Defensive Carry banner

21 - 40 of 50 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
33,904 Posts
Doesn't mean they will always be. many guns, including the ones used by our military are made by foreign companies, even if they are currently producing firearms in US based plants. You think she will only ban importation of AR15 clones, and not go after other guns as well?
I guess my sarcasm doesn't always shine through.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
33,904 Posts
OK, I get that, but my question remains: What is the point of even having the stuff? Whether you keep it or sell it and take a profit, you are taking a risk of getting busted. Why would I want to save money on something I can't use, or take a profit by selling something the buyer can't legally use?
Crime pays, or people wouldn't commit it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
161 Posts
Just put them away. Sooner or later, this civil war will go hot. When it does, the treasonous left will experience the true purpose of the 2nd.
Exactly, if and when SHTF in whatever form, and society breaks down, you will be damn glad you have that stash of banned guns
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,324 Posts
Camilla Harris just announced she wants to ban the importation of AR-15 rifles. I think that will do the trick.
Fortunately most are made right here in the U.S. so a ban of imports would have little affect on the supply.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,324 Posts
OK, I get that, but my question remains: What is the point of even having the stuff? Whether you keep it or sell it and take a profit, you are taking a risk of getting busted. Why would I want to save money on something I can't use, or take a profit by selling something the buyer can't legally use?
Many people ask, "We do you have so many guns" or "Why do you need that gun" or "Why do you need an AR-15". My answer is quite simple to such questions.

It's not a question of "need". It's a question of "want". Why do you need so many spoons and forks? Why do you need silverware when stainless steel is just as good? Why do you need so many cameras? Why do you need that camera?

Gets them thinking about how they're going to answer these questions. Again, it's not a question of need... it's a question of want.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
161 Posts
Many people ask, "We do you have so many guns" or "Why do you need that gun" or "Why do you need an AR-15". My answer is quite simple to such questions.

It's not a question of "need". It's a question of "want". Why do you need so many spoons and forks? Why do you need silverware when stainless steel is just as good? Why do you need so many cameras? Why do you need that camera?

Gets them thinking about how they're going to answer these questions. Again, it's not a question of need... it's a question of want.
If it's a woman asking the question, respond by asking her why she needs thirty pairs of shoes, and 20 purses
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,324 Posts
I have read a lot of posts about what people plan to do if there is some ban/"buyback"/confiscation, of anything gun related: "Assault weapons," hi-cap mags, etc. I have read people saying they will buy up all they can (or already doing so) before that happens. Here's what I honestly don't get: To what end?

I keep wondering if I should start binge-buying, but then I think, "If I buy a bunch of stuff that becomes illegal, what do I do with it and what would it be good for?" So I would have to hide it somewhere, which I guess I could do, but then it wouldn't be any good to me. What would I be keeping it for? I couldn't use it for SD and I couldn't train with it. It would probably be a risk to take it out just to look at it. It would seem to me to make more sense to buy guns and accessories I could use after some law is passed.

So I am not asking anyone to "out" themselves on what their individual plans are, but just hypothetically, what good is it to buy up stuff that might be made illegal and then not be able to use it? What am I missing?
Beto can scream buybacks, bans, and confiscation all he wants. But he's a fool who only shows how little he knows how the system works. A ban IS something he could do as president through an executive order but it would almost certainly be challenged and illegal. A buyback*, which is a fictitious term, would have to be a bill passed by congress since it involves funding... a lot of it.

And then there is confiscation. Who does he think is going to do this? Can't be the military, because of that pesky thing called Posse Comitatus. He can't order state and local police to do this, and most may not want to anyway since many live in communitees where they're known which could make things a might testy. So who is going to carry out such an order? And even if something like this started, it would have to be on a massive scale and I would bet many attempts would be met with some serious resistance.

Like I said, he's a fool and would be courting a batch of unintended consequences with something like mass confiscation.


* So-called "buybacks" are always voluntary, but Beto would want them to be mandatory. And they are certainly not "buybacks" because the government never sold them to the people in the first place.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,324 Posts
If it's a woman asking the question, respond by asking her why she needs thirty pairs of shoes, and 20 purses
This is true. You should see all the shoes my wife has.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gatorbait51

·
Registered
Joined
·
240 Posts
Beta says tonight that he absolutely wants to confiscate AR15s and AK47s from Americans and prohibit ownership of them. With that statement he probably just locked in his future of never achieving higher office...at least in my lifetime.
He knows he can't win. What he is doing is setting the bar for the other candidates. This is a position that will attract a lot of liberal voters, and if he gets it out there, and proves popular with voters, it will force other candidates to adopt a similar position. Never mind the fact that these type of guns have only been used in a small percentage of the mass shootings, they are the ones that attract the attention.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,880 Posts
Just heard Booker talking about "back in the 80s, we wanted to get machine guns off the streets, so we banned them." Or words to that effect.

I hate when these people are either outright lying, or just totally ignorant about that which they're discussing. We have as many legally owned machine guns today as in 1985 (minus any that got damaged through use) - we just haven't gotten any more than that. And any that didn't get registered, well, I'd bet they're still hiding in a closet or attic somewhere.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,978 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
118 Posts
You know, when a Lefty states something stupid or proposes some ban that will, in practice, be completely ineffective, maybe we should just be quiet and not tip them off to the stupidity or ineffectiveness of their proposals. That way they'll think they have actually done something constructive, we can go about our business as usual, and they'll be none the wiser.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,978 Posts
You know, when a Lefty states something stupid or proposes some ban that will, in practice, be completely ineffective, maybe we should just be quiet and not tip them off to the stupidity or ineffectiveness of their proposals. That way they'll think they have actually done something constructive, we can go about our business as usual, and they'll be none the wiser.
Many of the ineffective things they propose are ineffective because they target people who follow laws. Not because they actually do nothing. Not giving any pushback means we still lose. Of course its important to realize that they dont like us having guns, so they're fine with only us being affected.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gatorbait51

·
Registered
Joined
·
43 Posts
A ban is not inevitable, but just in case........buy only rifles you like to shoot and get all the ammo you can afford .Before that, write your congressional legislator and tell them that you will never vote for anyone or party that diminishes the 2nd amendment. i live in "flyover"Missouri, but i continuously let my Congress people know what i feel is important. Legislators are basically whores and they generally do what the people who voted for them want them to do. And by the way, let the White House know that you won't be voting for any candidate who backtracks on the 2nd amendment.

Sent from my MX10.00.d4 using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,426 Posts
They should really think about this and consider that it will not work out the way they want. I bet the number of suppressed machine guns will rise dramatically if you make gun owners criminals. Go big or go home.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,580 Posts
Discussion Starter #38
Also keep in mind that several states have passed "2nd Amendment Sanctuary" laws since Sandy Hook, i.e. a federal gun ban will be null and void there.
It doesn't really work that way in practice, as the feds just proved in Kansas last year. Two guys who owned suppressors were busted by the feds. They claimed KS' sanctuary law protected them. The trial and appeals court said it did not. A sanctuary law at most, can say that state and local LE are not going to bust you for a federal gun law. If federal LE comes in and busts you and puts you in the federal court system, you are not protected. Federal law is always supreme, but the feds cannot force states to enforce them.

It's also that way for sanctuary laws regarding immigration and marijuana.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,044 Posts
It doesn't really work that way in practice, as the feds just proved in Kansas last year. Two guys who owned suppressors were busted by the feds. They claimed KS' sanctuary law protected them. The trial and appeals court said it did not. A sanctuary law at most, can say that state and local LE are not going to bust you for a federal gun law. If federal LE comes in and busts you and puts you in the federal court system, you are not protected. Federal law is always supreme, but the feds cannot force states to enforce them.

It's also that way for sanctuary laws regarding immigration and marijuana.
But it's also a matter of scale. It's one thing to take on an individual or a small group of people. Divide and conquer. A state isn't generally going to get involved in the defense of a handful of people.

However, let some commie get into the white house and announce nationwide confiscation. That's when the states (most of them) will demonstrate the real value of the 2nd Amendment.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,034 Posts
They should really think about this and consider that it will not work out the way they want. I bet the number of suppressed machine guns will rise dramatically if you make gun owners criminals. Go big or go home.
For every prohibition, there is a bootlegger.

I suspect that an AR ban will follow the law of unintended consequences and that there could be a proliferation of formerly legal ARs modified to selective fire.
 
21 - 40 of 50 Posts
Top