Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That's great, gives more support to my desire to see military budget cut, since it appears you'll be able to take care of defense anyway.
Yeah, that's also a great idea, especially after several beers at a concert or other event.
I'm sure the families of those who were killed in Las Vegas appreciate the fact that their loved ones were killed by an individual who wasn't drinking, rather than one who was.
Again, when you take away the individual's right and ability to protect themselves, the onus falls on you to make sure that they are protected. It is evident that the entities involved, local, state, and federal, did not provide adequate protection. Therefore, they should be held accountable for enabling Paddock to perform his actions.
If the anti-gun crowd wants to disarm citizens, then they should be held just as accountable as the individual who attacks those citizens that were disarmed.
America is unique, in the aspect individuals are not owned by and in bondage to the government and are in fact responsible for their own life, liberty & property. Thus if you threaten my life, my liberty or my property, you will die with one pull of the trigger.
I never claimed the gun crowd is reckless, I am simply saying you can enjoy guns for recreation and personal protection without the need for weapons designed specifically to be used by tactical law enforcement and the military.
I don't pretend to have a lot of knowledge about guns but here is what I do know. A man went into stores and legally purchased bump stocks that turned semi-automatics into essentially machine guns. He purchased 30 guns in 12 months, many of these weapons were not designed for a civilian to get his rocks off by blasting pumpkins. No they were designed to kill as many people as possible and do not belong in the hands of civilians such as Stephan Paddock. There should be no question what so ever that these purchases allowed this guy to kill and injury many more people, had they been illegal to purchase and he went into that hotel room with a different armory that did not allow 400 rounds per minute that story would have been totally different.
What I also know is selfish gun owners don't give a damned about all those additional innocents who were slaughtered. The protection of their rights under the umbrella "thou shall not infringe" is apparently more important to them than the lives of a hundred young people. They made that perfectly clear and it disgusts me.
Not much offends me but this last one does. You are including me with this A-hole and I could give a flip you are disgusted. Just the fact that you can't divide this devil from the rest of us makes me think you have some serious issues.
I never claimed the gun crowd is reckless, I am simply saying you can enjoy guns for recreation and personal protection without the need for weapons designed specifically to be used by tactical law enforcement and the military.
So you want to ban all guns? Because every design can be traced back to a military contract. Even the little Henry Survival Rifle in .22LR is based on the AR-7 from Armalite Rifle Company. https://www.henryusa.com/rifles/u-s-survival-ar-7/
Is the AR-10 the exception? It wasn't designed based on a contract from the military but was still submitted for consideration. It was late so it did not qualify. But the US military still liked it but wanted a smaller version. That's how the AR-15 was born.
The mini-14 ranch rifle is based on an M1 Garande so by your statement, it's a military weapon and should be outlawed. A lot of snipers use the Remington model 700 so bolt action rifles are gone in your world. Our door kickers in Afghanistan use pump shotguns so those shouldn't be used by civilians.
So I'm left with breach loaders like my single shot .22 and a double barreled shotgun?
Progs want to gut the entire constitution based on
1st-what's offensive
2nd-military style
3rd-ultimate goal of getting the government in your home to see what you are doing.
4th-face TSA style security measures before entering an event with alot of people, or hotel/motel.
5th-implicate yourself
I seriously would start a go fund me style campaign and donate to get all freedom hating folks a 1 way ticket and pay for their move to the country of their choosing where they don't have to worry about anything the government of a foreign country can hold their hand in matters of security, education, health insurance, housing, and transportation.
At least in Arizona where I live. All private sales either at a gun show, from a newspaper ad, or just simply selling a gun to a family member, friend or neighbor are perfectly legal without a background check or any paperwork. Provided that the sale is to a resident of the same state as the seller. However it is still illegal to sell to an out of state resident unless the firearm is shipped to a federally licensed dealer within that residents home state or selling to a known prohibited possessor.
If I were to sell a gun to either one of those individuals I could be held criminally or civilly liable if that gun were later on used in a crime. Just the same as someone serving alcohol to someone who is obviously drunk and gets into an accident either killing or maiming someone. The burden would be on me to prove that I didn't know the person was an out of state resident or a prohibited possessor. As for me if I were to make a private sale I would only sell to an individual who had both an Arizona drivers license and an Arizona concealed weapons permit. Just for my own piece of mind.
In some states where all private sales must go through a licensed dealer. Just loaning a friend or relative a firearm for any lawful purpose would constitute a sale along with the required paperwork and the NICS check. Even if you were to hand a friend one of your guns to try out at a shooting range that might also constitute a sale.
In New York State it is illegal to even possess at any time a handgun that is not registered to you. You could have two people that both have pistol permits that wouldn't be allowed to try out each others guns legally. When I took a firearms safety course before getting a concealed weapons permit in New York we couldn't even handle any of the guns there let alone shoot them. I had to get the permit first then learn how to become proficient with the gun listed on my permit. My wife also had to get a permit. If she didn't she would be charged with the illegal possession of a handgun if she used my gun to defend her life.
I really don't know where I stand on the issue of regulating private sales? Both have compelling arguments for and against. On the one hand you'd want to be sure that you're not selling to a prohibited possessor. On the other you don't want to go through the hassle or illegality of loaning or borrowing a gun from someone for any lawful purpose. If the regulation of all private sales required a national gun registry, I would be vehemently opposed as that might eventually lead to the attempted confiscation of all privately held firearms.
In my county, in Missouri, the sheriff will loan you a gun to take the test for a CCW. Of course, we have permitless carry anyway, but some of us still choose to get a permit.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
