Remember it is not the current gun owners who added those restrictions. When the legislature screws everyone equally It helps to bring more disgruntled people together into the fight to get rid of the restrictions. Anytime you can bring in more votes to take care of wrongs it is good for the people and bad for the dictators.
This is what I was trying to convey with my post.
I think most LE jumped through more hoops to get what has been granted by these lawmakers . Do you I agree with their restrictions? Hell no but don’t advocate take away from me because they screwed you. They will just screw us both.
Not really . They don’t care in this case.
National reciprocity would never have got the 60 votes in the senate to bypass the filibuster and you know it. It was a publicity stunt in the house.
National Reciprocity didn’t need 60 votes in the Senate. We had the House, the Senate, and Trump was President. NR was killed by that asshole cocksucking Paul Ryan who refused to let it come to a vote.
The republicans did not have a super majority in the senate. Senators from NY and CA were promising a filibuster and the republicans did not have the 60 votes to end the filibuster. Not to mention Romney would have voted with the Ds. It would not have made it to the floor for a vote in the senate.
I get it, but your mindset on the topic is flawed from my perspective.
Exactly. That worthless fucking rino puppet.
55 Years ago for the GCA and 89 years ago for the NFA: The Leadership and Membership has changed how many times since then?
And who interprets it as per the constitution. SCOTUS . They have to make a ruling and enforce it . Even SCOTUS majority decision didn’t go far enough what some here think the 2nd amendment says . Kavanaugh’s concurrent opinion flat out says permit requirements are allowed. Other justices say something else. Some things are clear cut . Other things are in dispute.
It’s less of defense than explaining the limitations. Can the president order a drone strike on an individual American citizen without a trial or a clear immediate danger to the country or anyone at that time ? A possible violation of the 6th admendment. Do you think the soldiers should have refused the order of the drone strikes where they did that ? Is that a grey area? Sure is depending on who the target is right?
Imagine if a cop couldn't give his partner a gun?
All I heard was imagine if a civilian had to act like other civilians. If you are not in the military as active military you don’t need weapons of war. If 10 round magazines and featureless firearms are good enough for one civilian to have to defend themselves then that’s plenty good enough for another civilian. If my coworkers have to go thru an extensive process and be awarded a spevial permit before they could touch or carry one of my guns at work , then it should be just fine for any other civilian to do so. The only exceptions for having a full featured firearm with standard capacity magazines should be if it is department issued equipment. Then it should also be restricted to only when a civilian is on duty, and at the end of shift be returned to the department. When off duty the civilian should be only allowed what any other civilian is allowed to have. Oh law enforcement should be exempt and can have full featured firearms with standard capacity magazines because they have received special training? Cool, then any other civilian should be allowed to take the same special training and then be allowed the same things. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. Dont worry though, you can just move to a free state.
We did not need a super majority in the Senate. You only need 60 votes in the Senate to override a Presidential veto,- and President Trump said he would sign it if it got to his desk. Hell, we didn’t even need 51 votes in the Senate, as VP Pence could have cast a tie breaking vote if that had happened.
You missed: a filibuster takes 60 votes to end. The NY and CA senators would have filibustered the legislation and it would not have been able to be voted on until the filibuster ended. To do that you would need 60 votes. So yes you would have needed 60 votes to get to vote on the legislation (which after the end of the filibuster would only require 51 votes to pass).
Then the NY and CA senators would have been outed, publicly, as people against the Constitution.
The Praetors have to keep the Praetorian Guard happy thus they lose their grip on power.
I agree it should have, but realistically it would not have in the senate. The Republicans would not have been able to break the filibuster, would have appeared weak, and that would have presented a threat to maintaining their slim majority. The Dems would not have suffered one bit for filibustering the legislation. First: No Dem ( save the senator from WV) would have stepped out of line and voted to end the filibuster. Second: the mainstream media would not have covered it. Third: they did not fear re-election challenges as the states they represent are solidly blue and antigun.
Why? Think back to your army days, who was the 'best badest toughest SOB'? They build you up and instill a sense of pride and elite-ness in you so you KNOW your better than the 'enemy'. Also keep in mind the NYSP calls themselves an elite para military organization.
I am recalling a certain photo of an "elite" NYS Trooper with his Eotech mounted backwards...
Yeah but you got to blame the Armor on that one. Most people in these units who are posing for propaganda photo ops couldn’t breakdown and reassemble their weapon properly.
