Comments by "gary K" (@garyK.45ACP) on "Brandon Herrera" channel.

  1. 114
  2. 93
  3. 68
  4. 39
  5. 22
  6. 20
  7. 20
  8. 12
  9. 12
  10. 8
  11. 7
  12. 5
  13. 5
  14. 3
  15. 3
  16. 2
  17. 2
  18. 2
  19. 1. Please explain, Joe Rogan, how is it possible to fire a bullet (that bullet has clearly been fired through a rifled bore) and "never hit a goddamned thing"? The bullet HAS TO have hit SOMEthing. Even if fired in the air, the bullet will hit the ground when it comes back earth. Unless the bullet is launched into earth orbit, in which case you would not have the bullet to examine, it MUST HAVE hit something. 2. Full metal jacket bullets often look as though they are not deformed after penetrating an animal, for example. Bullets specifically designed for deep penetration, such as dangerous game bullets, may appear undeformed even after penetrating several feet of a cape buffalo, rhinoceros or elephant. Usually you can measure deformation, even if it is not obviously visible. 3. Water, even in itself, is NOT a "soft target". A soft target would be snow, fiberglass insulation batts, or cotton or polyester "batting", like pillow stuffing. When firing a bullet and NOT trying to deform the bullet, that's what you would use. You would need a LOT of it to stop a bullet. If the bullet in question was "planted", as some suggest, why would they try to plant a bullet that appears undeformed for Joe Rogan to question 58 years later? 4. I am guessing JFK had some pretty creative places to hide the condoms he always carried. My theory is...we do not know what actually happened that day and cannot know what actually happened with the information we currently have. When all the information is released then maybe we will be able to get a better idea. Trying to "solve" a mystery when you KNOW that you do not have all the information necessary is foolish. Even for Joe Rogan.
    2
  20. 2
  21. 2
  22. 2
  23. 2
  24. 2
  25. 2
  26. 2
  27. 2
  28. 2
  29. 2
  30. 1
  31. 1
  32. 1
  33. 1
  34. 1
  35. 1
  36. 1
  37. 1
  38. 1
  39. 1
  40. 1
  41. 1
  42. 1
  43. 1
  44. 1
  45. 1
  46. 1
  47. 1
  48. 1
  49. 1
  50. 1
  51. 1
  52. 1
  53. 1
  54. 1
  55. 1
  56. 1
  57. 1
  58. 1
  59. 1
  60. 1
  61. 1
  62. 1
  63. 1
  64. 1
  65. 1
  66. 1
  67. 1
  68. 1
  69. 1
  70. 1
  71. 1
  72. 1
  73. 1
  74. 1
  75. 1
  76. 1
  77. 1
  78. 1
  79. 1
  80. 1
  81. 1
  82. 1
  83. 1
  84. 1
  85. 1
  86. 1
  87. 1
  88. 1
  89. 1
  90. 1
  91. 1
  92. 1
  93. 1
  94. 1
  95. 1
  96. 1
  97. 1
  98. 1
  99. 1
  100. 1
  101. 1
  102. 1
  103. It's fun to imagine things like a drop in trigger to be considered a "firearm" but the ATF has specifically determined the particular parts that are classed as firearms. Could someone, in the future, interpret that to mean a drop in trigger is a firearm? Yes, I suppose they could. Is it likely? Is it even plausible? No. That really isn't the issue...if you read all 115 pages of the proposed change in regulation. Obviously the ATF is between a rock and a hard place here. They cannot write legislation or change law. They go to great lengths to state that they are clarifying "what congress meant" and "updating" regulations to "meet modern technology". Forgetting that the pistol that started WW1, the Browning/FN 1910 was a striker fired pistol whose parts do not meet the definition of a "firearm" under the GCA '68. If legislation needs to be updated...it needs to be re-legislated. OR, Congress needs to amend the GCA '68. It is not the responsibility of Administrative agencies to try to determine "what Congress meant". Vague laws are unconstitutional. Like the bumpstock ban which got struck down...ATF cannot make something illegal that is not in violation of a statute. Well...they CAN, but it can be struck down by courts. I believe this regulation, if implemented, WILL be struck down by federal courts, likely by one of the 200+ judges Trump appointed. The best thing we can do? Write to oppose this regulation during the comment period. If it is implemented, we can support the 2A organizations that will bring suits in Federal courts to strike it down.
    1
  104. 1
  105. 1
  106. 1
  107. 1
  108. 1
  109. 1
  110. 1
  111. 1
  112. 1
  113. 1
  114. 1
  115. 1
  116. 1
  117. 1
  118. 1
  119. 1
  120. 1
  121. 1
  122. 1
  123. 1
  124. 1
  125. 1
  126. 1
  127. 1
  128. 1
  129. 1
  130. 1
  131. 1
  132. 1
  133. 1
  134. 1
  135. 1
  136. 1
  137. 1
  138. 1