-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
-
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
Holder's Views On Guns
- Thread starter copterdoctor
- Start date
those cop killer bullets are scary.Once I had some locked away in my safe and some how they got out. I think they had a hidden key. Anyway, I assume they are walking around looking for cops, since thats what they do.
It would be nice to hear. A Person convicted of killing a cop in the line of duty will be hung at city hall....
It would be nice to hear. A Person convicted of killing a cop in the line of duty will be hung at city hall....
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2007
- Messages
- 6,022
- Likes
- 757
I have a cop killer frying pan
![[laugh2]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/014.gif "Laugh at above [laugh2]")
![[rofl]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/013.gif "ROFL [rofl]")
this is why I will never vote democrat.
COP KILLER BULLETS? what BS!!
..so anything that can penetrate a vest...is now a "cop killer"
these politicians are putting words in our mouthes. and making us law abiding armed citizens to be second class. (and implying that we are all borderline potenial criminals because we are armed)
if you really think about it,..armed citizens are the biggest force out there. with a rank of about 80 million(NRA figure) , thats what they are really scared of. not the criminals
so taking away our 2nd Amendment is the only way the politicians can secure the upper hand.
..and banning all high powered "cop killing" ammo, is gonna do what? stop criminals?,...and what if that plan doesnt work? revoked everyones right to bear arms?
they are putting blame all in the wrong places,..and we suffer everytime. and why are we letting it happen!
..so anything that can penetrate a vest...is now a "cop killer"
these politicians are putting words in our mouthes. and making us law abiding armed citizens to be second class. (and implying that we are all borderline potenial criminals because we are armed)
if you really think about it,..armed citizens are the biggest force out there. with a rank of about 80 million(NRA figure) , thats what they are really scared of. not the criminals
so taking away our 2nd Amendment is the only way the politicians can secure the upper hand.
..and banning all high powered "cop killing" ammo, is gonna do what? stop criminals?,...and what if that plan doesnt work? revoked everyones right to bear arms?
they are putting blame all in the wrong places,..and we suffer everytime. and why are we letting it happen!
Last edited:
Heller said banning an entire class of firearms (handguns) was unconstitutional. AWB will not ban an entire class of firearms, only a part of a class (rifles) with scary cosmetic features. You can still own a rifle, just not one that falls under the ban. Blah blah blah.
I don't agree with it , but that's the argument they'll make. Heller's 'reasonable restrictions clause leaves a hole the anti's will try and drive a tank through. They're lawyers, that's what they do.
The thing with this "cop killer bullets" bullshit is that it does not really have a definition. Most centerfire rifle ammo can pierce a officers bullet proof vest so they could put all ammo above 22cal on a list of "cop killer ammo" to be banned. Plus with the Heller decision leaving so much lee-way for regulation. we could be screwed by obama appointing ultra liberal judges to make the RTKBA in there own collective image.
- Joined
- May 17, 2008
- Messages
- 16,975
- Likes
- 2,821
This is more difficult than you would think. If you assume there are only two types of judges, Far right and far left and that either group always abides by their respective ideologies, then you still have a problem of retirement/death rates on the judges. They will retire or die at statistically similar rates so for a sitting president to have any significant impact on judicial appointments, there has to be a series of events line up and something to have allowed them to skew the selection. That said, this perfect storm has happened before.
Take this:
One, republicans were the first to cram ideologues into the federal court system. Up until then, most judges were appointed based on stature in the legal community, and in fact IIRC, the American Bar Association actually made the recommendations. I believe they still do but those recommendations are now cherry picked. Anyhow, being first to do this, the republicans got a good head start. I wouldn't be surprised if there was also an effort to get older conservative judges to retire or lured out with big money jobs.
Secondly spineless democrats allowed republicans to thwart a good deal of Clinton's appointments so that when Bush came in, he had a great deal of open spots to fill. He did, but he was unable to stack them with complete ideologues, and any litmus test he had most definitely did not revolve around 2A issues, because he had to cut a deal to keep the dems from doing to him what the repubs did to clinton. Keeping in mind that Clinton was the only democrat to hold the presidency since 1980 or 8 out of 28 years (1/4 of the time), the ability of republicans to stack the courts has been unabated since this strategy, born in the 70's, was put into motion.
The republicans will never have this wide open field again but then again, neither will the dems. It will take a long time for Obama to pare down that 58% lead to just 50/50, if he can even do it. To think dems will pull out ahead in just 4-8 years is very unlikely.
In fact, it is more likely that republican appointed judges will actually provide most of the acquiescence needed to curtail or limit 2A rights.
Teflon coated, steel core?
With a black polymer tactical heat difusing handle shroud.
Is that the thing that goes up?
Hopefully the Republicans, and few sane Democrats will hold off any insane unconstitutional laws until the mid terms. God willing we will see the same political sequence we usually do. Bad state of affairs = (right or wrong) get the bums out. Realization that they made a mistake = change in party dominance at the mid term elections. Fortunately the Republicans got the Georgia seat and prevented a filibuster proof majority. The bad news is there are some RINOS, and Obama does not seem to understand which branch he is going to be in. He has forgotten that if He makes and decides the laws he is a dictator.
I'm not really sure of how accurate this is but I read a report that 2002 figures on police shooting fatalities listed the three most commonly used calibers were .38 SP, .357 mag and .22 LR.
9mm was next followed by 12ga.
I'll look for the source.
9mm was next followed by 12ga.
I'll look for the source.
Do not assume that these actions to restrict 2nd Amendment rights will be done through Congress and having to pass "laws" by votes.....the Obama may just decide to do the AWB and Ammunition bans simply by Executive Order.....quicker, no mess, no fuss, and he doesn't have to go through that pesky Congress....he doesn't need Congress, and will quickly find ways to work around that institution...
All too likely. Bush proved what can be done with Executive Orders. I'm expecting an end run via Consumer Regulations like the AG's abortions here in MA. Something tied in with Interstate Commerce etc.
- Joined
- May 17, 2008
- Messages
- 16,975
- Likes
- 2,821
Interesting theory. He can't in any way do this directly, but oddly enough you are on to something if he decides to try and leverage fed buying power. He can sign an executive order saying that any company who sells AWBs to civilians, can't do business with the federal government. He won't do this because he gets into a dangerous game of chicken, but this is the only way he can do this.
- Joined
- May 17, 2008
- Messages
- 16,975
- Likes
- 2,821
Not sure who you are responding to, but he absolutely could do that with regards to fed purchasing. After successfully launching ENERGY STAR, Clinton mandated the federal government buy (using FARs) only E* labeled products (as well as EPEAT and FEMP) a few years later. Bush continued this order and eventually Congress codified it into law a few years ago. The executive branch has a great deal of leeway in managing the affairs of the executive branch. A little thing called separation of powers. I don't doubt an order such as this would be a lawsuit magnet, but if crafted properly it may be possible to withstand some challenges.
I worry about who will control the courts.
Similar threads
