Tomorrow, as citizens of this great nation, we will be treated to an “executive delight.” Our leader, Barack Obama, will take the initial steps to protect this expansive, peace-loving, nation against itself, in front of children who pleaded with him over the Newtown massacre to ban pistols. By executive decree, aka “law”, our leader will bless us with a series of new regulations and laws whose goal is to limit and eventually eliminate the private ownership of guns in America.
God bless the Lord!
Do not worry about burglars sneaking into your home for a late night rape, for the policemen of this country will still be armed. If you live in NYC, you are fully aware of the police presence, as they stroll about, gallantly, in their uniforms armed for war. There’s hardly any crime in NYC and most who receive acts of barbarity had it coming, in one way or another. Truth be told, may Jesus strike you with his cannon.
The authors of the constitution, small chaps, only wanted its citizens to carry muskets and explode bullets in their faces during backfires. Our founding fathers, or might I say “great, great, great grandfathers”, never intended to put the sword in the hands of its citizens to serve as a militia against a tyrannical government. Had they known about first shooter video games and violent cinema, they would have banned muskets the second someone used one on another human being!
With all of this happening, such joyous occasions of fantastical precedence, I am barely able to contain myself in my outer-garments.
The law of the land shall reign for another 20,000 years and its citizens will be grateful for it.
NOTE: If you’re holding SWHC/RGR, prepare for extreme volatility.
If you enjoy the content at iBankCoin, please follow us on Twitter
The Fly is God.
Well what does this mean for the LQG program? It is, of course, located in another galaxy.
crikey! You mean we haven’t seen extreme volatility here yet??
I rememember when the AR-15 was hated. Not very accurate, looked clumsy, didn’t fit in an ordinary gun case and the small .223 caliber is only good for small game like prairie dogs and such.
But then Clinton banned them and the race was on, 3m were purchased within months. And now we have 0bama telling us we can’t have them again and BEHOLD, another 3m fly off of the shelf.
Moral of the story is, if Clinton and 0bama had just shut their mouths the AR-15 would still be the hated, underpowered rifle that it is and no one would buy them.
That was brilliantly put.
If by extreme volatility, you mean HIGHER PRICES…$RGR
Actually, that was partially the political activist in me speaking. I sold my RGR – just too much sitting on the table
First and foremost people, your ruler is back with a huge swinging dick ready to make some gains.
I’ve been busy slaying some 10/10 Victoria Model punani (per usual), which has side tracked me from reading this brilliant blog.
I wish the best upon all of you who are holding suicidal stocks such as SWHC.
as your past year’s stock champion and 2013 future champion, swhc is going higher. if growth continues at these levels – even lower – its going to x3
The Obomination’s imperious, tyrannical and despostic executive decrees are exactly why the 2nd Amendment is so relevant and important. What with his repeated law-making/sidestepping of Congress and browbeating of the Supreme Court to bend to his will, we no longer have a 3-branch government with checks and balances but rather have only the executive branch running the country. Load up on the most numerous and powerful weapons and ammo you can get your hands on folks.
I’m from the Secret Service and I’d like to meet you for lunch to talk some football.
Three Cheers for the Lord of the Manner!!! Tyrannical government? Ha! These kind of things NEVER happen in the good ol’ US of A. Haven’t you heard of American exceptionalism? Americans are a force for good, just ask any Pakistani, Iraqi, Yemeni, Chileno, Afghani, Argentine, Honduran, Salvadoran, Vietnamese, Korean, Libyan, Egyptian, Palestinian, etc, etc.
Manor. A game.
Obama has never said he would eliminate private ownership of guns and he never will. It is not all or nothing– having no guns vs.having semi-automatic weapons available to every mental patient.
There are a lot of moderate possibilities between extrmes & that is what we will have. Everyone seems to love the drama of expecting the extremes though.
The problem being Obama rarely says what he means.
The joke here is that a near plurality of people support “common sense” measures:
Background checks. Mental illness. Enforce current laws. Armed guards in schools. These are overwhelmingly popular, with greater than 55% approval in all polls.
But then Biden starts talking about “assault rifles” and anyone who knows anything about rifles realizes that if you can ban “assault rifles” you can ban any rifle.
You’re right-he’s just looking to strengthen regulation of certain weapons such as automatic rifles etc.
BYE BYE AR15’s
(sigh)…
Give up, Mr. Thaler. Proper understanding of the items under discussion aren’t necessary, so long as your “feelings” are right.
Look Butthole. Automatic weapons are already illegal to buy, sell, and possess in the U.S.A.
Jeez, the media can’t even get it right. I suppose we can’t expect buttholes to know the difference between auto, semi-auto, chamber fed, and revolver.
The most grandiose gesticulating hyperbole emanates from the parlour of El Senior Fly this pleasant afternoon.
No one is coming to take away our hunting rifles or handguns.
There does appear to be a reasonable conviction among the unwashed masses to protect their innocent children from nutjobs with access to military weapons, however. Don’t worry, the second ammendment still lives and Obama has not installed jack-booted thugs to search your secret places and ransack all of your fine sporting weaponry. Just be prepared to go through a few hoops to fill out the paperwork, and be prepared to have your use of machine guns restricted to Wii games.
…a reasonable conviction predicated on a crime committed with civilian-grade weapons.
The AR15 is not a machine gun. It is not an automatic rifle. It does not shoot a large caliber round (quite the opposite, actually). People like this are the reason that we’re still talking about an assault rifle ban. Ignorance is bliss, etc etc.
No one is coming to take away our hunting rifles or handguns.
I’m from the Secret Service and I’m going to start by watching your hunting rifles and handguns. Be careful, don’t disappoint us.
Wait.. I own SWHC! You never told me to sell you SOB!
Just messing with you Fly.. I blame Rhino for this and will vote him out at the next election.
$USLV!
God damn you fuckers are stupid. The military does not use the .223 version of the AR-15.
They use a fully auto weapon that fires 7.62x51mm rounds (which are roughly equal to a .308).
You might as well say we have a problem with drag race vehicles in America because teenagers are putting spoilers on their Toyota Camry’s…
M-16’s and AR 15’s use 5.56, as does the SAW. The AK type weapons use 7.62, as does the M-60 machine gun.
Oh shit duh. My bad. But the gist of my argument holds – civilians cannot get military weapons in the US legally
In addition, IIRC, the 5.56 round wasn’t even designed to kill – it was designed to injure, which means that shooting 1 bad guy removes 3 from the field since 2 more have to carry him off. Pretty much the biggest thing that can be reliably killed with a 5.56 round is a coyote, but most people use it for prairie dogs and other varmint
.223, i.e. .003 away from a .22, a gun plenty of kids are trusted with as young as 10…
a .223 round is nothing like a .22. The bullet itself is longer and so is the casing. There is more powder in there. A .223 is very similar to the 5.56mm the M16 uses. I agree with your position regardless, just can’t stand people talking about calibres as if they were as simple as numbers. A Colt .45 pistol round is not going to do the same damage as my .30-06 Springfield.
One common theme with gun advocates seems to be this fantasy that someone is coming to take their guns away, invading their personal space and pillaging their home as well. They like to invoke the intentions of our Founding Fathers, saying things like “If you question the 2nd amendment your (sic) saying the Founding Fathers weren’t smart, ‘n shit.”
Well, if you want to act like the Founding Fathers, you’d think progressively and respond to challenges of the time you live in. That’s what they did. What they didn’t do was just cling to an ideology from the mid 1500’s, over 2 centuries previous to their time.
But in the end, it’s all part of the package, the fantasy of it all. No tie-in to reality, no problem. Just keep chasing these beliefs down the rabbit hole and lose yourself in it. Cling to religion, guns, deny evolution, deny climate change, believe in every idiotic conspiracy theory you’re told, vote against your own interests to keep the rich getting richer because you think if you do, you will become rich,etc ,etc.
I once saw a great movie in which only the police and the military had guns. Maybe you saw it, too? Schindler’s List?
Those civilians were unarmed by force of law, too.
Part of the new law of the land will be a ban on any movies in which only the police and military have guns. And a free soma pill to anyone who has to fill out the 50 pages of paperwork for the new background when purchasing a new weapon.
you can’t be serious? Schindler’s list is NOT a great movie.
oh… so you are serious.
you are obviously mentally ill so that no guns for you, sir.
Oh I almost forgot. The whole “defending yourself from a tyrannical government” theme. See, I get what that means in the context of late 1700’s America. It makes sense. But WTF does it mean today? Are we talking about fighting the US military? Or your local school committee? If it’s the former, I have troubling news…you’re pretty much done no matter how many assault rifles you stockpile. Again, just more of the same, taking some idea to a hilarious impractical, impossible extreme. And people who believe this also, in general, have been voting for a more expansive military force (go figure).
By the way, I’m fair from a socialist or Marxist, or whatever the current label is for liberals. I’m still registered as a Rep, haven’t changed it. But I just wish the party didn’t become such a catch-all for nutcases.
To Tea Partiers, everyone who disagrees with them in any way is a Marxist or Communist. They don’t make other distinctions. Welcome to the diverse group of people who get called Communists, even thought almost none of them are.
You make too much sense. Careful around these parts. 🙂
TM, I would be interest to compare the number of times you’ve blasted the idea that anyone could stand a chance of fending off the US military, versus the number of times you’ve blasted the US for getting tied up in the non-winnable wars over seas.
I don’t really think the Afghans are much better outfitted than your average US citizen.
Besides, most of the presented reasons for gun ownership are recreational, and home defense.
Home defense and recreation are fine. I don’t see why we need to add in this nonsense about defending against the gov’t, with its aircraft carriers, nukes, and weaponized drones. It just weakens the argument of the gun rights advocate and makes them look simpleminded and naive.
I love my congress. I’d never fight them.
Another common theme with gun advocates seems to be this fantasy that someone is coming to invade their personal space, pillage their home, and threaten the kids.
So the advocates buy all these guns, get drunk, and shoot their wife and kids.
But the “home defense” scenario makes a nice “feel-good” story.
That’s funny, evidence of gun owners getting drunk and shooting their wife and kids seems pretty sparse.
Looks like over half of gun deaths are from suicides (don’t care), under half are homicides, and a tiny little sliver (3%) are accidents and other.
Not many homicidal fathers blasting their families in there.
TM, propaganda works. What can you say? A lot of people believe what they are told on the TV– the TV which makes its money from corporate advertisers & so carries their propaganda. Investigative journalism has gone the way of the dinosaur.
and so your solution is what?
I want the guy from Tremors gun collection!
http://www.imfdb.org/wiki/File:Tremorwinm1300.jpg
#best90smovie
American’s love the business of killing and especially when it’s about killing each others.
Idiot. Sir Fly, ban this miscreant.
The man says,”our leader”. Surely he jests. Monarch is an operative word here. No butterfly but, something that spawned 1776.
There are 100 Million gun owners in the US. I walk the streets carrying a fully loaded and cocked semi-automatic weapon at all times.
This scares the hell out of the panty waists so they want to know who we are, where we are and what our intentions are.
Half of all gun murders are done by black gangbangers, about 5100 per year, usually with a .25 caliber pistol.
So why do the libs want our AR-15’s? You be the judge.
Man up and walk the streets unarmed, like I do.
You live in a Lilly White neighborhood. I live with the aformentioned gangbangers.
WTH? You need to walk the streets with fully loaded and cocked semi-automatic weapons at all time? Jed, move away from there.
That’s right. Next question.
Fly, you’re not that crazy, bald CEO dude on YouTube who got his conceal & carry permit yanked for threatening to kill people are you?
heavy duty, but give us break with religionisosity.
With all due respect, if you think guns in homes prevent crime you are an idiot. The statistical evidence overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that people would be far safer if they didn’t have guns in their homes, bc most deaths from legally owned guns in homes are caused by accidents and suicides. Furthermore, do you really think that criminals think about whether a homeowner has a gun before they decide to enter a home? No, they are generally desperate, and don’t care about the consequences of their actions to themselves or anyone else.
No, it doesn’t. Because the largest impact here comes from the disincentives having randomly armed civilians provides.
In order to calculate that, you would have to somehow add up every person who ever DIDN’T rob a house or assault someone because they weren’t sure if that individual had a weapon or not.
But when you know no one has weapons, suddenly that decision becomes much more clear cut.
A brief explanation of microeconomic incentives based models can be found here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucas_critique
you believe that? Clearly you never did a smash and grab or any sort of real work. If you did, you wold be looking out for the places with guns. Thats a fact.
regards,
Chuck Bennett
Oh, just saw the bit about criminals not thinking about who has a gun or not.
That’s also wrong. Who in the US is that desperate? There was a gang of three people in a truck around where some of my family lives, breaking into houses, stealing plasma screen TV’s. They’re all on food stamps. Hardly desperate, just looking for supplemental income.
The US budget for poverty is enormous. Only the mentally ill, sleeping in parks, are as bad off as you have described.
Thaler is right on the money.
regards,
Chuck Bennett
Razorbackjack says”
With all due respect…you are an idiot.”
Great way to frame an argument.
You advocate that I choose VICTIMIZATION over protecting myself, because you “think” it’s safer?
That is despicable, and truly evil. You are an evil person.
Out of the 100m owned guns, the amount per year of accidents are, what, 10k? A statistical zero.
Out of ALL the crime, the number committed with an AR is what? 1 or 2%? Handguns account for nearly all the crime and the semi-automatic function is over a century old.
The idea of a “military” style weapon, even though they are nothing alike in function, is:
– they are reliable, so they will work and not break under proper care
– they have common parts that are readily available
– they can be repaired easily by many trained gunsmiths
Here’s a CERTAINTY: At some time, in the future, in a nation of 300m people half of whom are on govt. dole, *some* tragically thing bad will happy to *some* of them, despite the fact that they are good people.
I WISH I could change this unfortunate reality and circumstance of human behavior and an unforgiving world. But I can’t and neither can you.
Accept it.
So your choice. Live in a fantasy land, or take some small measure to effective defend yourself in a worst-case, 1 in a million scenario.
Or be a victim. Let your loved ones be killed or harmed in a horrific way.
You’ll be frantically waiting and praying for the guy with the firearm to show up.
You think allowing a gun in a school by a trained professional is bad? Well guess what is worse?
And the idea that fewer “bad things” means fewer “bad people” is naive and facile.
Nice to see a few people in the comment section here, who are not Tea Partier conspiracy theorists, in love with their semi-automatic weapons. Welcome to you all.
As a law abiding Canuckistani gun owner, I (no BS) just mailed my application for renewal of my FAC = Firearms Acquisition Certificate within the last 2 hrs. I have held said FAC since it came into existence, by a law enacted by a former Liberal gubmint, who promised that the cost of the Canuckistani gun registry program would be a mere $5million — that was $3BILLION ago. One of the Q’s on the FAC renewal application was “Have you ever had a violent disagreement with you current spouse”? Furthermore, my “current spouse” had to sign the application attesting to the veracity of my responses in the SECTION on spousal relations and my general character. Despite this intrusion on my privacy, I am in favour of some form of gun registration/licensing when it comes to hand-guns and non-sporting weapons. Just find a better model than Canuckistan.
Hah, having to have your wife sign off on buying a gun is actually a pretty interesting idea.
Although if your wife is the kind who sticks around after you beat her, she might sign off anyway. But still…
CT – I will give you the benefit of the doubt, and deem the insulting supposition the result of a clumsily crafted post. Otherwise I’d have to come to your abode and shoot ya dead (full tongue in cheek).
“your” was a very general, up in the air sort of “your”, if that’s what you’re referring to
There are a couple posts not going through. Nothing about “awaiting moderation” either. They just disappear.
Your comments were kidnapped because they were childish.
Effective immediately, by executive decree:
Your local congressman gets to have sex with all newly wedded wives of his choosing.
From Kristallnacht to Prima Nocta; quite deft, good Fly.
Waiting for the Constitutional “litigatory” actions to be filed once the Exectutive order(s) is signed.
It is a word.
Okay, question?
The US bans “assault weapons” (using Feinstein’s definition of an assault weapon).
Now, let’s pretend like I illegally purchase such a weapon, let’s say with a flash suppressor, maybe a barrel shroud, a 30 round magazine, and a pistol grip handle.
If I take these features off, is my illegally purchased “assault weapon” still illegal?
Anything owned by law abiding white folk is illegal. Everyone else is Ok to walk around cocked and locked.
No, but the barrel can’t be threaded to accept the add on. Penal Code NYS Article 265.
Any talk of gun control brings out the anti government paranoid lunatics.
As for guns preventing crime.
USA has 110 guns for every 100 people. Canada and the UK have 6 guns for every 100 people.
USA has a much higher crime and murder rate that the UK and Canada.
So only fucking idiots think guns help prevent crime.
So cut out the phony excuses. The 2nd ammendment allows you to own guns (even though it has wierd syntax), but that ownership actually makes you a more dangerous society to live in.
You know what else Canada and the UK have?
1/3 of Canadians identify simply as Canadian. 70% of Canadians including those who identify as Canadian, have Western European bloodlines.
85.7% of the UK are “White British”.
You want to lecture us on murder? Your entire society is homogeneous. You have none of the conflicts that we have.
Why don’t you try having a Louis Farrakhan running around telling impoverished, young black men in Chicago that Caucasians are the cause of all their problems, trying to incite a civil war, and we’ll see how well you do.
It’s funny. We were always taught that the USA is a melting pot and that Canada is multi-cultural. We are definitely not homogeneous.
However, looking from outside, the USA seems extremely divided these days, although more along economic lines. The wealthy have run your country for quite a while now and they’ve really fucked it up.
yeah, that’s it, let’s have a country run by the poor. they have all the answers.
The stats I see has the UK with 4 -5 times the number of violent crimes per resident than the US. Canada is double.
Only a fool trusts the government. You really don’t like that pesky 2nd ammendment, huh?
Murders per 100,000 people, (UNODC)
Canada 1.6
USA 4.8
Rape
Canada 1.7
USA 27.3
Wow, rapes are way higher.
Better outlaw peckers, pussies and pistols.
NYS already outlawed any rifle with more than 5 rounds NOT fed by bolt or pump, so what are they trying to be the first to pass hastily ?
Even kung fu stars, metal or plastic knuckles are already jail time. Mentally incapacitated was adressed looooong ago.
So what’s the new dozen laws ?
Murders per 100,000 people, (UNODC)
Canada 1.6
USA 4.8
Rape
Canada 1.7
USA 27.3
yous guys in NY are so lucky and will not have to wait until tomorrow for Obama’s exec. orders, Congress, etc. thanks to Gov. Cuomo
I suggest all you proud NRA members just move over to a more superior and “free spirited” organization-NAMBLA. No restrictions whatsoever.
The 2nd amendment isn’t about deer hunting or home protection, its about defending your LIBERTY against anyone or anything that gets the sudden urge to want to control you,.
statistics? shut up. Check the death rates from knifes and clubs, you will find the numbers are lower in the USA as compared to UK.
Fact, as a military man and historian. Listen up..
Governments are the most evil things we have seen on the last 300 years. Killed a billion with ease. In the last 75, civilized western Europe and less civilized places got ass-raped buy governments with guns because they went against plebs without them. plebs who had guns, lost them real fast.
This has gone down on every continent on this here fine planet.
Like in the Philippines, when my friends and I got Marcos his job. In order to consolidated his power, he threaten under penalty of death for these plebs to turn those guns in. Thats power.
These stupid guns may not save you from being a prisoner or slave in this life time. That said, one day either far or near, a group of people (government) who is in power, will want more power. You follow me? They take said power from you.. get it? Dont be that guy, get a clue and learn some history. Must I teach you serfs everything?
Dont be ruled or fooled by your emotions.
regards,
Chuck Bennett
After reading that, and seeing my spelling mistakes I would like to add one more thing.
People (not only government) will try and do you harm. A person should have a sensible way to protect his or her family. Rocket launchers are out, however a laser gun or regular gun would do. You need to protect yourself from animals, four legged or two.
Also, OMBI looks real good, been buying since August. Lol. Want to know more? PPT is a start.
regards,
Chuck Bennett
Why do more people get killed with guns in places where its harder to get them legally then it is in places where it is easier? In America that is.
true or false?
hint, think of chicago and DC, guns are banned. compare with Dallas,Philadelphia, Atlanta.
I didnt check the stats, just pulled the last 3 cities out of the air. tell me the answer.
regards
chuck
Looks like my comrades are beating down the gun-grabbers. That is good as I don’t feel like kicking someone’s ass tonight in a debate about firearms.
Just know this. I was able to get today the last Bersa .380 15 round in the entire Richmond area. It took me taking the day off of work to get it, but with Obamao ready to go all Executive on the 2nd amendment, desperate times call for desperate measures.
As always, the statistics have to broken down for a clearer picture to emerge.
Of our 4.8/100K intentional homicide rate, approximately 3.7/100K are attributable to firearms. If we were to remove firearms, then our intentional homicide rate would be less than the UK (1.2 vs. 1.1).
On the face of it, then hell yeah, let’s ban guns. However, once again, one has to dig deeper. There are studies that show that between 75% to 93% of people killed by firearms had criminal records. In Richmond, having a criminal record means you are 22x more likely to die by firearm. In other words, the majority of people getting killed by firearms are criminals. Criminals are killing each other. See Chicago and D.C. for case studies (incidentally, cities and districts with some of the most strict firearms regulations in the country).
So let’s take the low estimate and assume that 25% of people killed by firearms are not criminals and were just innocents who were murdered. We’ll take 3.7*.25=.925 Our breakdown then looks like this: Of our 4.8/100K intentional homicide rate, 1.1/100K are not attributable to firearms and .925/100K are innocents who are murdered by firearms.
This means that in the U.S., the country with the most firearms per capita in the entire world, almost 80% of our intentional homicides are NOT innocents being murdered with a firearm. And of those 20% who are innocents murdered by firearm, we cannot say that they would not have been murdered with something other than a firearm, were firearms not available.
Let’s give this data a little context. The death rate for HIV remains at 3.1/100K. Therefore you are 3x more likely to die from HIV than you are to be an innocent, non-criminal murdered by a firearm. Another way to look at this is if you are a criminal, you are about as likely to be murdered with a firearm as you are to die from HIV. Sucks to be a criminal. I guess we should pass a law that outlaws being a criminal.
Of course the ultimate question is this: If we did not have so many guns, would our rate of violent crime be 4.5x higher, like in the UK? Perhaps one of the reasons that our violent crime rate is so low is because criminals tend to kill each other before they can commit a lifetime of violent crime.
I would much rather live in a country where I’m 4.5x less likely to get attacked, and if I do (assuming I’m not a criminal) I can have a firearm to protect myself.
“Of our 4.8/100K intentional homicide rate, approximately 3.7/100K are attributable to firearms. If we were to remove firearms, then our intentional homicide rate would be less than the UK (1.2 vs. 1.1).”
QED.
Bottom line. In the USA you are 4 times more likely to be murdered than in the UK or Canada.
All your guns are NOT protecting you.
The 2nd amendment gives you the right to own guns. Fine. End of story. I just get tired of all the fucking (no Fly) rationalizations that you need these guns to protect you from a rogue government (complete lunacy) or that they make you safer (utterly ridiculous).
The entire purpose of the 2nd amendment, the reason for its existence, is to ensure that there are checks on a rogue government.
Secondly, you can’t read.
If you could read, you’d see that the people being murdered are criminals.
That is why our rate of violent crime is 5.5x less than that of UK, as criminals here kill each other before they can commit a life of violent crime.
Again, since reading is not your best subject, the people being murdered are criminals. Criminals are killing each other. Good riddance!
Dayum, Chuck and Thaler, you guys are killing it tonight!
Cuomo wants to be Pres, so he passed this 6 hours ago:
No new BushMasters in NYS
The 1 million that are here have to be registered.
Magazines for all handguns and rifles are limited to 7 rounds and you have 1 year to sell large capacity out of state.
You can keep 7 rounds in a magazine that holds 10, otherwise it’s a misdemeanor to you. Many hold 16.
Psychs will be encouraged to rat out patients, sorry vets with PTSD.
Extreme accountability on bullet sales and to WHOM. Red flag on a “large” number sold to you.
Does this guy understand magazines can be reloaded in 4 seconds, depending on which pocket you use ?
Some midwestern politicians are screaming treason to the Fed.
Maybe 0 used him to deflect some of the treason calls ?
Maybe he wanted to be first to make the surrounding states cow tow ?
Sounds like the 15 round magazines are going to be banned.
I wonder if he is going to exempt more than 60k police and correction officers both working and retired ?
More like 100k working and retired.
Excuse me, 7 in the magazine and 1 in the chamber ?
Or 6 in the magazine and 1 in the chamber ?
After all, you want to charge me with a misdemeanor and take away my license, right ?
We also need several million of the new magazines, so could you please answer the question ?
Slippery slope.
As of 5pm 01/16/13, we have approx 100k active and retired police and corrections guilty of a misdemeanor and possible c felony.
Graf suggested exempting them at the closed door meeting, but somehow it was overlooked.
I overheard this on the internet:
“Sounds like they passed a bad law. In Washington DC v Heller, the Supreme Court ruled that a licensed civillian can carry at least the firepower of the average police officer”.
Scott Gadell was a police officer in NYC that was killed because he only had 6 bullets in his revolver.
Years later, the NYPD was authorized to carry 15 in the magazine and one in the chamber, with 2 additional magazines on the belt.
In order to float this law, will they reduce the firepower of police ? You know he’s stubborn.
The NYPD jerked around for 5 years with speed loaders for 6 shot revolvers before the state legislature finally authorized 9mm semi autos.
Now some politician wants to reduce the firepower of the public, maybe the Supreme Court would start with the police, …… and the public will follow along 20 or 30 years later as 300 million guns eventually rust up and break.
Or speed up the process with the slippery slope.