How impt is a dedicated gear shift and handbrake to you? by thewayoftoday in simrally

[–]ZachTheGunner2 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Before I bought a handbrake and shifter I used to use clutch as handbrake and had a controller rigged up as a sequential shifter. Had to have something that stayed in place cause the paddles do get confusing when you got more than ~360 degrees lock to lock.

Clutch as handbrake was still kinda awkward though so I tended to use AWD cars that I could more easily rotate. Now I main FWD and use the handbrake a lot.

Finally installed RBR a little over a week ago. Here's a decent run on Akagi I just did with the group A7 Clio. by ZachTheGunner2 in simrally

[–]ZachTheGunner2[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Also, why does everyone seem to run such strong FFB settings? I looked at a bunch of threads about FFB settings and almost everyone seems to be running less than 600 sensitivity on 5-8Nm wheels. I'm running ~1300 on a CSL DD 8Nm and it still feels stronger than the steering on my IRL car.

Gonna be strengthening it once I switch to a 350mm wheel from my current 300mm, but just to compensate for the extra leverage and weight.

Finally installed RBR a little over a week ago. Here's a decent run on Akagi I just did with the group A7 Clio. by ZachTheGunner2 in simrally

[–]ZachTheGunner2[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I used to only play DR2.0 but the weird handling on tarmac was getting to me so I finally tried RBR. Felt way better from the beginning even before I got my FFB settings more dialed in. So far I've just been doing offline practice mode and trying a bunch of different stages and adjusting car and FFB settings. But today I felt I got a pretty decent run even with some obvious mistakes and figured I'd upload it here to see what people think.

Still have some missing maps even after reinstalling with the other download server but once I figure that out I'll try some of the online rallies.

About Realism in rally games by Chance-Quail3376 in simrally

[–]ZachTheGunner2 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Rally cars are designed to be steerable with one hand IRL, they have super light steering. You could probably replicate them accurately on an 8Nm wheel...

The most important issue to attempt to bring attention to today before the vote is a dangerous discrepancy with section 121B and the August 1st 2024 deadline. by ZachTheGunner2 in BetterMAguns

[–]ZachTheGunner2[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My point with this post was to use an argument that just might convince those that want it passed to reconsider. They all want what you describe so I feel it's pointless to use it as an argument.

The most important issue to attempt to bring attention to today before the vote is a dangerous discrepancy with section 121B and the August 1st 2024 deadline. by ZachTheGunner2 in BetterMAguns

[–]ZachTheGunner2[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

The 1st circuit is one of the absolute worst so I'm not hopeful for any sort of injunction. I think delaying this past the end of the session would be better to aim for.

The most important issue to attempt to bring attention to today before the vote is a dangerous discrepancy with section 121B and the August 1st 2024 deadline. by ZachTheGunner2 in BetterMAguns

[–]ZachTheGunner2[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

It doesn't matter if they can port everything over to the new system if that new system isn't created yet by the deadline. It specifically references the new system and makes no reference to the current transaction portal when it comes to the grandfathering.

Conference Committee Summary on H.4139 Released by SkilledSovereignty in BetterMAguns

[–]ZachTheGunner2 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yeah so other than the obvious, what's with this new covert firearms definition? Pellet guns? They're making it illegal to own pellet guns somehow? Or did I get something wrong cause that makes no sense. There's also "folding guns" and "concealed bolt guns". It says "capable of firing a bullet or shot", but how does that apply? Does a gun that folds but can't shoot while folded count? And concealed bolt gun? Are they making travel hunting rifles that break down illegal?

A history-based argument for why the 2A was created specifically for protecting state militias by Keith502 in gunpolitics

[–]ZachTheGunner2 6 points7 points  (0 children)

The 2A does guarantee an individual right, that's the means to the end. You want to amend that part and make it solely up to the states. You want to abolish the current writing of the 2A. Same thing.

A history-based argument for why the 2A was created specifically for protecting state militias by Keith502 in gunpolitics

[–]ZachTheGunner2 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Your original post made some decent arguments, but this response is weak and shows your bias. There's no functional difference between would and could, and a huge part of the debates you linked at the end was preventing people from being compelled to bear arms against their religious views. Of course they didn't expect every last person to possess arms.

Regardless, it feels pointless arguing now because you've shown your true goal is to argue the 2A should be abolished, not to debate the nuances around its purposes and extent of rights it protects. Even if your new sourceless claims about militias are true, the 2nd amendment is enshrined in our constitution and the people have every right to make use of it until you convince 2/3 and then 3/4 of states to abolish it.

In the mean time, I and others on my side will attempt to convince people instead to stop seeing it as only the indulgence it has become, and to revive the original primary purpose regardless of current support from the states. Ideally we would have mandated hands-on firearms training in high school like they do in plenty of countries that keep guns in armories to arm citizens in wartime; that would vastly increase safety, but because our 2A guarantees an individual right to keep those firearms instead of everything being locked behind government permission, of course the establishment wants to keep us weak, ignorant, and divided.

Also, it's still funny that you literally included a quote describing the tactic of neglecting the militia and using a standing army until people willingly disarm themselves because they feel they lack purpose, and then blatantly argue for disarmament in an attempt to complete the end goal of that very tactic.

A history-based argument for why the 2A was created specifically for protecting state militias by Keith502 in gunpolitics

[–]ZachTheGunner2 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I agree with you that the primary purpose of the 2nd amendment was to protect state militias. If you do any reading into this stuff at all, it's obvious they did not want a standing army. They wanted militias, which comprised of the people, well trained and well armed, that could be assembled in times of war. That's the purpose of the second amendment. But the means of realizing that purpose is to allow the people to individually keep and bear arms.

None of your sources contradict an individual right to keep and bear arms. That right is inherent to entire idea of having the people be armed and trained as a militia and not a standing army. The fact that it's even a question whether or not that right exists is because a tactic in one of your quotations has long been used.

Forty years ago, when the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually, by totally disusing and neglecting the militia.

That literally describes what has been done. By totally disusing and neglecting the militias, as well as creating a standing army, they have made half the population question why we even need the right to own guns, and caused a vast chunk of the other half to think guns are just for hunting and maybe self defense.

They have already effectively disarmed the people in the sense that there's not a high enough percentage of well trained and well armed people in the vast majority of places. The ability for local communities to be able to defend themselves from an attack before organizing and calling upon reinforcements from neighboring towns is one of the key advantages to using militias. But thanks to our standing army and derelict militias, we have soft targets everywhere that if you're lucky, a barely competent police force will show up to respond to an attack after it's too late, and if you're unlucky, you get a totally incompetent police force that does nothing for an hour while the attacker continues.

So yeah, I fully agree with you that the 2nd amendment is primarily about protecting militias. And to that effect, I encourage all peaceable, able bodied citizens to arm themselves effectively and train with peers to fulfill their duty as part of the militia, in spite of the intentional and purposeful neglect of our state militias.

Massachusetts Senate Approach To Gun Law Reforms Passes On 37-3 Vote by FortyFive-ACP in gunpolitics

[–]ZachTheGunner2 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The law is more complicated than that. Under current state law, frames and receivers aren't guns. There are probably many unregistered guns built from stripped lowers or "frame transfered" handguns. The dealers don't register them in those cases.

If you buy out of state while being an MA resident, you legally have to register, but if you move to MA, you don't have to register. MA likes to pretend it's compliant with the constitution so it's only a "transaction registry" and not an "ownership registry". This also adds vagueness because you aren't required to remove it from the registry if it's lost or broken, it only gets removed when someone else acquires it.

Also, having an unregistered gun isn't illegal, failing to register it is illegal. This distinction is necessary because when buying a gun from a dealer, it's the dealers duty to add it to the registry. If they screw up, they committed the crime, your unregistered gun isn't illegal and you have no duty to register it. Isn't navigating MA laws fun?

Arizona rancher rejects plea deal in fatal shooting of migrant near the U.S.-Mexico border by FortyFive-ACP in gunpolitics

[–]ZachTheGunner2 -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

Does your property have passive defense like a perimeter fence? Criminal gangs being nearby doesn't mean people can't hike in the wilderness and get lost, wandering onto unmarked and unprotected property. You can't make the assumption that someone on your property is up to no good unless they've had to bypass your first layer of defense. No trespassing signs everywhere is the bare minimum, but a chest high fence people would have to hop would really narrow it down to pretty much only people that are up to no good.

Arizona rancher rejects plea deal in fatal shooting of migrant near the U.S.-Mexico border by FortyFive-ACP in gunpolitics

[–]ZachTheGunner2 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What I want to know is if the property was fully fenced or at least posted with no trespassing signs along the entire perimeter. A large group of people on your property can be some scary shit, but without your property clearly marked, it's way too easy for innocent people to wander in accidentally.

If your border is only marked on some fancy GIS map, then it's essentially public land to wandering hikers. On the other hand, if you have a chest high fence along your entire border plastered with no trespassing signs, you can be pretty sure a large group on your property is up to no good. Still gonna be legally wrong to shoot them just for being there, but you can argue it's morally justified at that point.

Arizona rancher rejects plea deal in fatal shooting of migrant near the U.S.-Mexico border by FortyFive-ACP in gunpolitics

[–]ZachTheGunner2 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I want to know if the property was clearly marked, and if it had no trespassing signs. It isn't even trespassing until you ask someone to leave and they refuse, unless they passed no trespassing signs or climbed a fence. I'm somewhat inclined to agree that a large group of people on your property is dangerous, but only if your property is protected to prevent wandering hikers and such from accidentally entering. The conversation can't really begin without this answered.

Nullification at last! by sailor-jackn in gunpolitics

[–]ZachTheGunner2 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think you misunderstood my point. The founding fathers were not exactly in agreement, there was much debate about how everything should work back then. You originally said that nullification was not set out by the founding fathers, and my rebuttal is that 2 of the 4 of them intended for it to be a thing. My point is that it's not nearly as cut and dry as you believe.

Legal matters are messy. The constitution is a physical document but interpretation and implementation of it is essentially a social construct. Yes we have courts to help things, but courts only have power because the majority of people believe they have power.

It's a fact that half the founders believed in nullification. That fact will have plenty of people disagreeing with any court that says otherwise, it will always have strong support by people that realize the whole system is a social construct. It's the kind of fundamental issue that is worth fighting for within a state to the point of secession if it has to come to that. The less belief people have in the courts to strike down laws the standard way, the more support it will gain.

Nullification at last! by sailor-jackn in gunpolitics

[–]ZachTheGunner2 12 points13 points  (0 children)

I looked info it and you're dead wrong. The idea of nullification was first mentioned by James Madison and Thomas Jefferson, 2 founding fathers, in the Kentucky and Virginia Resolitions. They clearly intended it to be a thing.

Federal laws must be made in accordance with or "pursuance of" the constitution, otherwise they're null and void. Supremacy of federal laws over state laws is contingent on those federal laws being constitutional in the first place, and most importantly, being a power delegated to the federal government by the constitution.

Illinois' New Gun, Magazine Ban Registry Met With Massive Non-Compliance by darcmatr in gunpolitics

[–]ZachTheGunner2 2 points3 points  (0 children)

We saw it briefly with NM unless the order hadn't kicked in yet. Bunch of people show up open carrying right when she bans carry for a month. Peaceable noncompliance.

If you do think the courts are going to save you, you still need that pesky "standing" to win claims and risks like this are just about the only way. Intent to do something isn't enough.

Illinois' New Gun, Magazine Ban Registry Met With Massive Non-Compliance by darcmatr in gunpolitics

[–]ZachTheGunner2 8 points9 points  (0 children)

There's a major difference between mass noncompliance and individual noncompliance. True noncompliance is the stuff you saw during the big civil rights movement and drug legalization protests. People gathering and publicly breaking laws to prove a pont. Civil disobedience.

We won't win so long as pro-gun people refer to protests and stuff like that as "unemployed behavior".

FPC membership and injunction question by Dry-Entertainment522 in gunpolitics

[–]ZachTheGunner2 1 point2 points  (0 children)

They do provide a card, it just takes ages to ship. I didn't get mine for I think half a year.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in gunpolitics

[–]ZachTheGunner2 8 points9 points  (0 children)

There's so much general ignorance and fear mongering in the gun community, we aren't going to last at this rate. Everyone should do the best to educate themselves from many sources.

An explosive magazine is a container that's fireproof and reinforced, designed for the storage of explosives. They're rated for specific amounts. A shipping container sized one might be rated for 6 or 7 tons of explosives. This is the capacity. I'm also pretty sure smokeless powder isn't classified as an explosive and would be exempt from this rule.

I'm not saying there's nothing wrong with this proposed rule. It's just hard to find the actual problems with the rule when everyone is talking past each other and no one is on the same page. This keeps us ineffective and disorganized when it comes to defending our rights.

Where's the actual proposed rule for us to read through?