Firearms Talk banner
21 - 40 of 45 Posts
He is a retired LEO.
That has nothing to do with him knowing the law. Most cops dont . Only their version of some laws.
And if anything being retired LE usually prejudices one against the 2A as written because if followed it keeps the public armed in parity with LE and in theory the military.
 
The Supreme Court disagrees with you and I know who I'm going to listen to
Mores the pity.

That moderates and anti gun folks so willingly agree and capitulate to having their constitutional rights stolen is exactly why the RTKABA as a right doesnt not exist in this nation anymore in any practical sense.
 
That has nothing to do with him knowing the law. Most cops dont . Only their version of some laws.
And if anything being retired LE usually prejudices one against the 2A as written because if followed it keeps the public armed in parity with LE and in theory the military.
Usually prejudiced? Your keyboard is blushing. Utter bull****!
 
Usually prejudiced? Your keyboard is blushing. Utter bull****!
No utter fact.
While most cops I used to work with and others I know , will pay lip service to the RTKABA few will agree the public should be able to be armed with the exact same weaponry they are able too or carry those weapons everywhere LE can carry them.

That is simply a cold hard fact.
As far as knowing the law. Especially constitutional limits on gov and LE most cops are woefully ignorant . Even of their own states limitations on police power . Another simple fact.

Doesnt make them evil . They just naturally want to be armed more heavily than the public is allowed too and to have all the perks about where they may carry, qualified immunity etc etc. Bssic human nature for the most part.

But commenting Loc somehow has a leg up on knowing the law or constitution because he is retired LE is a baseless claim.
 
SCOTUS has a history of coming down on the side of government position. I would suspect the same thing on this, especially with a 5-4 liberal court.
You would expect a competent executive branch to act in a way that is not overturned by the judiciary most of the time?
It’s a dead center SCOTUS right now, when all 9 rule on a case.
 
Well,
I do not want to infringe on anyone's rights to own a Bump Stock or the right to legally own a full auto weapon.
To me personally IMO they might be fun, but a total waste of ammunition and $$$$ money. And a source of increased wear on the Throat of the Rifle Barrel's Chamber. Prolonged exposure to HEAT is the Enemy of the Rifle's Throat! Not to mention other wear. So I would never expose my valued rifles to any abuse in an example of someone who would fire several hundred rounds at a time without letting the Rifle completely cool! Nothing wrong with having a little fun. And with the potential of what is going on and possibly in the near future. To me, ammunition conservancy is important these days! But use common sense when it comes to your Rifle.;)

03
 
Well,
I do not want to infringe on anyone's rights to own a Bump Stock or the right to legally own a full auto weapon.
To me personally IMO they might be fun, but a total waste of ammunition and $$$$ money. And a source of increased wear on the Throat of the Rifle Barrel's Chamber. Prolonged exposure to HEAT is the Enemy of the Rifle's Throat! Not to mention other wear. So I would never expose my valued rifles to any abuse in an example of someone who would fire several hundred rounds at a time without letting the Rifle completely cool! Nothing wrong with having a little fun. And with the potential of what is going on and possibly in the near future. To me, ammunition conservancy is important these days! But use common sense when it comes to your Rifle.
^ This.


I refuse to infringe upon anyone's right to speak as they choose, either. Yet it's appropriate to hold folks accountable for damage or manifest threats their speech causes. (Libel, slander, fraud, etc.)

We really must treat liberties in that way. When it's literally NO skin off anyone's nose, there's frankly no objective legal standing for anyone to have any say about that person's exercise of their liberties. Only when it encroaches on the liberties of others should there be any cause to go after someone or erect punitive measures in partial compensation for those damages.

Can be said about practically anything. From possession of a butter knife to operation of a stereo system; from skipping stones on a lake to flying a kite; from walking one's dog to writing one's thoughts.

Same with inanimate objects that frost the synapses of some, like arms or their accessories.

Should be: if someone acquires a product, great; if someone misuses or abuses a product via an action where wanton disregard is the hallmark feature, then by all means go after such wanton threats/harms of others. Unless and until any such thing occurs, then there's no victim and no problem.
 
21 - 40 of 45 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top