seven6twobythirty9:

Action shots with my underfolder today. Also really warming up to these Magpul Pmags

basedheisenberg:

skypig357:

Why oh why do people put suppressors on pistols?

To suppress them.

Why oh why do people question the ownership of suppressors and it’s use?

basedheisenberg:

skypig357:

Why oh why do people put suppressors on pistols?

To suppress them.

Why oh why do people question the ownership of suppressors and it’s use?

titovka-and-bergmutzen:

Smiling partisan photographed with her comrades in Latvia, 1944.

titovka-and-bergmutzen:

Smiling partisan photographed with her comrades in Latvia, 1944.

titovka-and-bergmutzen:

Italian partisans confer with South African troops clearing a town, 1944.

titovka-and-bergmutzen:

Italian partisans confer with South African troops clearing a town, 1944.

freedomworkslies:

freedomworkslies:

elpatron56:

freedomworkslies:

elpatron56:

freedomworkslies:

elpatron56:

freedomworkslies:

elpatron56:

inshadowswestand:

Do you know how regulation works? Pointing out that there is a punishment that follows…

Actually, I have seen way too many people who would argue that banning the personal ownership of nuclear devices is an infringement of the 2nd amendment ( you know since it would give equal footing for someone against a government with a nuclear arsenal).

Me stockpiling 500kg of explosives would infringe on the rights of my neighbors due to the damage and harm it would cause to a lot of stuff that is not my property, I’m pretty sure a nuke would infringe the rights of everyone in the city plus whoever would be in the direction of the wind.

The indiscriminate nature of NBC-types of weapons make them impossible to use by citizens on a government and by a government on citizens. You don’t want your land to become wasteland nor kill everyone who works in it and generates wealth.

There are no pro- or anti- arguments to be made from nukes, if you find people mentioning nukes tell them they’re wrong.

However, you personally don’t matter. Not everyone buys a gun but they would still be regulated by gun laws if they wanted to.

The difference is that there is a right to keep and bear arms, not a right to appear on television.

The best analogy would be the gun industry. Anyone willing to engage in the business of manufacture for commercial purpose or sale of firearms has to abide by federal regulations. Sure, have regulations on those.

The people who don’t want to have a gun shop do not have to abide by the federal licensing of gun shops like I don’t have to abide by the FCC.

Now, you’ll have to understand that the 1994-2004 federal AWB and anything the ATF enforces on the people is like putting the FCC in charge of monitoring and regulating people talking on the street, chat rooms, etc.

It doesn’t matter if you want to be on TV.

We can’t even if we wanted to. So what if we can’t have a B-52, could we even fly it over the White House an drop bombs? Pretty sure we wouldn’t be able to get it off the ground, let alone avoid getting shot down.

We will most likely never own tv networks in our lifetime and therefore don’t need to abide by the rules tv networks have.

The point is that there are regulations on free speech.

I’ve explained you that it isn’t! Even the Supreme Court only defended the regulation of airwaves in traditional broadcasts.

I’m pretty sure that through cable you can still get porn channels and stuff like HBO where they drop F-bombs a lot.

Just like the FFL process it regulates business and not people.

You don’t have to personally use something that is regulated for the regulation to exist. You personally are not a factor in what makes something a regulation; it is looking at the bigger picture, not the individual. 

The Second Amendment is an individual right per SCOTUS decision! That’s the whole point! The individual is what matters when we’re discussing stuff like this. The individual can consent to not abide by the FCC rules by not having a TV channel but can’t consider to be exempt from laws against murder, threats against the POTUS or whatever.

(Source: polimemes)

m590a1:

From firearmstalk.com - Custom M590A1 Compact 18.5” with handmade +2 extension. I think I’m in lust.

(Source: m590a1)
militaryarmament:

A camouflaged Japanese reconnaissance soldier on his motorcycle.

militaryarmament:

A camouflaged Japanese reconnaissance soldier on his motorcycle.

sharpbrighttactical:

gunsgeargirls:

image by vasarap47 on Flickr.

Pohl Force folder. Good stuff.

sharpbrighttactical:

gunsgeargirls:

image by vasarap47 on Flickr.

Pohl Force folder. Good stuff.

(Source: gunsgeargirls)
tristikov:

Dat FAL and all dem mags.

tristikov:

Dat FAL and all dem mags.

(Source: tristikov)

freedomworkslies:

elpatron56:

freedomworkslies:

elpatron56:

freedomworkslies:

elpatron56:

freedomworkslies:

elpatron56:

inshadowswestand:

Do you know how regulation works? Pointing out that there is a punishment that follows breaking a law doesn’t prove anything. Every regulation works like that; when something is illegal to do, then it is regulated and obviously a punishment follows. Just because it is regulated doesn’t mean that you can’t do it without being punished if you evade the eye of the law. You could go on the radio and swear and not get in trouble but that doesn’t mean that there are regulations. 

That’s not the point. Free speech still exists whenever you say anything (literally anything) and there are no consequences. That is freedom, not regulation.

Regulation is saying “you can’t enter city ‘X’ in possession of a gun”. You’ll only be punished if caught, but you will be punished even if there are no consequences to your actions.

Yes, and many people can build all sorts of dangerous weapons that are currently regulated or produce chemicals in their home laboratory that are currently regulated…lots of poeple can do things in spite of regulation. That doesn’t mean there isn’t regulation

Yes, there is regulation of explosives. If found to be engaged in the manufacture, usage or sale of explosives without proper licensing, you will be arrested even if your actions did not cause peril or damages.

The First Amendment is not regulated in this sense, you have to cause damages or incite for damage to be done before you’ll face punishment.

Just like if you were caught with an illegal gun and were to be punished, so to would you if you threatened the president in front of an officer of the law.

Except that being caught with an illegal gun is a pre-crime designed to hold people accountable for consequences that never happened, threatening someone is an action directed at someone and it’s very real, it’s seriousness ranging from very pedestrian crap to real threats someone is well equipped enough to carry out.

Just because you are able to do something doesn’t mean it isn’t regulated, it just means you decided to break the law. It almost sounds like you enjoy defiance for the sake of defiance.

If I’m able to do something without punishment, it’s not regulation. I can shout “fire!” on a crowded theater and if everyone just gives me the looks I won’t face punishment for the consequences that never happened. At most I can be kicked out by the manager and they can do it because it’s their property.

Like when the FCC controls you only when you go on a braodcast, so too do gun laws only effect you if you buy a gun. We all still can, but that doesn’t mean there can’t be simple rules to protect people. 

>”simple rules to protect people”

Name one way the FCC protects people.

The FCC controls over media that are hoarded by the wealthy, you and me have no way to compete against them. It’s a little strange how the government claimed ownership of the airwaves because I’m pretty sure a more liberalized market would have superior alternatives, but print and internet have managed to stay away from most censorship and those are the ones we need.

"Thus, for example, tanks, battleships and bombing planes are inherently tyrannical weapons, while rifles, muskets, long-bows, and hand-grenades are inherently democratic weapons. A complex weapon makes the strong stronger, while a simple weapon — so long as there is no answer to it — gives claws to the weak."

"That rifle on the wall of the labourer’s cottage or working class flat is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there."

I have as much interest on being awarded free speech on TV as flying a B-52 with nuclear payload or maneuvering a battleship. I don’t care for it.

The case for the FCC regulating the 1stA is almost like saying a ban on nuclear weapons infringes the 2ndA.

(Source: polimemes)
© 2013–2014 Wannabe Engineer.
Powered by Tumblr. Steamblr theme by oxguy3.
“Scratch any cynic,and you’ll find a disappointed idealist.”
Search
|