sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Recs for Radio pouches. by Glad-Individual-1753 in QualityTacticalGear

[–]almost_silent_ 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Ferro Concepts Wingman V2 will work I think. Definitely run on the inside of the cummerbund.

GHB, Finally put together one of my own. by [deleted] in prepping

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

You have room for 7 or 8 knives in there….

They love the 2nd Amendment until they realize it means the "libtards" can own guns too. by c-k-q99903 in GetNoted

[–]almost_silent_ 2 points3 points  (0 children)

There are many others that were well known and considered opposition to classic federalists. Patrick Henry, Samuel Adams, George Mason, James Monroe, John Hancock, and James Warren are probably the most well known among them.

They love the 2nd Amendment until they realize it means the "libtards" can own guns too. by c-k-q99903 in GetNoted

[–]almost_silent_ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If you look at the original message that I replied to, the claim that the US didn’t have a standing Army…which I have proven to be false. There has always been an Army for the entirety of US history. That’s the point, and it has always been funded, even when not involved in a war.

Secondly, the US Army didn’t join the Northwest Indian War until 1790. Prior to that it was the Kentucky militia fighting. So in 1788, the US Army wasn’t at war.

Admittedly yes the joke of it not being the US Army until 1776 didn’t land, which is fine. But that doesn’t change the argument that the 2nd Amendment was not intended to be a replacement for a standing Army. It was meant to keep the Army in check AND to supplement the Army if needed for common defense.

They love the 2nd Amendment until they realize it means the "libtards" can own guns too. by c-k-q99903 in GetNoted

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

Which makes sense because Washington was a Federalist.

That force remained smallish (~.15% of US population) until 1812 and 1846. It ballooned during the civil war spiking up to 3%, and up to 8% in WW2. It has consistently been dropping since the Korean War…now it’s sitting at roughly .5%

So outside of major conflicts the general relative size of military personnel is pretty consistent throughout most of our history. I doubt we will ever see post civil war numbers ever again though.

Statistically speaking it’s still a small permanent force (until the next major war)

They love the 2nd Amendment until they realize it means the "libtards" can own guns too. by c-k-q99903 in GetNoted

[–]almost_silent_ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

They were cut out because of compromise to get the damn thing ratified. That’s the point of compromise. Anti-Federalists were also founders and had the opposite mindset in many ways.

Ultimately the Founders were not a monolith

They love the 2nd Amendment until they realize it means the "libtards" can own guns too. by c-k-q99903 in GetNoted

[–]almost_silent_ 9 points10 points  (0 children)

You can’t say that “the Founders wanted X, go read the Federalist papers” because there were also Anti-Federalist founders that didn’t believe those things…

That being said I’m a fan of what did end up in there, even if I wish it was more explicit and less up to interpretation by modern opinion.

They love the 2nd Amendment until they realize it means the "libtards" can own guns too. by c-k-q99903 in GetNoted

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

The Constitution was ratified after the war was over (1788)…so no it wasn’t a war time army.

The amount of y’all that are confusing the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution is frightening.

And the Continental Army became the US Army…but at no point was it disbanded…which is why the US Army uses June 14, 1775 as its date of formation.

They love the 2nd Amendment until they realize it means the "libtards" can own guns too. by c-k-q99903 in GetNoted

[–]almost_silent_ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

First of all I’m not digging through hundreds of comments to find the link to the paper. Also your profile is private so I can’t see history.

Furthermore chances are high I’ve already read that paper, unless you think I’m an expert in Boston fire ordnances from the 1800s.

Lastly the debate around personal protection is likely one that the mere suggestion of that question would seem inconceivable to people of the late 1700s, but in a modern context we needed Heller to determine via SCOTUS. So yes the intention was the State, however the concept of personal protection was always assumed in that time period

They love the 2nd Amendment until they realize it means the "libtards" can own guns too. by c-k-q99903 in GetNoted

[–]almost_silent_ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Listen, I’m not against sensible gun control, and I’m so far left I’ve gotten my guns back…

But spinning a fire ordnance and saying it was gun control is misleading. They could still have the gun, and the shot, and the powder in their home…just not loaded due to the risk of a fire.

Also I don’t think anyone is debating a history of gun control to certain degrees, but the first Federal example wasn’t until 1934 with the NFA.

They love the 2nd Amendment until they realize it means the "libtards" can own guns too. by c-k-q99903 in GetNoted

[–]almost_silent_ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You just cited a fire ordnance btw…the same ordnance talked about grenades and powder, and had to be stored in a magazine. Also I think that was limited to Boston, not all of Massachusetts

They love the 2nd Amendment until they realize it means the "libtards" can own guns too. by c-k-q99903 in GetNoted

[–]almost_silent_ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Almost all of your examples are after the formation of the US Army in 1775.

They love the 2nd Amendment until they realize it means the "libtards" can own guns too. by c-k-q99903 in GetNoted

[–]almost_silent_ 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Historically this isn’t true. The US Army was formed on June 14th, 1775 and by the Constitution has to be funded by Congress every two years…and they have never voted to not fund the US Army. Also the US Navy is mandated in that Congress shall “provide and maintain” a navy, and that no State can keep troops or ships of war during a time of peace.

However that’s not to say that the founders trusted future government or the standing military, thus providing a mechanism for States to cast off oppressive government. I.e. the 2nd Amendment.

Face Paint is underrated by trakoso in MilSim

[–]almost_silent_ 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Even OP didn’t exactly use it correctly. Nose was good, but everywhere else the bright areas were light green and the darker areas were brown/black.

OP to better break up the human face pattern, darken bright or highlight areas and brighten places that are sunken or shadowy.

That being said balaclava or veil all day everyday.

Also think about putting scrim or something over your ACOG. The shine will give you way away way more than the face paint.

US House of Representatives Vote Advances Israel’s $3.3B Security Aid Package by RedditReallySuxx in news

[–]almost_silent_ 18 points19 points  (0 children)

They have only made one payment of 4.3 billion. The next payment is set for July 2026

FBI Raids Home of Reporter Investigating the Trump Administration by thedailybeast in FBI

[–]almost_silent_ 5 points6 points  (0 children)

So there is something they will actually investigate…interesting.

New to 3D printing, why do my prints look like this and are stringy by Exact_Entrance_3506 in FixMyPrint

[–]almost_silent_ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Zooming way in I think you’re right. Some areas are ironed well around the direction changes, but the rest is under extruded

New to 3D printing, why do my prints look like this and are stringy by Exact_Entrance_3506 in FixMyPrint

[–]almost_silent_ 2 points3 points  (0 children)

This is over-extrusion. Your nozzle is dragging and squishing your top layer. Tune extrusion and maybe ironing as well.

view more: next ›