Headlamp. Headlamps are so useful for doing mechanical work and doubly so if it ends up being dark. A flashlight is also helpful, but as a companion to a headlamp.

A baggie of 100 zipties (12 inch or bigger), electrical tape, hose clamps. These are so often useful for DIY kludged together nonsense.

An extendable magnet. In case you drop something in a weird spot.

High dexterity gloves. Mechanix or something like them in case you’re touching a hot/spiky/unknown fluidity bit.

A change of clothes, including a long sleeve shirt isn’t the worst idea. If you encounter trouble and need to get under the car you’ll either want to change into the spare shirt before or after, and generally having spare clothes ready is just a good idea.

Hellboy is my favorite anime.

“Bang.”

I’m partial to the Dave’s Carolina Reaper sauce.

If I’m in a different mood the El Yucateco habanero sauce has great flavor.

Gochujang for cooking. Usually the T. UP imported stuff from Korea.

The OP is asking about using portions of copy written works. Therefore if those works were used or not wouldn’t be at issue. What would be issue is if the use is fair use. Which again, goes back to the balancing test which would be decided in court if the rights holder pursues it.

From what I have gathered of the Lemmy zeitgeist, intellectual property doesn’t exist except if AI uses it.

you can in some situations argue that the way you infringed on their copyright should be allowed

That would be an argument made in court, pursuant to the balancing test. You would be arguing that the use wasn’t actually infringement. Thats how fair use is determined.

People can give you their best guesses, but without a court case and a ruling it is impossible to say what the answer will be with iron certainty.

My guess, for US law, would be based of the four factor balancing test used in determining fair use. The four factors are the nature of the use, the nature of the copyrighted material, the amount of the copyrighted material used, and the effect of the use on the value of the material.

If you are using the copyrighted works for a non-profit purpose that helps, if you are remixing them that helps, if you are using works that are not violating right of first publishing that helps.

Importantly copyright does not have to be enforced by the holder for them to retain full legal protection. What that means is even if the holder somehow became aware (which honestly is pretty doubtful for such a small individual use), they can simply choose not to pursue the matter. The resources that could go into pursuing a copyright case for such a use are probably going to be a lot more than any gain they’d get. Big IP holders have endless waves of people using their material, and their resources are better spent going after uses that are clearly trying to make or making a profit or distributing their copyrighted works.

The TLDR is yeah sure, it’s probably fine. If you somehow got the evil eye on you, in practical reality the first thing you’d get would be a C&D letter anyway.

Edit: Here is the relevant text in 17 U.S. Code § 107

If you don’t know what positive reinforcement sounds like, I get it.

No, no. It’s words that sound like positive reenforcement be repurposed by people who don’t want to deal with an issue.

“Good catch!”

Usually said when you bring up something that needs fixing, and said as a way to puff you up and not actually follow up on the problem.

I had an internal laugh to myself in the Wonder Woman movie when the Amazons had an Israeli accent. I guess it was easier to train everyone else to mimic her accent than it was for her to not let it slip.

They did the same thing with the fully automatic firearms ban in the 80’s.

There was no ban in the 80s. For full auto firearms to be legally owned, they had to have been registered since the establishment of the 1934 NFA.

What happened in the 80s was the closing of the registry to prevent new full auto guns from being added, but existing legally owned guns would have already been registered.

I saw the button to fold yours but didn’t see a seam, so didn’t know if it was just fixed with some cosmetics. I really like bringing the stock in both for close quarters and even for being in the woods to very easily get behind the scope while wearing a mask.

I have a friend who got an MP5K and it is even better in close quarters.

It is a CYMA. In retrospect, I think a railed grip like yours would have been more practical than my SD, but I do like being able to fully collapse the stock.

If I can be a spoilsport, please, please don’t use lasers. Lasers introduce real world eye safety hazards, some more than others, but none of them are great. Especially cheapo lasers from aliexpress or wherever can sometimes be stronger than listed because neither the buyers or sellers tend to care. My laserbox is fake and is only an external battery compartment for the gun.

How is the scope working out? I assume it’s a 3x or 4x non-illuminated meant for a .22lr?

I’ve been doing well with a cheapo Monstrum 3x prism sight. It’s got an illuminated reticle making its usable enough at close quarters while being handy for primarily outdoor play.

I went and read the text. The TLDR is the law was targeted to semiautomatic weapons, but the text itself defined those as “assault rifles”.

The text proposed banning “assault rifles” and within the bill it laid out a definition for the purposes of the bill:

“Assault rifle” means a semiautomatic rifle

(1) With an overall length less than thirty inches;

(2) That has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than ten rounds, except for an attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition; or

(3) That accepts a detachable magazine or that may be readily modified to accept a detachable magazine and has one or more of the following characteristics:

(A) A folding, telescoping, or detachable stock, or a stock that is otherwise foldable or adjustable in a manner that operates to reduce the length, the size, or any dimension, or otherwise enhances the concealability of the weapon;

(B) A pistol grip or thumbhole stock;

© Any feature capable of functioning as a protruding grip that can be held by the non‑trigger hand;

(D) A flash suppressor;

(E) A shroud that is attached to or partially or completely encircles the barrel and permits the shooter to hold the firearm with the second hand without being burned, but excluding a slide that encloses the barrel;

(F) A bayonet mount;

(G) A grenade launcher; or

(H) A threaded barrel capable of accepting a barrel extender, flash suppressor, forward hand grip, or silencer.

https://legiscan.com/HI/text/SB401/id/3226101

Fully automatic weapons can be legally owned after a mere $200 application to the ATF.

The real hurdle is the closed nature of the full auto registry creates artificial scarcity and pushes the price of the gun itself up.

But, assuming you have the money, it is a straightforward process no more complicated or time consuming than legally owning an SBR.

Edit: Not sure why I’m being downvoted. Here is the transfer form. Block 4B is where you list what type of NFA item you are buying.

I think the best solution would be to replace the scope rings with raised Picatinny compatible rings. That removes the need for the intermediate adaptors at all. With new rings you can attach straight to the claw mount. Something like this.

The other solution would be trying to hunt down a non-Picatinny riser which is probably going to be more of a hassle, and the new setup would be better anyway. Costwise I doubt you’ve save much trying to save that broken adaptor, or at least enough not to use the opportunity to streamline the setup.

Locktite on the next set of rings.

If somebody agrees to work for me at below minimum wage and seems enthusiastic about it, am I still exploiting them? What if I’m paying them $15/hr but no medical, 401k, or other benefits because it’s under the table? Is it not exploitation, even if the person is happy to get the wage?

It seems a very different situation between legal, documented immigrants being represented by a legitimate job placement company, vs undocumented immigrants who are being paid unknown wages and have much less ability to negotiate.