No right to carry guns – no guns for you


These firearms companies deserve the business of all pro-freedom, pro-Second Amendment individuals:

A growing number of firearm and firearm-related companies have stated they will no longer sell items to states, counties, cities and municipalities that restrict their citizens’ rights to own them.  According to The Police Loophole, 34 companies have joined in publicly stating that governments who seek to restrict 2nd Amendment rights will themselves be restricted from purchasing the items they seek to limit or ban.

You can see the entire list here.

6 comments for “No right to carry guns – no guns for you

  1. Valentine Gray
    February 26, 2013 at 12:52 pm

    Why? Sandy Hook is a barefaced lie it has swallowed Hook? line and sinker it had been closed for a year nobody died, no evidence at all, no corpses, no tears from parents just condescening smiles, no cell phone calls for help, no video footage of an attack, no insurance claims for death or injury, just dreamtime in America.

    • Valentine Gray
      February 26, 2013 at 1:01 pm

      correction it been swallowed

      • Voice of Reason
        February 27, 2013 at 3:54 am

        Please don’t be so disgusting.

  2. February 26, 2013 at 6:48 pm

    Like contraband tobacco, the black market in firearms is, well, booming.

  3. Greg Tingey
    March 1, 2013 at 8:18 am

    The USSA’s Second Amendement specifically refers to “Militia”, that is Civil guard/State trooper/National Guard equivalents, NOT private individuals.
    Anyway, hand-guns & even repeating/assault rifles don’t last long against crew-served weapons, tanks & aircrsft. [ See Syria, where the guvmint has, perhaps 30% of the population supporting it – & probably less than that … ]
    So it’s bollocks, anyway.

    • James Strong
      March 1, 2013 at 3:21 pm

      No, it’s not bollocks; see Afghanistan where every defeated invader, including the forces there now, have had superior weaponry to the Afghans.

      A much less well-armed force of citizens would choose different areas to fight on; obviously they wouldn’t engage tanks on open land.

      But even that isn’t the point. One point is how many casualties would the oppressor be prepared to take, another is what would happen to ‘hearts and minds’ if the government started using those tanks and aircraft anyway.

Comments are closed.