4
   

Gun Companies Refuse Sales to State Governments with Strict Gun Laws

 
 
H2O MAN
 
  0  
Reply Sun 24 Feb, 2013 06:46 pm


You folks that don't support the 2nd amendment need to form a line to the left.
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Feb, 2013 10:42 am
@H2O MAN,
In the Heller decision, Scalia stated that gun control was acceptable. Must he line up on the left?
H2O MAN
 
  0  
Reply Tue 26 Feb, 2013 11:08 am
@Advocate,

We currently have gun controls.

Elected officials need to focus on enforcing the laws on the books because
there is no need what so ever to come up with any additional restrictions.

Obama's plan is to ignore the constitution and the 2nd amendment... his plan
is to confiscate gun from law abiding citizens leaving criminals and government
with guns. His government is criminal in nature so it's seems natural to do this.
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Feb, 2013 11:31 am
@H2O MAN,
The objective here is to weaken/destroy the United States and the idea of starting a civil war by abrogating the 2'nd amendment is merely a means. If Obunga thought he could **** the U.S. over sufficiently for his purposes by outlawing hamburgers, he'd do that and if he thought he could accomplish his goals by outlawing abortion or by implementing some other right-wing idea, he'd do that just as quickly and with the same ****-eating grin on his face.
H2O MAN
 
  0  
Reply Tue 26 Feb, 2013 11:34 am
@gungasnake,
Agreed!

gungasnake wrote:

The objective here is to weaken/destroy the United States and the idea of starting a civil war by abrogating the 2'nd amendment is merely a means. If Obunga thought he could **** the U.S. over sufficiently for his purposes by outlawing hamburgers, he'd do that and if he thought he could accomplish his goals by outlawing abortion or by implementing some other right-wing idea, he'd do that just as quickly and with the same ****-eating grin on his face.

Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Feb, 2013 01:53 pm
@H2O MAN,
H2O MAN wrote:

Agreed!

gungasnake wrote:

The objective here is to weaken/destroy the United States and the idea of starting a civil war by abrogating the 2'nd amendment is merely a means. If Obunga thought he could **** the U.S. over sufficiently for his purposes by outlawing hamburgers, he'd do that and if he thought he could accomplish his goals by outlawing abortion or by implementing some other right-wing idea, he'd do that just as quickly and with the same ****-eating grin on his face.




Two baseless moronic posts.
H2O MAN
 
  0  
Reply Wed 27 Feb, 2013 05:05 pm
@Advocate,
Advocate wrote:

H2O MAN wrote:

Agreed!

gungasnake wrote:

The objective here is to weaken/destroy the United States and the idea of starting a civil war by abrogating the 2'nd amendment is merely a means. If Obunga thought he could **** the U.S. over sufficiently for his purposes by outlawing hamburgers, he'd do that and if he thought he could accomplish his goals by outlawing abortion or by implementing some other right-wing idea, he'd do that just as quickly and with the same ****-eating grin on his face.




Two baseless moronic posts.


No, just your idiotic reply.

You are ill equipped, why do you even try?
0 Replies
 
MP4LIFE
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Mar, 2013 06:33 pm
@farmerman,
These companies are not in favor of anarchy just because they refuse to open themselves up to lawsuits. These companies are ensuring that the laws enforced onto it's people are also followed by the government overseeing those people. If you read your 2nd Amendment rights, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Does anything in there say that we can not own a machine gun, or anything like that? No, but it is illegal to own them, now they want to take away "Assault Weapons" when the only thing really in common with the military, is the look. When You pull the trigger, only 1 bullet is fired.

You also say that constituted police forces, most police officers are good law-abiding citizens; however, these same police departments both protect and help officers that are abusing their power. Most police officers have very minimal training in firearms, most that become proficient with these weapons, take time to go to the range and practice more. In the end what it comes down to though, is people have a right to defend themselves, and no matter how many cops we have, it takes time for them to respond. The guns we own and try to protect these rights because we need to be able to defend ourselves and others from criminals, without guns we can't do either. The law's being passed will only further the mass shootings, if you look at where most gun involved crimes occur, most are in towns that already have gun bans similar or more severe than current legislation from Obama. If these areas with the highest gun crime rates are in places with existing gun bans, doesn't that show you that punishing law-abiding citizens will just invite more violence?

Do some real research and make a proper statement before just listening to what you hear. Most info you hear from word of mouth is just one side trying to sway you to their opinion, learn the facts for yourself, don't believe the hype. You'll be very surprised as to what you find, I know I was.
MP4LIFE
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Mar, 2013 06:44 pm
@Advocate,
There is nothing wrong with actual gun control, but gun control isn't whats happening. Their just punishing hard-working Americans that have done nothing wrong. They need to enforce and fix the issues with current gun control.

Just a prime example. In Nevada, you don't have to register your weapon (this makes it so the government doesn't know who has what); however, in Clark County (Las Vegas, and surrounding areas) has a registration in place. The goal is to compare current gun crimes with registered weapons, which would solve cases of homicide and such. The program costs us over $2 Million a year for this program; still, instead of solving crimes, it's actually just caused people to register their weapons, and since it's been in place, 0 crimes have been solved by using it. People that use guns for illegal purposes don't register their weapons, they don't buy them legally (most of the time), and they don't care what laws are passed. They need to make laws that pertain to punishing violators, not punish those that will follow the laws.
0 Replies
 
MP4LIFE
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Mar, 2013 07:29 pm
@parados,
@Parados

They didn't discontinue all sales, they discontinued sales of weapons in violation to the laws passed in NY, but kept current customer orders that were pending completion and cancelled all NY government orders.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Mar, 2013 07:34 pm
@MP4LIFE,
The NFA has been made law by the USSC not the Constitution so there is precedent
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  0  
Reply Sat 2 Mar, 2013 08:30 am
@MP4LIFE,
MP4LIFE wrote:

@Parados

They didn't discontinue all sales, they discontinued sales of weapons in violation to the laws passed in NY, but kept current customer orders that were pending completion and cancelled all NY government orders.

Is this a bad day for reading MP4LIFE?

Quote:
“Cheaper Than Dirt! is suspending online sales of firearms effective immediately
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Mar, 2013 04:57 am
@gungasnake,
Update, # of companies refusing sales to state/local govts in violation of the US constitution triples in two weeks:

http://cnsnews.com/blog/gregory-gwyn-williams-jr/update-number-us-gun-makers-refusing-sales-govt-firearms-equality

farmerman
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 11 Mar, 2013 05:25 am
@gungasnake,
I was reading the comments on the "Police Loophole",99% of those people are ill informed and not too bright, apparently. Barrett is the only manufacturer on the liost. (I dont think SWAT teams use 50 cals in urban assaults)

I imagine that NY is having no problem acquiring replacement guns and new weapons.


0 Replies
 
parados
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 11 Mar, 2013 08:55 am
@gungasnake,
gungasnake wrote:

Update, # of companies refusing sales to state/local govts in violation of the US constitution triples in two weeks:

http://cnsnews.com/blog/gregory-gwyn-williams-jr/update-number-us-gun-makers-refusing-sales-govt-firearms-equality



OMG.... What will they do without those 114 that have decided to never sell to them again?

NY and other governments can only buy from 131,997 entities with Federal Firearm licenses now. They are obviously going to have a tough time meeting their requirement of 3 competitive bids. </sarcasm>
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Mar, 2013 07:21 pm
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/3000373/posts

Quote:

Serbu Firearms makes guns, including .50 BMG rifles. Someone from the News York Police Department contacted them:

On 03/18/2013 01:24 PM, XXXXXXXX wrote:
> Mr. Serbu,
>
> My name is XXXXXXXX. I am assigned to the NYPD Firearms and Tactics Section. I have been directed to research a new semi-automatic .50 caliber platform for my department.
>
> Two weeks ago I spoke to Deanne at your office regarding the possibility of obtaining one of your rifles for test and evaluation.
>
> If you would please get back to me either way regarding this proposal I would appreciate it.
>
> XXXXXXXX
> NYPD-FTS”

Serbu replied:

XXXX,
Yes, I got the message and tried to return the call but got no answer. I appreciate your interest in our BFG-50A; I’m sure it would be an excellent addition to your department’s arsenal. Unfortunately, we have a policy of selling to state law enforcement agencies only what is allowed to be sold to private citizens in that state. Since the passage of the NY SAFE act, the BFG-50A is considered an assault weapon and as such is no longer available to private citizens in the state of New York. Therefore we have to respectfully decline to supply your department with BFG-50A rifles.

Regards,
Mark Serbu”
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Mar, 2013 10:50 pm
@MP4LIFE,
Quote:

Do some real research and make a proper statement before just listening to what you hear
. Seems you wish to argue with the NAtional Firerms ACt of 1939? When you quotede the second amendment you also failed to show where it says in there that reasonable controls CANNOT be emplaced .

AS technology continues to develop better ways to kill, you seem to embrace that these newer weapons should automatically be included under the 2A.
I disagree so we wont see this issue from the same reality base.

If you wish to fight the NFA and have it declared unconstitutional then we have a fight. I see the ability to add certain weapons to the NFA, not weaseling out with excuses to make stinger missiles available to kids.

You guys have been mostly silent on how we protect our citizens and kids, youve only repeated the mantra of "more guns, more guns".
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.09 seconds on 11/28/2021 at 08:03:06