Jump to content
spurdude101

Etsy update, prohibited items

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, Rahere said:

I'm ex-military, at the end of contract when our world-class Special Forces bid for me. The gap they needed to fill had been created by the politicos ghosting the incumbent, I was as good as they thought, discovered what had happened, agreed with his thinking - as has the ultimate test, history - and quietly walked away. You'd think I support skilled weapons handling, not least because the only way we'll preserve peace is an ability to fight well.

However, that abstract philosophy fails to recognise two factors. Easily available firearms and a lack of compulsory continual training has demolished that theory. Your risk profile is serious in the US, wereas our disarming in the UK has virtually removed ours. Indeed, having knowingly accepted the supply of weapons to Lindsay Anderson's film If...., which may have been the meme which started the wave of school alienation massacres off, I can't entirely excuse myself, other than ignorance of the degree they were taken too. And that's why I take the other stand, not out of wokeness, but out of experience. Month by month you clock up another 9/11 massacre in head-count, yet you won't treat it with corresponding gravity. The legal provision, the Second Amendment, has been met by the existence of the National Guard. The ready availability of firearms is being used as a licence to kill by redneck police, just yesterday a case in Alabama concerned a couple of black students tortured after a copper who couldn't possibly see shouted "He's got a gun". They're suing, and have an excellent chance of winning. And it's this dark side which wins, under the precautionary principle, in my soul. Not all men are good, some are evil, some merely troubled, some morally disorientated. Letting them have access to firearms in any shape or form in any way makes you complicit. You don't require the separate storage of weapon, firing mechanism and ammunition, let alone on a different site: the home defence argument arises, which is hogwash on the proportionate use of force limitation. Someone stumbles into the wrong house because he's drunk, and is shot down as a result. Protestors on the street are threatened with lethal force because it was available. It doesn't hold water.

There may be good valid reasons to be able to defend myself. Let the Law decide on a presumption of safety. Because right now, the Islamic State's best recruiter is America.

I know this must hurt, but until you can reliably and trustworthily prove you can handle the weapons entrusted to you, you shouldn't have them available. 

I'm glad you don't live here. as most in the UK any real understanding of our Bill of  Rights is pretty much non existent. I think mainly because it was the British government that was the stimulus for it. Your opinion doesn't hurt a bit friend because it really means nothing. Yes people are evil and not having a weapon doesn't change that fact  as a world class special forces elite you probably understand full well it doesn't take a gun to be evil or to do evil to another person. But this is to far off topic and i wont talk about it anymore as it wont settle anything in the world. Good luck to you friend and please stay on topic so this thread isn't closed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, kgg said:

I agree that the days of open carry have long passed but holsters are still a saleable item in Canada as you need to have one to properly contain your gun on any firing range.

kgg

That's good to know. Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Hardrada said:

That's good to know. Thanks.

On a range (indoors or outdoors) you don't want to see someone carrying a handgun in their hand that maybe readied ((loaded and safety off) or someone stuffing a readied down their pants pocket (might discard and wind up with a DSO).

kgg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are lots of different interpretations of the second amendment and requiring registration of gun sales at gun shows may help but I seriously doubt prohibiting the sale of holsters, belts and slings on Esty will do much more than inspire people to dig in their heels against anything that may reduce gun deaths in the U.S.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Rahere said:

I'm ex-military, at the end of contract when our world-class Special Forces bid for me. The gap they needed to fill had been created by the politicos ghosting the incumbent, I was as good as they thought, discovered what had happened, agreed with his thinking - as has the ultimate test, history - and quietly walked away. You'd think I support skilled weapons handling, not least because the only way we'll preserve peace is an ability to fight well.

However, that abstract philosophy fails to recognise two factors. Easily available firearms and a lack of compulsory continual training has demolished that theory. Your risk profile is serious in the US, wereas our disarming in the UK has virtually removed ours. Indeed, having knowingly accepted the supply of weapons to Lindsay Anderson's film If...., which may have been the meme which started the wave of school alienation massacres off, I can't entirely excuse myself, other than ignorance of the degree they were taken too. And that's why I take the other stand, not out of wokeness, but out of experience. Month by month you clock up another 9/11 massacre in head-count, yet you won't treat it with corresponding gravity. The legal provision, the Second Amendment, has been met by the existence of the National Guard. The ready availability of firearms is being used as a licence to kill by redneck police, just yesterday a case in Alabama concerned a couple of black students tortured after a copper who couldn't possibly see shouted "He's got a gun". They're suing, and have an excellent chance of winning. And it's this dark side which wins, under the precautionary principle, in my soul. Not all men are good, some are evil, some merely troubled, some morally disorientated. Letting them have access to firearms in any shape or form in any way makes you complicit. You don't require the separate storage of weapon, firing mechanism and ammunition, let alone on a different site: the home defence argument arises, which is hogwash on the proportionate use of force limitation. Someone stumbles into the wrong house because he's drunk, and is shot down as a result. Protestors on the street are threatened with lethal force because it was available. It doesn't hold water.

There may be good valid reasons to be able to defend myself. Let the Law decide on a presumption of safety. Because right now, the Islamic State's best recruiter is America.

I know this must hurt, but until you can reliably and trustworthily prove you can handle the weapons entrusted to you, you shouldn't have them available. 

 

Feel free to have murders by knives and impact weapons to sustain your moral superiority.  The rates that people murder each other tend to be rather stable.  While folks cry about the how.  Do you really think the people impacted care about the how?  Is it somehow more morally just in your eyes to be stabbed to death rather than to be shot?  How about the increases in rapes and sexual assaults that citizens can do nothing about to protect themselves?  The UK dramatically lowered gun homicides by attempting to remove them, but they did not remove homicides.  

And there is so much of that drivel that is nonsense it's hard to know where to start.  But let's start with this.  The Bill of Rights was mostly written by the Anti Federalists.  Those that wanted to explicitly give power to the citizens and enumerate certain rights because they did not trust Government to protect them.  So why would the 2A give the Gov a right to anything if it was written by people that did not trust the Gov?  Why would the 2A be the ONLY right in the Bill of Rights that does not apply to the individual citizen?  And why would the 2A be the only collective right instead of individual right?  It does empower the states to form militias.  And it also empowers the people to keep and bear arms.  It does not empower the federal gov in any way, shape, or form to do anything.  

And I'm getting no hits on a shooting in Alabama in the last couple days matching your description.  You got a link?  Or you just winging it?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, sbrownn said:

There are lots of different interpretations of the second amendment and requiring registration of gun sales at gun shows may help but I seriously doubt prohibiting the sale of holsters, belts and slings on Esty will do much more than inspire people to dig in their heels against anything that may reduce gun deaths in the U.S.

 

As long as you realize that all, and I mean ALL sales of firearms at gun shows by a licensed FFL dealer HAVE to go through the NICS background check and 4473 paperwork.  I know a guy that lost his business because he got audited after a gunshow and his A&D books were not up to day on Tuesday after the show.  He was able to account for all the guns.  Just didn't have it all written down when the ATF asked to see it and he lost his business because of it.  

 

If you are talking about sales not going through NICS with a 4473 then you are ONLY talking about private sales.  And regulating what people do with their own property becomes a very different set of issues.  There are laws in place in most cases making it illegal to sell to a prohibited person.  Gun shows are not the free for all the media wants you to believe.  Most guns involved in crimes are stolen, not bought legally or bought privately at gun shows.  They are bought on the street.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/18/2021 at 11:34 AM, chiefjason said:

They wanted it at the end and after the word "compatible with." 

That's not JUST ebay.  Glock is pretty determined about their name.  You are not allowed to say "glock 17 holster", but you can say "MADE FOR glock 17" or "FITS glock 17".  They simply ask that you make it clear that the holster you provide is NOT A GLOCK PRODUCT.  Personally, I don't blame them.  I've seen SO many holsters that were JUNK.. I wouldnt want somebody thinking I made that, and thereby thinking they shouldnt buy MY products because they might get THAT same type of JUNK.

If you sell holsters and call them "glock xx holster"... assume that they just haven't got around to you YET.  Glock has A LOT of lawyers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...