Where you need it, you can't have it.


DGeorge

New member
I live in Northern Virginia. I feel safe most everywhere I go, but I still CC. The two places I do not feel safe are DC and Baltimore. DC is a twenty minute ride from my house and Baltimore is a little farther maybe an hour. We are having Thanksgiving dinner in Baltimore with family. My point is, that of all places you might need to defend yourself DC and Baltimore rank right up there with Chicago but both of these places restrict my right to carry. If I were to be caught in DC or Maryland with my gun I would be hung out to dry. They would make an example out of me.

How irrational is it that where you need it, you can't have it.
 

I don't understand the mentality of those New England states at all with their anti-gun laws. There are some of the most dangerous cities in America and you can't protect yourself? Honestly, I don't know why gun owners even want to live in that entire region.
 
I think you mean the Mid-Atlantic states ... particularly, New York (and NYC), New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland and the District of Columbia.

New England has its anti-2A states also, particularly Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut. Maine, NH and Vermont -- not so much.

The anti-2A areas generally equate to areas of Blue (Democrat) political power: the Northeast US, Minnesota and Illinois, Hawaii and the West Coast.

What I don't understand is why major firearms manufacturers continue to do business in, provide jobs for and pay taxes in many of these gun-unfriendly states. History? Tradition? Relocation costs? Labor force?
 
What I don't understand is why major firearms manufacturers continue to do business in, provide jobs for and pay taxes in many of these gun-unfriendly states. History? Tradition? Relocation costs? Labor force?

The gun mfg. are starting to see the anti gun writing on the wall. Many are relocating into gun friendly states.
 
The gun mfg. are starting to see the anti gun writing on the wall. Many are relocating into gun friendly states.

Roger that.

Thank you, Kahr (out of NYS) and Beretta (out of MD).

Hope that more gun companies follow their lead vote with their economic feet (taxes and jobs) and exit Blue States.

I was thinking specifically of Colt (CT) and Smith & Wesson (MA), and what's left of Remington in Ilion, NY.
 
That's how it works. The states that "ban" guns are the most unsafe. It's funny how they just don't get it. You'd think it'd be common sense. But common sense isn't so common.
 
I think you mean the Mid-Atlantic states ... particularly, New York (and NYC), New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland and the District of Columbia.

You are correct. I faintly remember that term. Such highly populated areas, I can't imagine being unarmed while going about my daily business. While I can conceal carry in all states, just the mentality of that area keeps me from even wanting to travel that direction.
 
Common sense = carrying anyway.... Concealed is concealed..... There is NOTHING in the 2nd Amendment that allows for "laws" that forbid you to CARRY (bear) your arms anywhere you want to...
 
I don't understand the mentality of those New England states at all with their anti-gun laws. There are some of the most dangerous cities in America and you can't protect yourself? Honestly, I don't know why gun owners even want to live in that entire region.
They don't WANT to protect YOU. They want to protect their felon constituents.
 
This just in!


Chuck Schumer Uses Military To Coerce Gun Manufacturers Into Accepting His Anti-Gun Agenda

151007-firearms-guns-mn-1125_263ffe0cbb964b2f33ef5fa7d35c3ad8.nbcnews-ux-2880-1000
Recently, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) without much fanfare, issued a press release that targets gun manufacturers in an anti-gun control plan which seeks to use the buying power of the federal government to ultimately control the manufacturers’ purse strings and infringe upon the Second Amendment rights of private individuals.

chuck-schumer-and-his-gun


As with most progressives, Schumer attempted to legitimize this latest anti-gun move under the guise of “gun safety and irresponsible gun distribution” of manufacturers.

chuck_schumerSchumer sees his plan as an opportunity to “leverage” the “massive purchasing power” of the federal government to force gun makers to “change” their gun safety and distribution practices. He wrote a letter to the U.S. Army requesting that they adhere to his proposal.

Apparently, Schumer has elected himself judge, jury and executioner when it comes to his attempts to control gun manufacturers and feels justified in doing so, even when they have not violated any laws.

While Schumer cites “gun safety and irresponsible gun distribution” as a reason for his plan, his press release offers no evidence that the guns themselves are unsafe.

There is nothing to suggest that manufacturing defects exist and need remedying. Nor is there any mention of wide-spread abuses by these gun manufacturers that could possibly prompt Congress or other governmental agencies to take up a cause against the gun makers.

Clearly, in Schumer’s mind, the fact that the guns exist is proof enough that gun makers need to make changes. He indicates only that a change can “improve safety in American communities.”


Chuck_SchumerIt appears that Schumer, in following the lead of President Barack Obama’s anti-gun agenda, is using the fact that the U.S. government, including the military and law enforcement agencies, makes up 25 percent of the gun market. As the number one buyer of guns from major gun manufacturers, it can implicitly “boycott with “Congressional” teeth” the manufacturers and financially destroy them unless they are willing to bend to political will.

Currently, the Department of Defense is soliciting bids from gun manufacturers for a $580 million contract to replace the current aging handguns used by service members. Not to have a “piece of the contractual pie” would surely be economically devastating.

Schumer called on the federal government to use “its significant leverage to garner vital information from gun makers and to prod them to improve gun safety features and their distribution practices.”

15-0622 Obama Guns“While I respect individual rights on this matter, gun violence in America is far too high and we must take sensible steps to reduce gun violence in all our communities. As the number one buyer of guns, the U.S. government should use its significant leverage to hold gun makers accountable for gun safety and gun distribution,” said Schumer.

In other words, Schumer’s far reaching proposal will impact the rights of those within the government, but it will also impact the rights of New York’s private citizens.

Undoubtedly, any new regulations forced upon gun makers and how they do business will most definitely infringe upon private individuals’ Second Amendment rights, as well.

“Our plan is a smart way to use the federal government’s market power to force gun makers to change and to improve the safety in neighborhoods. Our plan will push the gun makers to make smarter guns—innovations that make it harder for these weapons to be used in crimes—and we will push the gun makers not to distribute through dealers who are supplying guns to people who have not passed a background check,” said Schumer.

In his pursuit, Schumer is asking the Army to modify its contract to require bidders to provide information about what they are doing to produce ‘smart guns’ for sale on the market.


His letter also urged the Army to buy from those gun makers who will only sell guns on the civilian market to gun shops that require completed background checks.

If you thought California’s anti-gun laws were bad, Schumer’s scheme uses the power of the federal government to potentially interfere with a private New York corporation or proprietor’s ability to conduct business, not only with the government but also with the public. And in so doing, infringes upon an individual gun owners’ Second Amendment rights. If manufacturers refuse to make the changes that Schumer wants, then they could potentially be put out of business because of financial losses.

Schumer’s proposed anti-gun plan takes government “overreaching” to a whole new level.
 

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
49,545
Messages
611,262
Members
74,959
Latest member
defcon
Back
Top