Looking at things a little differently

I was browsing through some screed by the VPC about civilian “sniper rifles” and it made mention of how ours law allows civilians to own the same equipment as law enforcement and the military. This is essentially true but the wording is a little misleading.

It would be more correct to say that the people allow law enforcement and the military to use the same equipment as civilians.


6 thoughts on “Looking at things a little differently

  1. And of course this can be added to the file of responces to the anti-freedom dolts saying “We aren’t coming for your guns!”

    Hell my vintage Russian 1891 rifle, which the ATF doesn’t even consider a gun, is a “Deadly Military Sniper Rifle” by those dipshit definitions.

    And its not like these creeps will stop when they get all the guns. Next they’ll go for knives. Somebody who I talk with from Australia collects swiss army knives. He keeps them all at home, because the police will confiscate them and toss him in jail if he puts one in his pocket.

    What friggin good does a swiss army knife do in your HOUSE? You know, the place where your tool box is!

  2. Fun question – how many of the specialty rifles used in the military/police realms today were originally developed for civilian consumption? Obviously, the service rifles were not, but it seems to me that the Remington 700 platform was originally a “common folk” hunting rifle, and then got adopted into the “tactical” world.

  3. Good thing they weren’t around 230+ years ago, the civilians had rifles that were deadly accurate. The .gov isued muskets only redeeming quality was cheapness and slightly faster reloading, not accuracy. Since civilians had to rely on their rifle to put meat on the table, defend against brigands,wild Indians and all manner of wildlife, they paid the premium for the more accurate rifle.

    The preamble of the second amendment states “A well regulated militia being essential to the maintenance of a free state,” So what are the threats to a free state, then and now? Then it was the king, now it is the government.

  4. Rignerd; Absolutely so, but remember that there was a Parliament back then, as now. That was a factor in ending the conflict. Parliament was getting tired of hearing from their constituents about the terrible cost of the war.

    And yes; much of what the military uses was initially developed by and for the private market. John Ross made this point, and I mention it in the preamble to my article on electronic sights. We won’t even get into the difference between the Wright Brothers’ program and the concurrent, government-funded powered flight program. “Night and Day” doesn’t begin to describe the difference. I find the words, “Sick Fucking Joke” tend to spring to mind.

Comments are closed.