The local family owned shop that had all the cool surplus shit when I was growing up got shut down because the NYPD kept recovering guns sold out of their store in the greater metro Birmingham area at crime scenes in NYC.Originally Posted by Lester Polfus
I’m not saying that’s what happened here, but I think I’ll maintain my neutrality on this situation.
And the fourth and tenth amendments right behind.
Dean,
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine
"The problem is not the availability of guns, it is the availability of morons."- Antonio Meloni
Someone here told me that not a thing. Local gov can't seem to get things straight which directly translates to feds can't get things straightened. It's just coincidence and happenstanceArticle hit the nail on the head, shutting down 46 year old company is a great way of building a gun registry. Rinse, repeat and thousands of stores later and they've got themselves quite the list...
Sent from my moto z4 using Tapatalk
I wish they had actually specified what that minor paperwork issue was. Makes me less likely to believe them if they don't detail what they actually were shut down for.
Maybe I'm an outlier, but I think we need to hold FFL's to high standards as bad actors can be a major source for criminals and those bad apples will ruin things for the majority. I'm not saying this is what this shop is, but color me slightly skeptical.
I'm happy to change my opinion as facts come out.
I go the other way, the 2nd Amendment says nothing of having to aquire a license to produce or distribute arms. Licensing is always a means of taking power and freedom from a population.
We simply disagree on this one.
I prefer some mechanism to try to keep criminals and the insane from getting guns, however imperfect it is.
I also prefer to have some mechanism to make sure only US citizens can vote in an election and that is also not in the Constitution, but I think is a valid tradeoff.
source : https://www.statista.com/statistics/...ers-in-the-us/
I could say a lot about their long game of implementing gun-owner control by creating supply choke points. But I think Rachel Maddow summed it up pretty well in one sentence:
source : https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna31065354
Yippee ki-yay
Shall not be infriged is pretty clear, there's no qualifier there for criminals (which would have been a reality then as it is now). I accept that a small number of criminals is a worthwhile tradeoff to preserve the republic's freedom as a whole. 'Fer' the kids' is the same argument you are making and it's invalid. The world is inherently UNSAFE and there is no way to change that. Making it easier for dictators to achieve power only makes the world more unsafe. Guess what, the powers the 'want to be' are after your kids too and that's right out in the open now if you know what you're looking at. Voting at this point is also mostly smoke and mirrors thanks to unconstitutional balloting, as evidenced by the Trump overthrow.
The 1st amendment is already being severely tested with the rampant censorship on the part of government efforts with big tech, etc. Without the 1st amendment you are literally no different than China, able to be executed for opposing government orders verbally.
Keep and bear doesn’t encompass “produce, distribute and sell for profit.” That is commonly known as business or commerce.
The constitution explicitly gives the federal government the authority to regulate interstate commerce.
Production, distribution, and retail sale are all business functions I.e. commerce and for all practical purposes most everything involving firearms involves or effects interstate commerce.
Hence why federal gun laws are based on either taxation authority or the authority to regulate interstate commerce.
Reply With Quote
