Etsy update, prohibited items

[chuck123wapati]

5 hours ago, chiefjason said:

 

If you dig into the issue it's kind of convoluted.  And then they just went overboard in response.  They were allowing things to sell on their platform that actually were against their terms.  No one is hand making magazines and actual firearms accessories like lights and such.  Apparently they ignored it.  Then some consumer group got wind of it and made a fuss about it.  That's when they got stupid and overreacted by banning things they actually built categories for.  Most of the stuff they banned is just stupid woketarianism and SJW feel good BS with zero grounding in reality.  

 

I'm not fooling myself thinking a lot of management would prefer anyone like me not be there.  And they may move on that at some point.  Etsy is also responsible for most of my sales now that I'm off ebay for different reasons.  And doing this on the side I just don't have time to deal with my own website.  I've barely got time to deal with what I have now.  

 

So I'll take a small bit of pleasure in using their platform to sell things that they hate and doing my best to help arm the country. 

If I had to stop doing business for those reasons I wouldn't be in business at all.  I have lots of businesses that support the 2A, since I'm using them to make holsters.  But probably more of them that I have to use don't.  And if you think building your own site would free you from that, you are in for an expensive lesson in providing all the hardware yourself, or having to go through Amazon web services or using a business that uses AWS.  You can't be online and get away from it, you just have to push through it and deal with it when you can't avoid it.  

 

BTW, fun fact.  Glock had my store shut down on ebay.  How's that for 2A friendly?  

There's plenty of logic in your reasoning i wish you all the good luck friend.

[Sheilajeanne]

6 hours ago, chiefjason said:

BTW, fun fact.  Glock had my store shut down on ebay.  How's that for 2A friendly?  

WTF??? WHY???  

[kgg]

21 hours ago, Hardrada said:

As for holsters, they're not sellable in Canada: people are not allowed to carry guns here.

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

[chiefjason]

1 hour ago, Sheilajeanne said:

WTF??? WHY???  

 

They were claiming brand integrity.  What it amounted to was that Glock wants to control, and ebay lets them control, where the word "Glock" appears in the listing title.  I'm not kidding.  I had the firearms models listed at the beginning of my titles.  When you have a store the entire title does not show with the listing on the store page.  So putting the model first allows the customer to browse easier.  They wanted it at the end and after the word "compatible with."  Doing that completely hid the model information from my listings on my page unless you clicked on them.  It still helped in search.  But in reality Glock made it more difficult for customers to find holsters that worked with their products with apparently zero understanding that we both benefit from my holster sales.  I make money and their customers get to carry their firearm.  But they are so dead set on controlling everything about the name Glock that they demanded to control the titles of my listings.  Even though I made zero claims about who was making the holster other than it being handmade by me.  

 

It was a fun 3 weeks dealing Glock legal.  I have some wonderfully snarky emails in response explaining just how ignorant and ridiculous I thought their position was.  

[Rahere]

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. 

[chuck123wapati]

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.

[Hardrada]

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.

[kgg]

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

[sbrownn]

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.

[chiefjason]

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?