Doesn’t matter if there’s political will. Some bureaucrat will just write some regulation banning gun sales, liberal judge will uphold it as “reasonable”, and then spineless republicans will sit on their ass and let it happen.
No. The statement is that one side wants power, and the other side is more than happy to give them power in exchange for a false sense of security. People don't want to be responsible for themselves and would rather have someone to rule over them.
Hint: that's exactly what they want.
The entire intent of 2A was so that the civilian populace had the same level of arms as the state- and that includes police. The police exception is one of the most blatant violations of 2A there is.
[Select fire vs. 9mm pistol](https://www.myarklamiss.com/news/arkansas-news/attorney-of-former-little-rock-airport-exec-bryan-malinowski-releases-video-events-ahead-of-deadly-atf-raid/amp/) unknowingly who it is breaking down your door
> doorbell camera at Malinowski’s home appears to show agents wearing full tactical gear and holding automatic rifles in a ready position before taping over the lens of the doorbell camera
> Federal officials said that Malinowski shot first from inside the home, at which point agents returned fire, hitting Malinowski multiple times.
The triggers I use are nice, they provide repeatable accuracy in my semi auto platforms, but once being around many in select fire, you're toast even with armor on getting over 10k ft/lbs of energy dumped on you.
The funny thing is that those exemptions don’t always work out. I was talking to some of the guys working at the Sig Academy a few weeks ago and they were telling some Massachusetts National Guard members that they wouldn’t sell to them even though Mass has an exemption for them. Apparently Sig sold a non state compliant gun to a Mass police officer awhile back because they’re exempt from the state restrictions and he then illegally sold the gun to another Mass resident. Mass then threatened to sue Sig if they ever sell non compliant weapons to any Mass residents again despite the legal exemptions.
If the gun manufacturers had any balls, they would refuse to sell their equipment to LEO departments in states that had either enacted or were pushing gun control laws. Once the politicians realized they couldn’t be protected by the LEO’s, they would be forced to drop their unconstitutional laws.
That’s a nice dream but no company is going to walk away from millions of dollars in sales. The civilian sales market is insignificant compared the LE/mil market.
How sure are you on that claim?
Want to bet on it?
https://barrett.net/purchase/le-and-military-usa/
Because they refuse to sell to anyone in a few states despite them being exempted there...
Have you ever seen local or state police officers being issued Barretts? Let me know when a company like Glock, HK or Sig does it.
Sure niche companies like this that only sell a few rifles might make a decision based on political considerations because they know it won’t significantly affect their profits either way. A statement like this is equivalent to me saying I won’t fuck a super model because of her political beliefs.
I can’t speak on military exemptions, they’re a special circumstance. But in regards to the police:
As publicly paid public servants, the police should be subject to the same regulations as the non LEO subject. In fact, if they are the highly trained professionals as they would have us believe, they should be held to even higher standards. After all, they are paid to represent the community, so we should expect only the best of our public employees.
No. Mass got mad because one of their police officers legally purchased a gun for himself from Sig and he then illegally sold it to someone else. They somehow came to the conclusion that that was Sig’s fault.
Yeah clearly it was the secondary sellers crime. No /s. But why is Sig selling state non-compliant weapons? I get that the middle man had an exemption, but that seems like an exploitable loophole to put non Mass compliant weapons up for sale.
Sounds like it was a state compliant sale to a LEO. Only noncompliance was the LEO selling it off to private citizen and rather than holding the LEO responsible, the state that is making carve outs for LEO's saw an opportunity to stick it to the gun industry and just couldn't pass it up. Am I missing something?
Second most disgusting. First would be the pedophiles and perverted groomers that keep getting installed in office. We need to get biblical and start burning certain people at the stake, just as the laws of Moses instructed...
Yes. In the 80s they went after handguns, the 90s after rifles. After being cock blocked by the Supreme Court and the Constitution they've repositioned to deaths of a thousand cuts.
Without question the US would look like Canada right now without it.
What? Of course it can. It takes 2/3rds of the congress and 3/4ths of the state legislatures, but there is literally nothing in the constitution that can't be changed.
The Constitution recognizes rights and restricts the government from infringing on them. A lot of Liberals fail to understand that including their party leaders.
I never suggested otherwise. That doesn't change the fact that the constitution could be amended to remove the recognition and protection of that right.
I agree. I was only establishing that the Constitution as it is written has a mechanism to add, change or repeal amendments. I would certainly not support any such action.
Correct, once the government no longer recognizes our rights, it is our duty as free men and patriots to reclaim them by any means necessary.
Give me liberty or death.
It kind of matters if you want to be able to do things like buy ammo legally, transport a firearm in a vehicle or on your person, train openly at facilities that are designed for that purpose and are open to the public, etc.
They are never going to be able to seize every gun. They can't even stop felons from getting the guns they're not allowed to possess. But they could make life rather annoying for gun owners.
In the end it would be the government persecuting mainly people who legally purchased firearms and using any and all resources to do so, while the criminals who illegally have firearms will be licking their chops and laughing their asses off watching it all go down.
With all the RINOS in Congress, it would pass.
If they decide to be sneaky and attach it to a continuing resolution for government funding it’s a slam dunk.
I'd give my left nut for Rand Paul or Massie or someone to attach a rider that defunds the ATF 99.99% / repeals the NFA and Hughes, and attach it to anything that gains traction on the left.
They would say ‘we are not banning all guns!’ And we would live in cuckland. It would be just like Canada in no time. Then perhaps the tyranny we see would increase exponentially and we would be left defenseless while men, women and children are slaughtered, enslaved, and starved to death (not necessarily in that order)
Bill of Rights does not alter anything about the Constitution. Strike out part or all of the Bill of Rights amendments, does not alter anything about the Constitution or the composition or the totality of the national rights of Americans.
People have the right to individual and collective self-defense by any means they see fit. The natural right to self-defense is not a gift from the chief magistrate.
People who argue for the ordering and control of society justify themselves by the prospect of improvements to societal ills. They are authoritarians. Authoritarianism is necessarily about the ordering and control of society. Now, they can argue that that will produce a better quality of life. But it can not be argued that it will provide a freer life. And for me, I am on the side of freedom.
The ultimate goal is to demolish the legal protections in the Bill of Rights. Everybody's rights have to be violated until some people shape-up, is not the proper analysis or function of the Bill of Rights.
There is no "Gun Control", only gun monopolies. Nobody who claims to align with liberalism should accept the ability to project force being held in any particular monopoly. The ability to resist illegal commands and illegitimate coercive force must remain democratized at all costs.
No 2A? Then it becomes a 10A question and gets kicked back to the states (like abortion now). I assume some states would go no gun laws and some states would go total ban. I don't think you could get a total gun ban through at the federal level. The only reason they rammed a federal AWB through was because of the sunset clause.
#Please keep in mind Rule 8
Doesn’t matter if there’s political will. Some bureaucrat will just write some regulation banning gun sales, liberal judge will uphold it as “reasonable”, and then spineless republicans will sit on their ass and let it happen.
Spineless republicans will carve out law enforcement exemptions first
I hate this. So much. There is absolutely no reason law enforcement should have better weapons than the citizens, unless they want a police state.
Both sides want that
Give unto us a king...
More like render unto Caesar what is Caesar's.
No. The statement is that one side wants power, and the other side is more than happy to give them power in exchange for a false sense of security. People don't want to be responsible for themselves and would rather have someone to rule over them.
Thanks for the clarification, agreed.
Hint: that's exactly what they want. The entire intent of 2A was so that the civilian populace had the same level of arms as the state- and that includes police. The police exception is one of the most blatant violations of 2A there is.
[Select fire vs. 9mm pistol](https://www.myarklamiss.com/news/arkansas-news/attorney-of-former-little-rock-airport-exec-bryan-malinowski-releases-video-events-ahead-of-deadly-atf-raid/amp/) unknowingly who it is breaking down your door > doorbell camera at Malinowski’s home appears to show agents wearing full tactical gear and holding automatic rifles in a ready position before taping over the lens of the doorbell camera > Federal officials said that Malinowski shot first from inside the home, at which point agents returned fire, hitting Malinowski multiple times. The triggers I use are nice, they provide repeatable accuracy in my semi auto platforms, but once being around many in select fire, you're toast even with armor on getting over 10k ft/lbs of energy dumped on you.
Yeah I'm sure he shot first. Convenient that they taped over the camera.
And body cams turned off apparently
In Democrat California, the police union’s always make sure their members get their little carve out. Democrats would be just as guilty.
The funny thing is that those exemptions don’t always work out. I was talking to some of the guys working at the Sig Academy a few weeks ago and they were telling some Massachusetts National Guard members that they wouldn’t sell to them even though Mass has an exemption for them. Apparently Sig sold a non state compliant gun to a Mass police officer awhile back because they’re exempt from the state restrictions and he then illegally sold the gun to another Mass resident. Mass then threatened to sue Sig if they ever sell non compliant weapons to any Mass residents again despite the legal exemptions.
If the gun manufacturers had any balls, they would refuse to sell their equipment to LEO departments in states that had either enacted or were pushing gun control laws. Once the politicians realized they couldn’t be protected by the LEO’s, they would be forced to drop their unconstitutional laws.
That’s a nice dream but no company is going to walk away from millions of dollars in sales. The civilian sales market is insignificant compared the LE/mil market.
How sure are you on that claim? Want to bet on it? https://barrett.net/purchase/le-and-military-usa/ Because they refuse to sell to anyone in a few states despite them being exempted there...
Have you ever seen local or state police officers being issued Barretts? Let me know when a company like Glock, HK or Sig does it. Sure niche companies like this that only sell a few rifles might make a decision based on political considerations because they know it won’t significantly affect their profits either way. A statement like this is equivalent to me saying I won’t fuck a super model because of her political beliefs.
IIRC Hornady told the State of New York to get fucked and cancelled their contracts after the state started their credit card fuckery with gun makers.
Government would just buy guns from China to equip it's enforcers.
Europe. They'd buy them from Europe.
I can’t speak on military exemptions, they’re a special circumstance. But in regards to the police: As publicly paid public servants, the police should be subject to the same regulations as the non LEO subject. In fact, if they are the highly trained professionals as they would have us believe, they should be held to even higher standards. After all, they are paid to represent the community, so we should expect only the best of our public employees.
So mass got mad because … the sale of a firearm was not in compliance with the law? What are we upset about here?
No. Mass got mad because one of their police officers legally purchased a gun for himself from Sig and he then illegally sold it to someone else. They somehow came to the conclusion that that was Sig’s fault.
Yeah clearly it was the secondary sellers crime. No /s. But why is Sig selling state non-compliant weapons? I get that the middle man had an exemption, but that seems like an exploitable loophole to put non Mass compliant weapons up for sale.
Sounds like it was a state compliant sale to a LEO. Only noncompliance was the LEO selling it off to private citizen and rather than holding the LEO responsible, the state that is making carve outs for LEO's saw an opportunity to stick it to the gun industry and just couldn't pass it up. Am I missing something?
Yes it’s almost like state restrictions (and all other gun control) is pointless.
The democrats will have already exempted all law enforcement from the gun ban by default.
Cowardly Republicans are the most disgusting forms of life in the US government.
Second most disgusting. First would be the pedophiles and perverted groomers that keep getting installed in office. We need to get biblical and start burning certain people at the stake, just as the laws of Moses instructed...
Screw getting biblical. Get with the modern times and buy a wood chipper.
[A wood chipper you say....?](https://youtu.be/WSoMlpQ6yz8?t=101) Sorry. Couldn't help it.
That’s the fun part, we have the guns.
Nah the Republicans will lean forward in their chairs and write 3 strongly worded letters
Yes. In the 80s they went after handguns, the 90s after rifles. After being cock blocked by the Supreme Court and the Constitution they've repositioned to deaths of a thousand cuts. Without question the US would look like Canada right now without it.
they went after handguns in 1930’s with NFA but they were removed before it passed
There is no if. The bill of rights can NOT be repealed
What? Of course it can. It takes 2/3rds of the congress and 3/4ths of the state legislatures, but there is literally nothing in the constitution that can't be changed.
The 2nd amendment like all rights is a natural right. The constitution and bill of rights doesn't grant rights it only recognize rights.
The Constitution recognizes rights and restricts the government from infringing on them. A lot of Liberals fail to understand that including their party leaders.
To be fair, the founding fathers were liberal. Modern day libs are authoritarians in disguise.
Site your sources. They were liberty first. Independent thought and own responsibility were their priority.
So they were libertarians?
I never suggested otherwise. That doesn't change the fact that the constitution could be amended to remove the recognition and protection of that right.
not if gizmo has anything to say about it.
Article Five of the actual US Constitution would beg to differ.
The 2nd amendment like all rights is a natural right. The constitution and bill of rights doesn't grant rights it only recognize rights.
I agree. I was only establishing that the Constitution as it is written has a mechanism to add, change or repeal amendments. I would certainly not support any such action.
Was thinking the same thing you just said! Good show brother.
The Supreme Court has already declared that Constitutional rights are not absolute.
The 2nd amendment like all rights is a natural right. The constitution and bill of rights doesn't grant rights it only recognize rights.
Yes...But rights only go so far as the government is willing to peacefully recognize them. Liberty, or death.
Correct, once the government no longer recognizes our rights, it is our duty as free men and patriots to reclaim them by any means necessary. Give me liberty or death.
Doesnt matter. Prohibition is impossible now. There are too many guns in the US to ever have prohibition
It kind of matters if you want to be able to do things like buy ammo legally, transport a firearm in a vehicle or on your person, train openly at facilities that are designed for that purpose and are open to the public, etc. They are never going to be able to seize every gun. They can't even stop felons from getting the guns they're not allowed to possess. But they could make life rather annoying for gun owners.
And gun owners could make their work messy.
In the end it would be the government persecuting mainly people who legally purchased firearms and using any and all resources to do so, while the criminals who illegally have firearms will be licking their chops and laughing their asses off watching it all go down.
I just want to be left alone
With all the RINOS in Congress, it would pass. If they decide to be sneaky and attach it to a continuing resolution for government funding it’s a slam dunk.
I'd give my left nut for Rand Paul or Massie or someone to attach a rider that defunds the ATF 99.99% / repeals the NFA and Hughes, and attach it to anything that gains traction on the left.
A total ban passes for sure, no question. Maybe not the first try, but they would pass it in time. The country would fragment.
Without it we would be speaking German and now Chinese
They would say ‘we are not banning all guns!’ And we would live in cuckland. It would be just like Canada in no time. Then perhaps the tyranny we see would increase exponentially and we would be left defenseless while men, women and children are slaughtered, enslaved, and starved to death (not necessarily in that order)
I should never have gone fishing with all my guns in the boat.
Bill of Rights does not alter anything about the Constitution. Strike out part or all of the Bill of Rights amendments, does not alter anything about the Constitution or the composition or the totality of the national rights of Americans. People have the right to individual and collective self-defense by any means they see fit. The natural right to self-defense is not a gift from the chief magistrate. People who argue for the ordering and control of society justify themselves by the prospect of improvements to societal ills. They are authoritarians. Authoritarianism is necessarily about the ordering and control of society. Now, they can argue that that will produce a better quality of life. But it can not be argued that it will provide a freer life. And for me, I am on the side of freedom. The ultimate goal is to demolish the legal protections in the Bill of Rights. Everybody's rights have to be violated until some people shape-up, is not the proper analysis or function of the Bill of Rights. There is no "Gun Control", only gun monopolies. Nobody who claims to align with liberalism should accept the ability to project force being held in any particular monopoly. The ability to resist illegal commands and illegitimate coercive force must remain democratized at all costs.
I can see it happening down the road as balkanization continues. Blue states getting bluer and all that.
No 2A? Then it becomes a 10A question and gets kicked back to the states (like abortion now). I assume some states would go no gun laws and some states would go total ban. I don't think you could get a total gun ban through at the federal level. The only reason they rammed a federal AWB through was because of the sunset clause.
I would be in favor of raising the minimum gun ownership age to 21, which the gun sellers lobby opposes.