really? fully automatic weapons legally owned, have not been used in any violent crime in decades. Since civilian police use them, that means they are in common use in our civilian environment. and they are not UNUSUALLY DANGEROUS.
I was SORTA with you till you equated cops weapons, BEING the determiner of what we are allowed. Cops now have ARMED drones.
Just as GCAs frequently try to normalize their various interpretations of the 2A, they are in continual search of ways to subvert not only the underlying principles and protections of the Constitution to ‘Legally’ bypass them to achieve their objectives. Over time they have worked to modify language and meaning of common words and concepts, worked to stack the courts with activist judges, and a host of other means to appear to follow the letter of the law while subverting it. They don’t seek to pursue the Constitutionally prescribe methods for modifying the Constitution because they are not likely to succeed. But, they are not alone in this, I have a problem with any, left or right, that does the same. There are many examples of laws and practices that would appear to violate Constitutional provision and remain unchallenged in the Courts that have survived multiple political regime changes. One of the examples I often cite is that of Civil Forfiture that seems to violate the 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th and 10th Amendments. Another example of this subversion is CA’s tactic of passing 2A violating laws in full knowledge that a law may be unConstitutional, but may be upheld by the 9th until over turned or otherwise be adjudicated by the SCOTUS in a process taking years... and then, if ruled UnConstitutional by the SCOTUS, finding creative means to modify the language of a law to start the process anew, keeping a perpetual step ahead of the Courts. In many instances the GCA clack and other liberalists knowingly advocate tactics that subvert individual rights (or try to convince the populace individual rights are subservient to that of the collective). What is that old saying? “The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist”. Applied to the Constitution by liberalists, knowing Conservatives advocate following it’s doctrine... the Constitution doesn’t say what you think it does... a tactic that seeks to weaponized the Constitution against the law abiding’s individual right’s protections.
I cruise the site, reading different posts here and there, and tell myself it's just not worth responding to comments such as these because I know you just don't care to hear what I have to say. Then I see this comment which you keep making again and again and I just can't help myself. What you REFUSE to accept is that there are a goodly number of "government agents" - be they police, military, or experienced veterans thereto - who would be on the side of the resistance. Where I live, the police are part of the community. Their friends and family would all resist... and so would they. The likely outcome of a government order for confiscation of guns in this part of the country would no doubt shock you. If that kind of order were given, all the friends and family of the officers would be alerted, and the few government agents who would actually seek to enforce the order would find themselves arrested for treason before they ever set out to begin the confiscation. That said, I'm also aware that things would vary wildly depending on where in the country events unfolded, and upon the preparations of the individual citizen. I'm sure there are some who would meekly comply. Others would make poor tactical decisions and suffer accordingly in foolish Alamo-style last stands and blazes of the not so glorious. But in many places the government agents would find themselves badly over-matched and overwhelmed by effective, coordinated resistance. You can't cut off the supply. Most serious shooters have all the components they need to keep themselves (and their friends and family) in ammo for years. Throw in battlefield pickups and the supply of ammunition sufficient to wage asymmetric war will be sustainable for plenty long enough.
NRA hate-based on the NRA supporting Trump is what causes most of the anti gun nonsense we see on boards like this. The claims about the Russians is just plain specious
Even in one of the most firearm restrictive countries in the world, the UK, Republican insurgents (among others) still had access to firearms and ammo, though in regard to ammo, a single round in possession could result in prison time. While substantial amounts of ammo were smuggle in, ammo was also manufactured and reloaded. Many that hunted (poached) small game with .22 rimfire even, as I did, learned how to reload .22 rimfire without manufactured gun powder but a home made substitute.
This is probably an aside, but one question I have yet to see answered is all indications are that US sources were aware of hacking attempts by various state players during the Obama ‘rule’. If so, why didn’t the Obama admin protect against these reported cyber attacks? Tump’s fault? Or, Obama Admin incompetence? Or, was Putin that good... knowing the best way to hurt Americans was to create election doubt, political chaos, internal political discord, by mounting a cyber attack that was not so much effective at changing election results, but effective in the perceptions it has? The Dems, more than the GOP, has fallen prey and become an unwitting accomplice.
So your excuse is "I was just following the law". Then when slavery was legal, and when it was the law to turn over runaway slaves, you would have owned slaves and returned runaway slaves to their masters. Then if you lived in Germany in 1939, you would have turned over Jewish children to the concentration camps. Then if you lived in Turkey in 1920, you would have obeyed the law and killed Armenians including crucifying teenage girls. Then if you lived in the USSR under Stalin, you would have turned in your neighbor to be sent to the gulag for the slightest anti-communist attitude. Then of you lived in France in 1790. you would have helped round up villagers for drowning, slow hanging, or if you were feeling good that day the guillotine. And of course if you lived in Spain in the 1500's, you would have turned over to the Inquisition any heretic you encountered. I have to say you have chosen good company, you all have the same mentality towards your fellow man.
JAVC doesn't count as "police"... Just saying. But I think most liberals are vastly more intimidated by a drone with a camera than a drone with a gun. Cameras take inconvenient pictures of them engaging in all kinds of unfortunate things behind their locked gates and walls.....
The Supreme Court has ruled contrary to the obvious intent of the Constitution on a number of instances, proving themselves nothing but a rubberstamp for governmental overreach over the rights of the people. After a certain period of time, it has become clear that the Supreme Court no longer is interested in protecting the rights of the people under the Constitution. As a former law-enforcement officer, I took an oath to protect the Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic, and I will not hesitate to use my defensive arms to defend my rights and freedoms.
Theres no such thing as an assault rifle. If you mean semi-auto rifle, those are used commonly in the civilian environment for hunting and recreational shooting. If you mean assault weapon, those are select fire and not legal to own without a special BATFE liscence.
When you say current confiscation you are talking confiscation on a small scale. If mass confiscation of firearms were attempted in the U.S. there would be many thousands of deaths.
No, but they might as well. There are at least 100 million gun owners and only 900,000 cops. The logistics is simply not there to pull it off.
I don't pretend to be an expert, nor even an enthusiast. I don't know guns. That is why YOU GUYS need to help write decent legislation to curb killings. It would SAFEGUARD all of you gun owners.
We already have laws on the books that aren't enforced. All of the laws that the GCAs want aren't Constitutional, effective, enforceable or would be enforced.
Such firearms are indeed used in a civilian environment every single day. They are used in the sense they are standard issue equipment for law enforcement purposes, and by united states law, law enforcement officers are indeed civilians. If such equipment is safe to be used in a law enforcement capacity, it is safe to be used in a private citizen capacity.
The only new gun control law I support is giving direct access to NICS for private sales. Other than that, we need to enforce some of the laws and get rid of other laws.
We should start by following up with all the prohibited persons denied purchase of firearms each year. Currently, Law Enforcement doesn't even contact them afterward, even though, iirc, its illegal for prohibited persons to attempt to purchase firearms. Lets start enforcing laws that already exist. Then we can have a more genuine discussion about making new ones.
I would agree with this statement. but why would I, as a private citizen, need or want access to NCIS for private sales? I do private sales now without access.
