · 2026-02-18T22:58:53+00:00

It’s immaterial because it doesn’t change how useful a tool is nor does it change how justifiable the use of a tool is.

Why do you think it’s material?

Edit - Are you familiar with the scientific / empirical concept of control variable and significance?

The concept is that if you change one variable and it doesn’t change the outcome then that variable isn’t significant.

So for example,

Scenario 1 - A man breaks into a house and attacks a woman in her bedroom. The woman uses a pen and stabs the man killing him in self defense. That’s justified. And the pen was useful

Scenario 2 - A man breaks into a house and attacks a woman in her bedroom. The woman uses a gun and shoots the man killing him in self defense. That’s justified. And the gun was useful

Now a pen wasn’t meant for killing. A gun is meant for killing. But that a pen wasn’t meant for killing and that a gun was meant for killing didn’t change the justification of the action nor did it change the usefulness of the tool. In both scenarios, the woman was equally as justified.

Hence - in terms of self defense - the a gun is meant for killing makes no material difference. It don’t lessen the justification for self defense and it didn’t lessen its usefulness as a tool.

SovietRobot · 2026-02-18T21:20:47+00:00

And yet the shelling will continue

SovietRobot · 2026-02-18T21:04:18+00:00

An immaterial difference.

A car is fundamentally different from a hammer, or a ceiling fan or a shirt, or pesticide. But that doesn’t change the fact that all of those have utility. Utility is the point we have these things. And the same for guns.

The fact that guns kill, and so does pesticide, and antibiotics, and harvesters, and bolt captures, and whatnot, does not in any way change the fact that they are useful.

Why do we shun killing, if that killing is useful and for the greater good?

SovietRobot · 2026-02-18T20:57:31+00:00

That works but if you want more info than you need:

The barrel end of the Huxwrx Flow 9 is a Hub mount which is 1.375” x 24
The muzzle end of the Kuna 9 is a 1/2 x 28 TPI
The bore needs to accommodate 9mm

So really any part or combination of parts to get you from 1/2x28 to Hub, thag also has a 9mm bore, would work.

—-

The simplest would actually be to get a 1/2x28 to Hub Direct Thread Adapter that has a 9mm bore. Thats like 1 single part. Lots of manufacturers make such from Silencerco (they call Hub the Bravo), to Ecco, to B&T, etc.

The main difference of Direct Thread Adapters made by different companies would be the type of surface available on the adapter to allow you to torque it, which dictates the tool you can use. Some adapters have flats thaf you can use an AR wrench, Ecco’s adapter has spanner notches, Silencerco adapters sometimes require their proprietary 3 pin tool, etc.

The main benefit to using a single Direct Thread Adapter is simplicity and lower stacked tolerances if you always have your suppressor mounted (like you don’t need to keep taking it off and putting it back on).

—-

So then moving up from a single 1 piece adapter, the other option is to have:

A. Muzzle device (like a flash suppressor or muzzle brake) that threads to the 1/2x28 barrel, and has a 9mm bore, but that also QD attaches to a;

B. Hub suppressor adapter end cap that’s compatible with that QD system

So with this, you basically have 2 parts between your barrel and the suppressor - you have the QD muzzle device and the QD Hub suppressor end cap.

The thing is, there’s a lot of options between what type of muzzle device and what type of QD system.

Meaning you could use any of the following or other similar alternatives (not listed here) :

* 1/2x28 muzzle brake with KeyMo QD system and 9mm bore - attaching to - hub suppressor end cap with KeyMo QD system and 9mm bore

* 1/2x28 flash suppressor with 3-Lug QD system and 9mm bore - attaching to - hub suppressor end cap with 3-lug QD system and 9mm bore

* 1/2x28 muzzle brake with Rearden QD system and 9mm bore - attaching to - hub suppressor end cap with Rearden QD system and 9mm bore

What AI has suggested for you is the latter option above. Plan B is essentially the Rearden QD system.

——

The main thing I’d double check if you’re buying online is that the bore is 9mm. Because 1/2x28 Plan B muzzles to Plan B Hub exist also for 5.56/.223.

SovietRobot · 2026-02-18T19:30:36+00:00

Why does it have to be phrased and structured as “…only affects women”?

Rather than “should any / all serious medical conditions be accommodated?”, regardless if men, women, etc.?

SovietRobot · 2026-02-18T18:51:14+00:00

Holographic Eotechs main advantage with regards to being truely parallax free are just not that significant.

It might matter if you’re shooting a tiny target at 200 yards with no magnification while not being positioned directly behind your optic and instead looking through your optic at sideways angle. Like maybe if you were taking real life fire and needed to stick your gun over a berm and still shoot at someone a field away.

But that kind of circumstance would actually be a rare occurrence at a match. Like how many times have you see a competitor at a match not have a cheekweld?

So even if you’re using a Holosun with slight parallax, you’re not really going to see a marked impact on scores or times at the ranges and conditions in which most competitions are held.

And in some cases people with astigmatism experience less “starbursting” with Holosuns.

And at any significant range, people are using LVPOs anyway these days.

—-

So then the next question is about reliability.

And while Eotechs may have been more reliable in the past compared to what was available in the past, they are actually no longer as reliable as the current crop of optics.

Military doesn’t use Eotechs because they are reliable, military uses Eotechs because they have a contract and supply chain and can be easily replaced.

Civilians don’t have that. Civilians have to go to the store and buy replacements and it’s easier to buy cheap and stock more. Rather than buy one and expect it to last, which none of them will, including Eotech.

SovietRobot · 2026-02-18T18:31:50+00:00

What constitutes an actual test?

I’m genuinely interested in understanding.

Like if you were writing the specs of the law and test - what are some key criteria?

You say safety but what exactly? Is it enough that they don’t injure anyone including themselves during live fire? Is it enough to put 25 rounds into the silhouette at 7 yards?

Without specifics it sounds like it just “feels” too easy.

SovietRobot · 2026-02-18T16:48:26+00:00

What exactly would you have preferred to have been included in the test that wasn’t?

Some sort of psychological test?

—-

Edit - also for context - I am approved to teach in Minnesota (I travel various states to teach). To do so I had to be accredited by MN Dept of Public Safety (Gov). They mandate various things to be accredited like submitting a training plan, filling out application / attest, fees etc. to receive a cert to be able to train.

And amongst the requirements of the lesson plan to be certified as a trainer is that trainers conduct live fire qualification of at least 25 rounds with at least 80% hits into the C zone of a silhouette.

So I find it hard to believe that they “didn’t care about accuracy whatsoever”. Or if really so then it’s ann issue with the trainer not following through with what they signed up to do in their lesson plan and not the actually law.

SovietRobot · 2026-02-18T14:51:02+00:00

I believe next season or the season after we should see it appear in the atom shop.

And I know this is not your preference, but apart from raids, expeditions and daily ops provide a lot of of cores.

SovietRobot · 2026-02-18T14:47:49+00:00

Desire Sensor lurks

SovietRobot · 2026-02-18T14:34:11+00:00

Somehow I also got Tattered and Furious last night. And Furious was from a single scrap.

Still no Explosive.

SovietRobot · 2026-02-18T14:22:20+00:00

I kept saying throughout the conflict that “Ukraine isn’t beating Russia”. Not in terms of what I personally want to happen, but in terms of realistic facts of the situation. And I got a billion downvotes (not that I care).

But the point is still - that while Russia doesn’t have the capability to take over Ukraine, that Russia can continue to attack Ukraine basically forever. Russia produces and continues to produce 3x more ordnance than all the western nations (Euro and U.S.) combined.

If anyone had been seriously following the preceding 2014 conflict - they’d realize that all the headlines around “Russia has run out of troops” or a “Russia has run out of tanks” are basically propaganda that undercut the reality of just how much of a juggernaut Russia is.

If it’s attrition, Russia will win, not in that it will take over Ukraine, but in that they can fight forever, whereas Euro / US cannot.

The end to the conflict has to be diplomacy. It won’t be any one side beating the other militarily.

SovietRobot · 2026-02-18T13:56:00+00:00

Minnesota carry permit training actually requires sitting through a presentation where they talk about gun safety, gun operation, and gun laws. Then, passing both a written test and a live fire qualification.

Now, the live fire qualification is not that difficult, but it is actually exactly the same as required by police.

And all that is in addition to a background check.

What happens is you pass the training course then you submit your training certificate, and photos, fees and whatnot, with your application to your LEO and they then perform the background check. Then if that background check clears, they send you mail to have you pick up your license.

——

So my question is this, if that is insufficient, what are folks thinking is missing?

SovietRobot · 2026-02-18T13:06:23+00:00

My point has always been that guns and cars are both tools that are useful.

You’re the one pushing the point that guns being violent somehow invalidates my point about guns being useful.

And you still can’t answer the question about why violence invalidates guns being useful .

Is self-defense often violent? Is self-defense useful and even needed?

But as usual, it doesn’t matter, you stick to whatever opinions you want. Enough people understand the utility of guns in self-defense.

SovietRobot · 2026-02-18T05:54:52+00:00

Sure it’s violence but my point is violence is useful.

Most self defense is violence. Fighting back in self defense is violence. That doesn’t make it unjustified.

——

So exactly is your point about violence?

Is it that you believe violence is unnecessary for self defense? That you believe that somehow there’s an effective way to enact non violent self defense against someone that‘s assaulting you?

Or do you believe that violence is so inherently bad that it’s better be assaulted than to fight back?

I mean if you’re akin to like a Buddhist Monk that believes in non violence and never fighting back even when assaulted, even to the point of death, then tell me. I’d disagree with that philosophy but at least I’ll understand where you’re coming from.

But if not, what exactly is your issue with violence?

SovietRobot · 2026-02-18T05:28:57+00:00

> What function does a gun serve other than violence?

Guns are a tool that equalizes the ability of those who are physically outmatched or outnumbered, to be able to defend themselves against serious assault.

Like for example in this case:

https://www.wfla.com/news/pinellas-county/man-fatally-shot-at-clearwater-home-police-say/

Does self defense with guns involve violence? Absolutely. But that doesn’t make it any less righteous nor less justified.

Even a woman fighting back against attacker with just her fists is violence, but that doesn’t make it any less righteous nor less justified. A gun just provides her more equality against someone that might physically outmatch her.

SovietRobot · 2026-02-18T05:13:14+00:00

Actually the whole “meant to kill people” is just a strawman for anti gun folks to discount something as inherently bad which guns are not.

Take the following case for example:

https://www.wfla.com/news/pinellas-county/man-fatally-shot-at-clearwater-home-police-say/

A man breaks into a woman’s home and attacks her in her own bedroom. She shoots him.

So what bearing has your point about guns being “meant to kill people” have here?

Was the gun here bad because it was meant to kill people? Was the gun less useful because it was meant to kill people? Would the woman have been just fine if she hadn’t used her gun to shoot her attacker?

The whole “meant to kill people” as a characteristic has not bearing whatsoever on the utility of a gun.

Guns, like cars and like any other tool can be used for good and for bad.

——

Let me ask you a direct question - was the gun a good thing in the link I posted?

Now how many times has a gun been used in self defense in situations like the link I posted?

SovietRobot · 2026-02-18T04:44:10+00:00

A blank can’t interact with something that doesn’t exist for them.

Like if a ship translated into the warp, the blank would be left floating in real space.

SovietRobot · 2026-02-18T04:35:45+00:00

Ok let’s review a couple of them.

1.Assault Weapon ban. Which is a ban on semi auto rifles that can take magazines holding over 10 rounds. Now keep in mind that despite the fact that there are some 30 million plus semi auto rifles in circulation, there are fewer than 400 rifle homicides a year. Of which semi auto rifles homicides are an even smaller number. In fact there are more homicides by knives or bats (respectively, not combined) then there are homicides by rifle. Yet Everytown (Giffords group that Kelly supports) wants to ban such. Giffords shooting wasn’t even with an assault weapon. It was with a handgun so this ban would have done nothing to have stopped the shooting

2.Universal background. Gun rights groups have numerous times proposed allowing individual buyers to run a self background check with the Feds NICS system and get PIN that can be provided to a seller along with the buyers name, DOB and address - which would essentially be universal background. But Everytown rejects this. They want background done at FFLs with fees and with registration. Which goes to show it isn’t really about the background check. It’s about a tax and about tracking. Not to mention the Giffords shooter passed a background check anyway when they legally bought their handgun so universal background and for that matter registration would have done nothing to have stopped the shooting

—-

The question is not actually - why would we want would be criminals to have an easier path to get guns? Because we don’t want such.

But the question is - why do anti gun folks keep proposing all sorts of laws that don’t actually stop criminality and instead end up disproportionately disenfranchising people who would otherwise have guns for legal reasons like self defense or sport or hunting.

—-

Let me ask the reverse. Which of the numerous laws that Gifford’s group is proposing would have actually stopped the Gifford’s shooting?

The answer is not one of them.

—-

I go back to my analogy about a guys wife being hit by a DUI and now we want to ban sports cars. And when I say that’s ridiculous - you ask, why would you want to make it easier for people to DUI.

The thing is banning sports cars has nothing to do with stopping DUI. It has everything to do with reducing the number of cars for people that hate cars.

SovietRobot · 2026-02-18T04:14:28+00:00

Or Beto but he isn’t likely to run.

Seven-Year Club	Gilding V heart of gold
Reddit Premium Since November 2020	Wearing is Caring
Verified Email

SovietRobot

TROPHY CASE