Top products from r/gunpolitics

We found 30 product mentions on r/gunpolitics. We ranked the 49 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the top 20.

Next page

Top comments that mention products on r/gunpolitics:

u/GGWAG · -17 pointsr/gunpolitics

i loves me some booze, so don't take this the wrong way but...actually Prohibition kinda did fix some serious social ills. and for all the gangsterism that arose in the big cities from the resulting illegal booze trade, most historical assessments i've read agree that from a strictly harm-vs-benefit standpoint that P as a public policy was almost certainly to the good side.

on another note, if you're interested in a seriously engrossing read about Prohibition's cast of characters (nothing to do with the above), highly recommend picking up a cheap used copy of Thomas Coffey's The Long Thirst.. it begins with his dad ritualistically taking him out for his first beer when he's 13, which is the day P was repealed in 1933. just a really fascinating book you won't be able to put down. plus i love that his name is Coffey, works on so many levels.

u/PlankyMcWinderton · -4 pointsr/gunpolitics

This whole line of thinking that OP is selling here is complete nonsense and is thoroughly contradicted by a straightforward reading of US History.  First, read the US Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 15 "The Militia Clauses":    
>"The Militia Clauses  Clause 15. The Congress shall have Power to provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.
Clause 16. The Congress shall have Power to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress." 

Next, read about how in the early 1790s Congress passed laws that strengthened the President's role of Commander-in-Chief by clarifying his power to take command of the state militias, especially to put down insurrections such as The Whiskey Rebellion...     

And then go back and refresh yourself on the Whiskey Rebellion where President Washington federalized 12,000 state militiamen to put down an armed insurrection. 

Beyond the fact that by then the Founders were unanimously in favor of granting the President the power to federalize state militias, it's important to understand the lasting national effects of how President Washington handled the Whiskey Rebellion.  The effect was to reassure everyone that presidents would be judicious about their power to wield the state militias, and fears of a tyrannical king-like president began to fade away when we saw the massive upsides of a strong federal govt that could reimpose the rule of law whenever threatened.  

All of this is really just freshman year American History and a 20-minute review of it over a cup of coffee should be enough to convince anyone in doubt that OP's idea here is complete rubbish.  The Founders never, in any way, meant to support, or encourage, or even leave room for, armed insurrection against government in the US in any way whatsoever.  It's purely a fantasy of relatively recent vintage that's been ginned up by the gun lobby to justify selling some higher-profit margin products that look a lot like what soldiers use.  

u/Maleficent_Cap · 7 pointsr/gunpolitics

Lol, Calm down Kamala Harris. Yes, this is something that is a problem when people are prepared to do something like this.

You want I should link you to homemade firearms and body armor?

Lets start with explosives.

Here's your 9mm machine gun.

Heres another

A literal pipe and grease-gun gun. hahaha.

Video on a homemade win 300 rifle, which WILL pen L3 plate armor, unlike 5.56, whether thats 5.56 Varmint/store carts or 5.56 M855 military.

Disclaimer: No one should attempt in any circumstances to use this information for illegal purposes.


So now that I have your attention, you going to bleat your little head off about how "something has to be done!"?

u/Pikabuu2 · 3 pointsr/gunpolitics

How about this propaganda book on Obama's childhood, that was made before the election was over. It's almost like a book issued to the children about the Glorious Leader.

u/Fuel4U · 5 pointsr/gunpolitics

It's goes back even further. Go read or listen to some Podcasts on the War of Independence. It's fascinating to hear the Founding Fathers debate gun rights, gun control, voting rights and how our National Government should be formed and most importantly States Rights vs Federal Rights vs Individual Rights. A great book I just finished is......

Friends Divided: John Adams and Thomas Jefferson

u/blankey2 · 2 pointsr/gunpolitics

There is a book which I am beginning to read that addresses this, I believe.

. . . or at least I hope addresses it. It holds up France as one pole and the U.S. on the other.

u/slashrslashsub · 26 pointsr/gunpolitics

I fly and carry with Delta regularly. A couple of times a month. Most of the time the folks that are tasked with doing the zip ties are just as annoyed as I am. The solution is simple. Scissors. You are allowed to carry scissors on your flight. I carry THESE SCISSORS in my carry on. When I get my bag from the dude after zipping it up I pull my scissors out of my carry on and cut them off right in front of them. Usually I hand him/her the trash. I've never had one push back on me. There's nothing they can do. It's your property.

u/liatris · 6 pointsr/gunpolitics

>he doesn't realize just how many people he's offending.

He realizes it, he just doesn't care.

He's a billionaire who is use to being able to use his money to get people to do what he wants. He doesn't understand you can't just funnel money into something to get your way, you actually have to convince people who he would consider beneath his consideration. He's an elitist, basically the very type of person Sowell writes about in The Vision of the Anointed: Self-Congratulation as a Basis for Social Policy

u/vanquish421 · 5 pointsr/gunpolitics

>They'll just trot out the "the Rights defined in the Bill of Rights are not unlimited," BS and claim that

And I doubt it will work here. The printing plans have already been published in a book. No fucking way is SCOTUS upholding a book ban. Also, this is legal and widely available everywhere in the US.

>much like shouting fire in a crowded theater


I don't blame your for your cynicism, but I do believe it's misplaced here.

u/FattyRoyale · 2 pointsr/gunpolitics

By expanding what constitutes a felony or misdemeanor domestic abuse. By making criminal defense unaffordable. By making laws so vague, only the wealthy or powerful can defend against spurious accusation. By making criminal many activities which should not be. Here’s a great primer to start on the subject:

Three Felonies A Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent

And btw, many states have misdemeanors which carry possible sentences long enough that the 4473 considers them felonies.

u/CyricYourGod · 1 pointr/gunpolitics

The State does not mind its own business with anything. They care about what you do in your bedroom, at your job, at your church, with who you love, what's in your wallet, how you spend your money... The State does not let people mind their own business. I bet every single thing you did today from waking up in bed to visiting the movie theater had government involvement (be it regulation or subsidization) in some way and you probably broke several laws unintentionally (for which you can get fined or put in jail for) and its only by good grace with authority that you haven't been arrested yet.

Some enlightening reading:

Three Felonies A Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent

>The average professional in this country wakes up in the morning, goes to work, comes home, eats dinner, and then goes to sleep, unaware that he or she has likely committed several federal crimes that day. Why? The answer lies in the very nature of modern federal criminal laws, which have exploded in number but also become impossibly broad and vague. In Three Felonies a Day, Harvey A. Silverglate reveals how federal criminal laws have become dangerously disconnected from the English common law tradition and how prosecutors can pin arguable federal crimes on any one of us, for even the most seemingly innocuous behavior. The volume of federal crimes in recent decades has increased well beyond the statute books and into the morass of the Code of Federal Regulations, handing federal prosecutors an additional trove of vague and exceedingly complex and technical prohibitions to stick on their hapless targets. The dangers spelled out in Three Felonies a Day do not apply solely to “white collar criminals,” state and local politicians, and professionals. No social class or profession is safe from this troubling form of social control by the executive branch, and nothing less than the integrity of our constitutional democracy hangs in the balance.

u/fancyfeast9000 · 3 pointsr/gunpolitics

A very salient talking point, however such knowledge, while perhaps common place in the 1920s and 30's when dads taught kids about chemicals and explosives for fun, today even thinking of doing such a thing is irresponsible and evil, ergo people are woefully undereducated.

I used to think criminals were also pretty lazy which is why they preferred buying guns to making their own, but Ive been hearing about some homemade gun police hauls recently by criminals, so its possibly just a knowledge and tools block.

To the point that criminals dont even know they can make their own guns.

In a twist of irony, if this information became widely disseminated among the criminal class, it'd put the nail in the coffin of gun control forever.

u/Swordsmanus · 1 pointr/gunpolitics

Unless recidivism accounts for the difference between CHLs and the rest of Texans, the conclusion remains unchanged, and that study remains a case of lying with statistics. If you want to imply that recidivism invalidates the raw trends, then that's on you to prove. There's data on recidivism from and

But if that were true, we would have seen the early data (1996-2000 or so) showing CHLs convicted at an equal or greater rate compared to the Texas population. That didn't happen.


What I'm implying is that conclusions like the ones found in that study:

>Our results imply that expanding the settings in which concealed carry is permitted may increase the risk of specific types of crimes, some quite serious in those settings. These increased risks may be relatively small. Nonetheless, policymakers should consider these risks when contemplating reducing the scope of gun-free zones.

Are flatly contradicted by the data when it's presented in the standard "crime rates between groups" way, rather than a convoluted "let's compare proportions of crime within groups" way. They would be totally right if the CHL murder rate per 100k population was higher than the Texas rate, but it never has been in recorded history.

Many people like to paint all CHLs with a broad, monster-shaped brush, as though they are far more likely to cause harm than the average population. If age factored into that fear, then those people would be far more terrified of teenagers and the demographic groups that do actually account for disproportionately more violent crime relative to their population size. Yet that's not the case.

And I don't see how sociopaths factor in here; they exist in both population groups. Sociopaths have been found to make up for 25-35% of prison populations [1], [2]. If more sociopaths were drawn to becoming a CHL than normal, that would be reflected in higher convictions for CHLs. So either they aren't actually drawn in, or the system is keeping them out, as intended.

Ultimately it comes down to this: Imagine you took two random Texans, and were told that one was a CHL. Right now many people assume that the CHL is going to be more likely to be violent than the non-CHL, and fear the CHL for it. Yet the evidence shows that by the end of the year, the CHL is 14x less likely to end up convicted of any crime, 14x less likely to end up convicted of a violent crime, and is overall less likely to end up convicted of a murder.

I'm implying that widespread fear and bigotry towards CHLs is wrong. The available data does not support it.


If this doesn't make sense, I suggest you check out Superforecasting. It covers a predictions tournament on world events and how a group civilians went head to head against CIA analysts armed with classified info. The civilians trounced them, and it tells how they did it. Here's a review and excerpts. There's also a Freakonomics podcast episode on the book.