California would not care if you ceased to exist tomorrow, and the fact that you giddily make guns for the gun banners intent on your destruction has everyone laughing at you, not with you.Ken Hanson takes a gun manufacturer to task.
And just to make sure the lesson is not lost, L. Neil Smith drags them to the woodshed.
So I guess this means the commemorative "Always Think Forfeiture" pistols are out...?
[Via Ron W and Seth H]
8 comments:
Which is the same reason the Scots never could get out from under the damned English thumb. So busy fighting for the scraps from Longshanks table, they didn't seize their own G*d given rights. Same with the Confederacy. Soldiers manning the trenches at Petersburg were freezing and half naked, while 100,000 uniforms sat in warehouses in Georgia because the governor wouldn't release them. 10 men that can fight like a team can whup 100 that can't.
Great observation, Sean.
Didn't know about the uniform deal. Sounds like why the feds didn't prevent 9/11 and the "powerful gun lobby" can't get gun control rolled back. Too many people are worried that they won't get the credit.
Tell you what, Petersburg has never recovered, even now.
Mitsubishi made the Japanese Zeros that attacked Pearl Harbor. IBM was helpful in cataloging death camp prisoners for the Nazis. I think they "apologized" (to the grandchildren of the victims) but never suffered any sanctions. But maybe we can make a difference here.
Haven't gun manufacturers always made guns that are only for the "only ones"? Can I buy a machine gun that was made this year? During the "AWB" could I buy a new "banned weapon or magazine"?
Maybe if we looked closely at this, we wouldn't buy any new guns. After all, anytime a gun manufacturer obeys the "anti-gun laws", they are doing so in violation of my Constitutional rights. The same would be true of every gun store.
If I show up at Red's Trading Post, they will obey those very laws that they would say violate the Constitution.
Every time you get a CCW permit, you are denouncing your God given right, that is supposed to be protected by the Bill of Rights.
I'm ready to stand corrected, if I am wrong.
I think you bring up some good points, Anon. I'd venture to say the difference in this case is there's a perception a manufacturer is going out of its way to suck up to some pretty egregious citizen disarmament endorsers.
I also don't see anybody beating anybody else up for obeying the law as a matter of survival.
And yeah, as long as NFA 34 and FOPA 86 are in place, somebody will be manufacturing new restricted weapons for military and police. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't honor the Ronnie Barretts of the world.
Only observation I'll make is that "California would not care" is a misstatement. Our enemy out there dances in the streets every time a gun maker bites the dust due to their unconstitutional laws.
Remember those disgusting scenes of arabs celebrating immediately after 9/11? Hold that picture and just paste the faces of Boxer, Feinstein, Pelosi, and Obama on their bodies.
David C said,
"I also don't see anybody beating anybody else up for obeying the law as a matter of survival."
I would never beat anybody up for obeying the law, I was only making a point that it is similar.
I agree, there is a slight difference. Sometimes, I'm not smart enough to see it right away.
I'll try gooder.
There are quite a few gun owners inside CA who DO care, and who are fighting the gun-grabbers and politicians at every opportunity.
Unfortunately, this state seems to be run by L.A., Hollyweird, and San Fransicko. The rest of the country wouldn't believe the kind of crap we're fighting from these idiots all the time!
As I stated in a thread over at Gunthing.com:
Personally, what I’d like to see is if and when a manufacturer makes a statement and committment to NOT do business with California (New Jersey, Mass, NYFC, etc.) police agencies, gunnies from across the nation step up to the plate and make it worthwhile for them NOT to do business with these GFW government agencies. And that includes my own department and city (San Diego) which is headed by a GFW Mayor, Sheriff, and District Attorney.
If we can make it worthwhile and profitable for them to NOT do business with such backstabbers, maybe they will take us up on it. If Kimber said tomorrow they would cancel any remaining contracts with CA law enforcement agencies if they could sell the remaining guns on the contract to private buyers - I’d make a commitment to them to buy one, or maybe even two to help cover their loss. And I bet I wouldn’t be alone either.
I can dream, can’t I?
And I LOVE the way Ronnie stuck his thumb in the legislature's eye by coming out with the Barrett .416, completely California legal, although he still won't sell or support CA government agencies!!
AWESOME!
Ths SIS is not even on the "Roster of Handguns Certified for Sale" in the State of CA.
http://certguns.doj.ca.gov/
They took the time to get 82 other models on the list, but not that one?
Post a Comment