Bump stocks ruling.

I think all cops should have a long rifle slung, and their pistol only as a secondary.

If every cop were to be loaded for bear like this, then you wouldn't have a bunch of stank-ass N words talking back to them when they pull them over.

I also can't understand why cop cars aren't up-armored.

But I understand why Democrats think that being stylish and less intimidating will keep the Karens from screaming from the sight of big scary pew-pews.
Anyone who's been to Frankfurt or Berlin knows the Polizei don't screw around, because they sling Uzis. It's meant to be intimidating.
That's the German police way. Of course they carry submachine guns, but the philosophy is the same.

I would just make damned sure that every cop goes through a legit CQB school, like Gunsight, or Thunder Ranch, or the equivalent.
 
That's the German police way. Of course they carry submachine guns, but the philosophy is the same.

I would just make damned sure that every cop goes through a legit CQB school, like Gunsight, or Thunder Ranch, or the equivalent.
There's no point to issuing someone a weapon they haven't trained properly on.

The school I went thru was the SOT anti-terrorist training school at Ft Bragg NC in 91'. They changed the name later to SFARTAETC

Eventually I was training foreign troops and cops.

Cops are a little easier to train, not because of the language barrier, but because most foreign troops in the ME have been watching too many American movies, and think that the best way to take out a target is with lots of rounds fired in the general direction of the enemy. They're into macho stuff that doesn't work in real life.
 
Last edited:
Screenshot_20240614-231910.png
 
They're another step forward for freedom in America.

But freedom for what purpose?

Intimidating parents with little children who go to schools?
 
For the technically minded: The Scotus may not have understood the question relating to these BP's. It isn't about needing to pull the trigger, it's about creating a device that allows the mechanism to operate in the same manner as full automatic.

Or, the Scotus could have pretended to not understand.

In either case, the Scotus has set up the ground work needed to outlaw full automatic weapons. That then makes it more likely that the Scotus didn't understand completely!

(except for the exceptions in place)
 
For the technically minded: The Scotus may not have understood the question relating to these BP's. It isn't about needing to pull the trigger, it's about creating a device that allows the mechanism to operate in the same manner as full automatic.

Or, the Scotus could have pretended to not understand.

In either case, the Scotus has set up the ground work needed to outlaw full automatic weapons. That then makes it more likely that the Scotus didn't understand completely!

(except for the exceptions in place)
It isn’t the scotus with the comprehension issue, it’s dullards such as yourself.
 
For the technically minded: The Scotus may not have understood the question relating to these BP's. It isn't about needing to pull the trigger, it's about creating a device that allows the mechanism to operate in the same manner as full automatic.

The only thing a bump stock offers is a more comfortable way to aim and fire. It does not in any way all the weapon to operate like a full automatic. Whether there is bump stock or not doesn't matter on a semi-auto gun, when you pull the trigger you only get one bullet fired.


In either case, the Scotus has set up the ground work needed to outlaw full automatic weapons.

I thought full automatic weapons were already outlawed. And I'm pretty sure the current SCOTUS is not going to change that.
 

Forum List

Back
Top