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.
Adding to Gungnir's response, many states are like MS. Once you get your carry permit you do not have to go through the federal check any more. I walk in, fill out a 4473, show my permit and driver's license, pay, walk out the door. That covers everything from a .22 pistol to a Barrett M82 (semi-auto .50 BMG).
Also, open carry is legal here without a license. It's in our state Constitution. A nice thing they added last year was enhanced carry. It's an updated concealed carry permit that allows someone to carry where it is normally illegal to carry. Churches, schools, polling places, court houses. Outside of federal buildings, jails/prisons and actual court rooms there isn't really a gun free zone in MS anymore.
I am very familiar with all of Jefferson's accomplishments. He was not able to influence the Constitutional Convention at all. While he did indeed receive correspondence from Madison concerning the convention, that information would have been several months old by the time Jefferson received it. If Jefferson wished to reply, his correspondence would not have been received by Madison until after the Constitutional Convention was over.
The only input Jefferson had over the US Constitution is reflected in the First Amendment which was added in 1791. Jefferson did not approve of the US Constitution until after the Bill of Rights were added.
Actually, there is a federal requirement for a firearm license, but only in DC. There is no federal license requirement for any of the States or US territories.
oops my bad, I always forget about DC, since it's not a state.
As someone who spent 4 years handling guns, I know it's a tool only designed to inflict bodily harm. Yes, they are used to protect oneself and all that, but objectively all they're for is to inflict bodily harm and to kill things.
That's why you need a license in order to purchase a gun and ammo. Sorry, get over it.
As someone who spent 4 years handling guns, I know it's a tool only designed to inflict bodily harm. Yes, they are used to protect oneself and all that, but objectively all they're for is to inflict bodily harm and to kill things.
That's why you need a license in order to purchase a gun and ammo. Sorry, get over it.
So the license allows you to kill things and do bodily harm? What changes with the license? Do you have permission to commit murder, so long as the gun is licensed? Manslaughter, assault with a deadly weapon? Are these things now legal because the weapon itself has passed the tests of bureaucracy?
As someone who spent 4 years handling guns, I know it's a tool only designed to inflict bodily harm. Yes, they are used to protect oneself and all that, but objectively all they're for is to inflict bodily harm and to kill things.
That's why you need a license in order to purchase a gun and ammo. Sorry, get over it.
What about all the guns that were made specifically for sports? Like over/under shotguns designed for skeet or trap? PPC revolvers made specifically for bullseye shooting? Or rifles made for a biathlon?
Why aren't licenses required to own a how and arrow? They were made for the same purpose as firearms.
As someone who spent 4 years handling guns, I know it's a tool only designed to inflict bodily harm. Yes, they are used to protect oneself and all that, but objectively all they're for is to inflict bodily harm and to kill things.
That's why you need a license in order to purchase a gun and ammo. Sorry, get over it.
Except that you do not need a license to purchase a gun or ammo. You don't need a license to make a gun or ammo. You don't need a license to sell a gun or ammo unless it's for commercial purposes.
Depending on your state you may need a license to carry a loaded weapon either concealed and/or openly, but carrying is not purchasing.
I don't care if you spend 4 millennia handling guns, your information is wrong, and transparently attempting to ascribe authority to your statement by making unverifiable claims about yourself doesn't change that.
With all the bleating about 'states rights' by conservatives, this is what they get.
It's a two-edged sword.
Would you be as happy with this result, if it were being done to the 13th amendment instead of the 2nd?
If he had shown a list of states that were requiring licenses for black people to be formally released from slavery (despite the clear wording of the 13th amendment which prohibits it)... and that some areas in the U.S. were refusing to issue such releases (think of them as "may issue" states)....
Would your response still be, "conservatives, this is what you get"?
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.
