No, it only shows that those willing to comply with illegal laws are rare. It is the ATFs own estimates that show compliance in the single digits. If they capitulate that their numbers of braced pistols are wrong, it proves their enforcement efforts are misplaced. If their numbers are correct, SBRs are well beyond common use. It’s a lose lose for the atf.
-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
PISTOL BRACE
- Thread starter Conrad101st
- Start date
My "WAY less" might have been a bit optimistic but approx. half as many stun guns as (real? )SBRs that the ATF says are registered and about the same as the number of braced pistols that were registered. Even Justice Alito didn't give a solid number...
"Finally, Justice Alito also proposed a test for weapons bans: whether the weapons “are commonly possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes today.” He said nothing about how one determines commonness or what level satisfies the inquiry, but cited evidence that stun guns are possessed in most states and that estimates show several hundred thousand sold to private individuals."
Last edited:
Read in the voice of Paul Harvey for effect-I'm worried about heavily armed Americans thinking it's their civic duty to violently wipe out tyranny if they don't like the results of an election. But that debate is for another day.
And as long as the .gov is worried about the same thing, we enjoy what liberties we still have left.
Conversely, as long as they're worried about it, they'll continue to find ways to erode its footing until we have no choice but to stand- and remind them that the Connstitution is a list of the limits of government; and it's checks and balances. Of which we, the Sovereign, are the ultimate final check against all 3 non-sovereign branches.
No "right" on paper means anything unless there is force of arms behind it in the citizens' hands to back them up. Without enforcement of these rights by civilian held arms, all rights are mere privileges that can be nullified or changed at whim by a simple pen scribble. MIGHT has always been right throughout history and will continue to be.
Sad thing is, there is no tax stamp. Just a bunk permission slip.
I'm worried about heavily armed Americans thinking it's their civic duty to violently wipe out tyranny if they don't like the results of an election. But that debate is for another day.
Tyranny of the majority is nevertheless tyranny.
The reason we have a constitution with limited, enumerated powers is so that the outcome of an election does not result in tyranny. No matter how one votes, the person elected only had so much power.
While I do not think anybody would take up arms lightly, I should hope that there are lines that even an elected government crossing would motivate you to take a stand and say no.
While we might disagree on where to draw the line, all that matters is enough persons agreeing and then the government crossing it, elected or not.
A thoughtful response ... I lived long enough to see it.
I agree totally that anyone, government included, that willfully and with malice aforethought, violates the Constitution, should be held accountable by the Justice System, the Courts, and the People. My concern is that armed citizens will determine on their own and in local, fragmented, and vigilante-like ways, what violates their perception and interpretation of the Constitution. Was Jan-6 an anomaly, a dress-rehearsal, or a proof of concept? I don't know. Honestly ... let's all just survive the next election cycle with our democracy intact, and I'll feel better about our chances as a constitutional republic. I worry that we are so polarized as a nation, that any opportunity to collaboratively meet somewhere "in the middle" ... is now approaching an impossibility. And I worry about that from both directions, right and left. Frankly, in my estimation both ends of the political spectrum in this country are totally out of control. Oh well ... if it all falls apart, 247 years was still a good run, as the history of democracies goes.
One point of contention needs to be made. We are not a democracy. We are a Constitutional Republic.A thoughtful response ... I lived long enough to see it.
Stolen 2020 election
Open borders
Massive corruption
Child sex trafficking
Curious, what's YOUR red line?
Found the problem.
Bad news for you.
It has already fallen apart. Its clear you haven't been paying attention.
You must still be living in the 80s.
Bad news for you.
It has already fallen apart. Its clear you haven't been paying attention.
You must still be living in the 80s.
I’d like to go back to the 80’s!!!
A thoughtful response ... I lived long enough to see it.
The reason we’re at a point where no one is willing to compromise is because stupid people failed to realize Democrats were always progressing with their commie agenda and Republicans were always giving in. Our freedoms have been curtailed every year since I can remember. Democrats always gained.
So where exactly are supposed to meet in the middle??? Is your middle a point where Democrats agree not to take it all, only half of what they wanted to take? Cuz that’s how compromise has worked for the last 30 years in the United States.
Compromise reminds me of that cake story where it starts with the cake owner giving up just one slice...
Is it the one where the starving commies use the cake knife to slice you up and eat you when there’s no more cake?
Maybe it‘s this story?
“One terrific resource for helping children grasp cause and effect is found in the classic tale, If You Give a Mouse a Cookie, by Laura Joffe Numeroff where a little boy gives a hungry mouse a cookie. The story begins:
The story continues with each of the mouse’s requests leading to another related and consequential request (cause and effect) in a circular sequence that leads all the way back around to a glass of milk and another cookie! Needless to say, the poor boy becomes rather weary as he responds to each of the mouse’s requests.”
Keep feeding them and they always come back for more.
Here's a version of it.
www.guntalk.com
Why We Won't Compromise | The Cake Story | Gun Talk Media
Maybe I'm the last one to know this story. My shooting buddy, Dan, couldn't believe I had never seen it. But, it's the perfect explanation to use when...
www.guntalk.com
How’bout this for compromise:
Democrats not allowed to have guns.
I think that’s reasonable.
Democrats not allowed to have guns.
I think that’s reasonable.
FIFYI'm worried about heavily armed Americans thinking it's their civic duty to violently wipe out tyranny if they don't like the results of an RIGGED election. But that debate is for another day.
It's not fair of you to edit my messages to make it appear I said something I didn't say. Like the 60+ court cases across the state and federal spectrum that found no evidence of meaningful fraud ... I do not believe the election was "rigged". I do believe that a lot of people believe that, but I'm an "evidence" guy, and have seen none to indicate anything other than the accuracy of the certified results. I don't have to "like" the results of an election ... to accept them.
If you truly suggest the election was "rigged", and zero courts or election certification entities agree ... what are you proposing for the next election? Will it be "rigged" if Donald Trump wins, or only "rigged" if he loses? Were the 2022 elections that turned the House over to Republican control "rigged", or are they only rigged when the Democrats come out on top and they're free and fair when the right wins?
You're on a very slippery slope here.
There's an excellent book entitled "How Democracies Die" that really enlightened me on the lead-up to other failed democracies, what's going on in America right now, and why we should be so concerned by the comparisons. Highly recommended reading. Spoiler Alert: Declaring an election rigged because you lost, is a pretty common theme in the leadup to the death of a democracy.
Your post is intact in the thread and when someone posts “Fixed” or “FIFY” or whatever, they are just saying “I think you are wrong, and this is what I think.” No one is putting words in your mouth.
Didn't know that ... I've never considered editing what someone else said. Thanks for the clarification.
@rustyinbend, the “FIFY” is them saying they changed the quote to what the find more accurate or humorous.
Only paid shills and retards are still saying this.
Your welcome.
I'm neither, but thank you for making my point for me about how (potentially unrecoverably) polarized our politics have become.
Well minus the Bush part. I just remember being a kid in the 80’s and as far as I’m concerned that’s been the best decade so far!
Never would have guessed that ... thanks ... I truly appreciate those days when I learn something new.
Imagine how thankful you'll be when you learn the 2020 election results were mathematically impossible without massive fraud.
I'm no great legal scholar, but it seems to me that the last 3 cases the ATF lost have serious implications for the NFA when SCOTUS reviews them. I'd love to see the NFA, in whole, or just part, get struck down along with these rules.
Imagine my surprise that you've discovered facts that were missed by so many courts and a plethora of local, state, and federal government agencies. What's your plan now that you've discovered all this heretofore nefariously disguised voter fraud ... is it to simply not vote in the next election? "Mathematically impossible" ... eh? That's a good one ... already debunked across the board, but by all means ... stick with that one if it works for you.
AMEN BROTHER ... killing the NFA and de-clawing the ATF is definitely on my wish list too. Nothing would thrill me more than paying for a suppressor, and walking out of the store with it the same day. It's ridiculously stupid that an accessory designed to protect my hearing, is treated like an illegal drug.
Found a place for you to debate all these things and more...
Rustyinbend get in here an explain this statist blathering
Nothing here but a internet argument and pile on. I've not been on AR15Com in decades, but this is how I imagine it. So far he's been wise to ignore it. You definitely wash your hands after you pee, cause you ain't gettin your dick sucked or eating pussy talking like that!
www.snipershide.com
R
Debunked across the board...?? Where the fuck are you hanging out when not shilling here to learns this bits of wisdom?
There are probably at least hundreds of videos of election laws being violated, ignored, or changed illegally - all by Democrat operatives. This very site is filled with them. It's right there on the videos as undeniable evidence of what happened. These courts you speak of are all on that side. "We investigated ourselves and have determined we did nothing wrong, so this video evidence of us actually doing it is inadmissible." This despite the fact that they never get around to explaining how or why the blatant video violations aren't what they clearly are. Just, "Don't believe your lying eyes."
Then guys like you come along and say, "See, there is no evidence!"
Open your eyes. The evidence you say you seek is anywhere you take an honest look.
There was another very blatant one last week when the Republican who was leading by a large margin, suddenly "lost" 350K votes that had already been counted and awarded, and ended up losing by 200K. 350K counted, verified, and published votes suddenly vanished into thin air, instantly changing a solid W into an L. No explanation, no transparency, just "Trust us."
See, again "no evidence" right?
Last edited:
The evidence never saw the courtroom. Those cases that the resident crayon eater is referring to were not accepted to be tried in a court. There's a big difference between, "the courts ruled no fraud" and "the courts never heard the cases".
But if anyone wants to see the evidence, just go back and watch the six state hearings where all of that was presented, watch the mules documentary, and watch project veritas reports on it. If after seeing all of that one still thinks there is no evidence, then that person is irredeemable.
Illegal drugs are easier to get and use
Agreed. And just to be clear (in case you meant me and not him), I didn't say they ruled "no fraud." They ruled the evidence was inadmissible, so as you say - the cases were never heard.
In just about every case if not all cases where there is a recount of the vote they always seem to find all these extra votes for a democratic candidate, never any extra votes for a republican candidate….now think about the mathematical odds of that…. are Democrats just that lucky or is there some nefarious forces at work? Anyone with half a brain knows the answer to that and it’s not just coincidental .
