No exemptions for law enforcment.

[Jcon268]

If these "weapons of war" are not needed by citizens then the police dont need them either after all their not the military. IDK, could totally back fire too, the nutty left may think its a good idea.

They'd probably disallow law enforcement to have them as some sort of concession to help pass it through...and then turn right around in a year or two and allow just law enforcement to have them again. I'd call that a backfire.

 

[awshoot]

You have a point. If I only get x number of bullets, they will be bigger ones.

The last pistol I bought, I chose .40 over 9mm simply because I figured a mag ban will get here eventually and if I'm going to face artificial limits, I might as well get a bit more bang out of what's left. One of the unintended consequences of mag limits will almost certainly be an increase in the use beefier of calibers.

 

[Diamondback]

The last pistol I bought, I chose .40 over 9mm simply because I figured a mag ban will get here eventually and if I'm going to face artificial limits, I might as well get a bit more bang out of what's left. One of the unintended consequences of mag limits will almost certainly be an increase in the use beefier of calibers.

IIRC the 1994 AWB drove the second coming of the 1911 for similar reasons.

 

[No_Regerts]

IIRC the 1994 AWB drove the second coming of the 1911 for similar reasons.

You're right, the cottage industry for 1911s exploded.

 

[The Heretic]

Such laws should apply to the military too.

I.E., the purpose of the Second Amendment is to ensure that the people have the same arms as the government. So the government should have any arms that the people can't have.

 

[powersbj]

Such laws should apply to the military too.

I.E., the purpose of the Second Amendment is to ensure that the people have the same arms as the government. So the government should have any arms that the people can't have.

Then you run down the "what about nukes" insanity. My worthless opinion being there is a resonable place to put a line between the army has and the citizens. I just want that line to be as liberal as possible.

 

[The Heretic]

Then you run down the "what about nukes" insanity.

BTDT - my response is always that nobody should have NBC weapons.

My worthless opinion being there is a resonable place to put a line between the army has and the citizens. I just want that line to be as liberal as possible.

The insanity of "reasonable" gun control.

As I said, the whole purpose of the Second Amendment is to ensure that the people are able to have the same arms as the government. The idea being a balance of power. Once you start drawing any kind of line between the two, you fall prey to the fallacy that the government is separate from the people. We, The People. That is supposed to be the principle.

 

[powersbj]

BTDT - my response is always that nobody should have NBC weapons.



The insanity of "reasonable" gun control.

As I said, the whole purpose of the Second Amendment is to ensure that the people are able to have the same arms as the government. The idea being a balance of power. Once you start drawing any kind of line between the two, you fall prey to the fallacy that the government is separate from the people. We, The People. That is supposed to be the principle.

Maybe, but I'm not really talking about small arms. Technology has evolved to the point where a militia cant financially or technically keep up with a foreign power. So the need for a standing army is real, the capability of that military needs to keep us secure. That level of capability shouldn't be available to everyone over 18. Saying no one should have NBC is stating you have a line somewhere. I suppose that is a compromise but it's not a bad one.

 

[No_Regerts]

BTDT - my response is always that nobody should have NBC weapons.



The insanity of "reasonable" gun control.

As I said, the whole purpose of the Second Amendment is to ensure that the people are able to have the same arms as the government. The idea being a balance of power. Once you start drawing any kind of line between the two, you fall prey to the fallacy that the government is separate from the people. We, The People. That is supposed to be the principle.

Nuclear weapons save lives. They ended a war that was fixing to cost possibly hundreds of thousands of Americans to invade Japan. Mutually assured destruction likely kept the US and Soviet Union from having WWIII.

The nuclear powered carrier battle group and ICBM probably wasn't accounted for when the idea of militia over standing military was thought up.

 

[American123]

The Barrett effect: it's time to stop selling firearms to government agencies in California

This is on factor that always frustrates me. Gun companies who don't stand by the constitution and decline to sell to agencies that have created two sets of laws depending on if they are "the state" or not. I'd wager no firearm law would go anywhere if every restriction directly also affected all state agencies and politician protection details.

 

[Jcon268]

Such laws should apply to the military too.

I.E., the purpose of the Second Amendment is to ensure that the people have the same arms as the government. So the government should have any arms that the people can't have.

There is already such a discrepancy between the armaments of the military and the civilians of this country that I don't think the argument would have much impact. For how anti war these anti gun hypocrites are they seem to find it ok for the government to have endless arsenals.

 

[CamoDeafie]

Technology has evolved to the point where a militia cant financially or technically keep up with a foreign power

Blackwater Group, among other PMCs?

To get parity with govt military, the 1033 program should be opened to all legal, law abiding, able bodied citizens who wish to train and have equipment suitable for National Defense without being members of the National Guard.

Edit. After all, its the 1033 program that's responsible for outfitting many Law Enforcement Agencies with armored vehicles, body armor, M4 Carbine types, and sometimes explosives (specificallly door breach explosives and pyrotechnic grenades)

 

[Member 5605]

Laws as we know, should apply to everyone, everywhere.

Doesn't matter if you have a flag on your shoulder or not.

Nerf the military along with the citizens. Go ahead, ignite that powder keg when you are ready for real reform.

Nobody is above the law, volunteer or paid.

 

[cdmontgo]

Socialist want to disarm the police.

 

[Diamondback]

The nuclear powered carrier battle group and ICBM probably wasn't accounted for when the idea of militia over standing military was thought up.

I beg to differ, sir, the ICBM of the day was called the "Man o' War". The only thing preventing us from having privateer Ships of the Line was the means to pay for them, and the lack of viable prizes to claim with them since privateer warfare was focused on taking merchant prizes and coastal-area raiding.

Seriously, a couple professional naval historians and naval architects I work with did a study, and we found that even USS Constitution was too big to be a viable privateer because there'd be no way to get from "prize in sight" to "boarding parties at work" before the target could dump their valuable cargo into Davy Jones's Locker. Largest practical privateer seems to have been around a 32 to 38-gun frigate, and even one of those was enough to raze a coastal town.

 

[powersbj]

But the use of privateers ended when the navy was built up. (If I remember correctly.) And although there was a goal to disband the navy when the revolution was over it never happened with all the action going on (what ever the Tripoli pirate problem was, and the war of 1812 off the top of my head.) So the Navy is a really good example of ideology vs pragmatism required. The original intention was to not have a standing Navy but the founding fathers themselves had to adjust. Much as I would argue the ideal of a militias on parity with China is unreasonable. At some point you need professional full time soliders, not farmers who can solider.

Full disclaimer Im no historical expert on this by any means.

 

[Diamondback]

Actually, we commissioned privateers as recently as WWII, though most of the last were on patrol looking for submarines--Ernest Hemingway had one of those Letters of Marque, and put it and assorted weapons including grenades and a Tommy gun aboard his yacht just in case he *did* stumble onto a U-boat. (I suspect he did this as the only way to keep his own boat under his own control when the norm was "no nonessential activity and we're requisitioning everything we can get our hands on whether we need it or not.")

 

[powersbj]

Actually, we commissioned privateers as recently as WWII, though most of the last were on patrol looking for submarines--Ernest Hemingway had one of those Letters of Marque, and put it and assorted weapons including grenades and a Tommy gun aboard his yacht just in case he *did* stumble onto a U-boat. (I suspect he did this as the only way to keep his own boat under his own control when the norm was "no nonessential activity and we're requisitioning everything we can get our hands on whether we need it or not.")

Interesting, also the current use of contractors over seas than I'm only now remembering.

 

[Stomper]

I would remind y'all that an armed populace is to keep the apparatchiks within government in fear of their lives, but more importantly the lives of their immediate and extended families, as well as those who would give material/administrative support to said government.

435 dipsheits, 100 azzholes, 1 narcissist, and 9 lawyers wearing black robes can't do SHEIT if nobody shows up for work....

 

[Diamondback]

Check your math, @Stomper -- 435 House, 101 Senate + VP, 1 POTUS, 9 SCOTUS... and then there's the Cabinet of Clowns.