Trump= 2A threat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by foxtrot

I wonder how many people were thinking "it's okay, it's just machine-guns" back in 1986. Probably most of those that already owned a couple dozen. CACHIIIING baby. *dollar signs in eyes*

The sad thing is a lot of gun owners have the mindset of "it's okay, I already have that" or "it's okay, I'm not going to get that anway". WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN. Aka the upcoming ones who aren't even old enough to buy and will never have the chance (for whatever ban is proposed).

At any rate, if they want to ban them without grandfathering they are OBLIGATED to pay for all of them. Legislated, EO or otherwise, it will catch up to them if they don't.

What if they just move it into NFA and make a 2018 cutoff. Would any of you pay $200 to get a tax stamp on a $85 stock ?


ETA: I am always opposed to any ban. I will say I somewhat saw the writing on the wall the moment "bump stocks" got marketed, knowing their time on the market was limited and they were guaranteed to be merely another Atkins Accelerator at some point in time, within one office or another.

---

They did it arbitrarily with the factory High Standard Wallet gun Holster, for the HS Derringer.. I found that out the hard way.

This is why Machine Guns, SBR’s, SBS’, AOW’s, DD’s, Mail order surplus rifles, shotguns, and handguns, Chinese firearm imports, SVD’s, Russian 5.45x39 7N6 ammo, Russian AK’s, and for a time Pistol braces were either flat out illegal, or highly regulated. Because people said to themselves “Well it don’t effect me none, I don’t use _______XYZ item, so as long as it doesn’t effect me, it’s cool!”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Infringed is infringed - no matter what item

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MOLON LABE

This is why Machine Guns, SBR’s, SBS’, AOW’s, DD’s, Mail order surplus rifles, shotguns, and handguns, Chinese firearm imports, SVD’s, Russian 5.45x39 7N6 ammo, Russian AK’s, and for a time Pistol braces were either flat out illegal, or highly regulated. Because people said to themselves “Well it don’t effect me none, I don’t use _______XYZ item, so as long as it doesn’t effect me, it’s cool!”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

+1.

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/201...0defbc8192.jpghttps://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/201...a85f2a95b9.jpg

I know it’s hard for some to comprehend but their is a comprehensive all out, bare knuckled, no rules assault being carried out NOW on YOUR 2A and the rights recognized therein. Also believe it or not but YouTube channels like MAC, Hank Strange, MrGunsandgear, Reid Henrichs, and others HAVE more pull and sway over the outcome on this fight than the NRA.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MOLON LABE

I know it’s hard for some to comprehend but their is a comprehensive all out, bare knuckled, no rules assault being carried out NOW on YOUR 2A and the rights recognized therein. Also believe it or not but YouTube channels like MAC, Hank Strange, MrGunsandgear, Reid Henrichs, and others HAVE more pull and sway over the outcome on this fight than the NRA.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

Reading about this on Twitter today too. Google owns YouTube and is not just censoring pro gun channels/people but pulling search results. They are targeting not just gun owners but anyone questioning these mass murder shootings (e.g. "crisis actors").

I think the answer here is to nationalize these search engines and socials for the greater good. They are no longer content providers but free speech facilitators who have a monopoly on information. If they want to take a position in the marketplace of ideas, that's fine. But using their personal beliefs to censor means they are shutting down the marketplace against common interests

An analogy... Imagine three companies in 1776 owning all the printing presses and refusing to sell one to Franklin. If a person doesn't have a vehicle for free speech, he has no free speech.

(I'm half way kidding, relax. I do think it should be threatened... Use their own rules against them.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skip

Reading about this on Twitter today too. Google owns YouTube and is not just censoring pro gun channels/people but pulling search results. They are targeting not just gun owners but anyone questioning these mass murder shootings (e.g. "crisis actors").

I think the answer here is to nationalize these search engines and socials for the greater good. They are no longer content providers but free speech facilitators who have a monopoly on information. If they want to take a position in the marketplace of ideas, that's fine. But using their personal beliefs to censor means they are shutting down the marketplace against common interests

An analogy... Imagine three companies in 1776 owning all the printing presses and refusing to sell one to Franklin. If a person doesn't have a vehicle for free speech, he has no free speech.

(I'm half way kidding, relax. I do think it should be threatened... Use their own rules against them.)

---

Unfortunately, Youtube/Twitter/FB/Instagram etc, are private companies that provide a service and can therefore restrict what information is shared on their service. While they are large and do, in effect, maintain a monopoly on information on the internet, there are alternatives to Google/Youtube/etc (not so much FB, if you want to avoid corporate data farming and control), so anti-trust and anti-monopoly laws don't apply currently.

To change this, they would have to be classified as a public service, and would then be required to allow all messages, but would restrict them in other ways (FCC decent language and conduct rules).

This kind of move may be coming, but will bring a whole new set of problems with it. While I agree that there is an "all out, no holds barred" war against the second amendment, and the voices on YT are an important part of the puzzle, they are, in fact, using a companies service and being paid in the process...

The reality of "he who pays the piper, picks the tune" is absolutely true.

Maybe this was part of the push to get rid of Net neutrality.

Guess I should have voted for Hillary then.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Grant H.

Unfortunately, Youtube/Twitter/FB/Instagram etc, are private companies that provide a service and can therefore restrict what information is shared on their service. While they are large and do, in effect, maintain a monopoly on information on the internet, there are alternatives to Google/Youtube/etc (not so much FB, if you want to avoid corporate data farming and control), so anti-trust and anti-monopoly laws don't apply currently.

To change this, they would have to be classified as a public service, and would then be required to allow all messages, but would restrict them in other ways (FCC decent language and conduct rules).

This kind of move may be coming, but will bring a whole new set of problems with it. While I agree that there is an "all out, no holds barred" war against the second amendment, and the voices on YT are an important part of the puzzle, they are, in fact, using a companies service and being paid in the process...

The reality of "he who pays the piper, picks the tune" is absolutely true.

---

Use the Bell model. Zuckerberg has too much money anyway.

Forward!

(I don't believe this should be done, but in the world Libs are creating it would only be consistent)