I don’t think that guy is a particularly good Christian somehow
Better than his previous life as a warlord that negated medicine to a child with Malaria. Longinus is the kind of living proof that some people just need a headshot to fix their lifes (again, kinda, but this time a bit literal).
Correct and for good reason. It’s far too dangerous for people to withheld despite how sane or trustworthy they are. Mass supply of high powered weapons are no different. Even uranium has a benefit to be used and not as a killing tool. Like you said, you can go into Walmart and buy a gun. Are there background checks or licences to be shown?
Control is the key here for safety and security of everyone. There’s gun nut videos of them open carrying just because they can. It is legal to kill a Scotsman on the isle of man (if they are carrying a bow and arrow) but it just doesn’t happen. Also it is a bi-law, meaning UK law like murder will over rule it.
Times change and so do laws to adapt to the generation. Guns do need to change, not be rid of, especially for US. Obama was too busy letting everyone out of Guantanamo.
Well idk how it is where you’re from, but in the US, yes, anyone buying a weapon has to receive a background check… Unless it’s black market, but that’s a whole different story there. I’m with you on one thing, I have no problems with them wanting to make some new laws on guns and gun control etc. but trying to ban guns… Nah! Never gonna happen so I’m not worried.
I’m from the UK so no guns (or have a licence for a reason) no big issues here. I do notice the words “Freedom” and “Liberty” thrown around when they want to prove a point, especially when it comes with guns. When people advise finger print locked guns, apparently that’s no freedom. When trackers on guns were brought up, once again the buzzwords get chucked out.
Kids have got held of guns from parents, killed the parents, schools, cinemas. All from legally owned weapons. Control is a fair way to allowed people to maintain their armoury while ensuring a safeguard to the welfare of others. Yet a lot of pro gun seem to believe that it takes away their “2nd amendment right” which it doesn’t. If you have nothing to worry about, then there’s no reason to start a fuss I say.
Open carrying on youtube shows how 2nd amendment in this form wastes police time and aggravates public and officers alike. Some big black guy wearing armour, assault rifle on back, pistol in leg holster and top it off, a ski mask. Walks past a federal building and then starts getting lippy for why the cops are stopping him and asking questions. It’s just pointless, waste of time when anything real dangerous could have been happening… just because he’s within the edge of the law. Says he would die for freedom lol.
However I saw a video of a black biker who had a pistol on him, cop pulled him over for the riding he was doing and asked for the gun politely. The guy was very nice back and kept his arms up and let the cop take it from him and then they got on with the caution and the gun was returned. Shows common sense and reason to each other.
By that logic, should the First Amendment be applied to the Internet? I mean, which is more likely to have been envisioned by James Madison, the AK-47 or Twitter?
Police, as we know them today, did not exist in the 18th century.
Personal defence weapons (not to be confused with actual PDWs) should be available to lawful, licenced people. Shotguns and pistols of a certain calibre.[/quote]
Australia is an excellent example of how caliber restrictions for handguns are arbitrary and illogical. The caliber limit in that country is .38, which permits .357 Magnum but prohibits .45 Auto.
Are you referring to semi-automatic firearms in general or “assault weapons” specifically?
Any Walmart that sells firearms is a Federal Firearms Licensee (FFL), so yes. In order to purchase a firearm from Walmart, you must be at least 18 years of age (21 for handguns, which Walmart hasn’t sold since 1993), show proof of ID, not be a “prohibited person,” and complete the Firearms Transaction Record (ATF Form 4473) and the NICS background check. Permits to purchase are at the state level.
Not according to federal law.
“A person may transfer a firearm to an unlicensed resident of his or her State, provided the transferor does not know or have reasonable cause to believe the transferee is prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms under Federal law. There may be State laws that regulate intrastate firearm transactions.” [Emphasis added]
This is known as the “secondary firearms market” and includes private sales at gun shows.
Legislative gun control does not have a bright future with a Republican-controlled Congress and a Trump presidency.
Literally nothing has a bright future with a Republican-controlled Congress and a Trump presidency.
Well come on, people like that are just asking for trouble. Even if one were to have a license to carry and everything, why in the world would you walk infront of a federal building purposely showing that you’re carrying? Again, SANE people would not do that. Also, again… It’s people like that that give responsible gun owners everywhere a bad name. It’s not rocket science… Well, at least it shouldn’t be…
Even if you have the rights to carry, one simply would not do that, unless they clearly just want to stir shit up. I mean that’s just some people for ya, with anything actually, not just with guns. No matter what the case, you’re always gonna have those few bad apples that ruin it for everyone else. Fact of the matter is, no matter what your views on the matter, responsible sane people with guns is nothing to worry about. Some people just like guns and it’s not fair people get demonized for it. Some people have common sence and not everyone that owns a gun is a raging lunatic.
America isn’t the world and its bill of rights does not apply to worldwide applications. I don’t see the point you’re making here. The right to publish articles onto the net, the ability to speak freely or not is controlled by each countries laws as you can see UK/US internet vs Chinas internet. As for Madison, he doesn’t know the future, he would not have anticipated either of your situations, hence why changes need to be… amended. What does the 1st amendment have to do with freely open carrying assault rifles?
Exactly hence why the law known as the 2nd amendment is outdated, made for the type of “police” who were allowed to run a police state affair and abuse the public openly (which doesn’t happen today) and the 2A is attained purely for tradition. Times move on, new laws are made or removed for good reason. Laws that now cover drone rights and public air space which never would have been around 10 years ago, never mind 200 years.
While the 2A is granted open freedom to weapons, its staying still and not adapting to what we now have as weapons. 2A speaks about its era of weapons and not ours. If the “founding fathers” actually knew the future, knowing what they would cause, then yes I would say they would change it, but it is impossible to do so at that time. We don’t know what our future brings, recoilless pocket miniguns?
Category H allows handgun calibre .38, 9mm or under. A second licence needs to be made for special target shooter as a sport to use .45 calibre.
Any weapon that is obviously not needed to be used for the main reason of 2A in this era (to defend against attacks). Anything other than a typical shotgun or a pistol should be classed to higher attention automatically. Both shotgun and pistol should be within reason (you can’t have an AA12 and a Desert Eagle) or you get the same treatment as if you were to get a higher grade weapon. Proof of safe keeping should be required too.
That’s good. Is this super reinforced by the way? Is there a database with everyone who has completed a FTR with a list of weapons they hold or something? Despite who good the checks may be, little Timmy or the angry guy next door might get a hold of it. Locking up weapons is also an issue.
I’m not saying or ever putting anyone in the same boat of course not, but there’s hell of a lot of people who do this which is due to the 2A. It’s unnecessary aggravation that could be avoided if there were some kind of public control. I think the biker is fine having a gun on him or anyone for the matter but not AR-15’s patrolling the street. Use them at the range or the garden but not out on public property. There’s a reason why lawmen and women go through training for weapons and our soldiers.
It’s not about taking people’s pastimes away or defence at all. If the law abiding person has nothing to worry about with their motive for a weapon, then they should be welcome to having safer and guaranteed security on their weapons and others around them. I’ve ask max this but I’ll ask you too, is there some kind of database of weapons each person holds? Like who cars are owned by etc.
Exactly, totally agree. I know times may have changed, but they also need to respect that the 2nd Ammendment states it shall not be infringed… I mean how far are they willing to go until/if they try to take this right away from the people. All these regulations they place on gun owners, like limiting the amount of bullets per magazine and so forth… Really? People who are trained very well with firearms can reload in the matter of seconds. So what difference does it make how many bullets a magazine should hold, if they had 3 10 round magazines. Having a gun or rifle that could hold say 10 bullets could easily be just as deadly as a rifle with the average 30. As I said it don’t take long for a trained person to reload. Just seems like a useless regulation.
But for your question, as far as I know, each time you purchase a gun it gets recorded. So yeah, I’d assume they would know how many weapons you have on file, if police or whoever wanted to check up on that. Unless they purchased a black market one, as I stated before, where that obviously wouldn’t be on file. Unless of course you got caught with one, but then in that case, you would never be able to “legally” purchase a weapon again.
I agree with the prohibition of handguns, sub-machine guns and any automatic weapon. But I agree shotguns and rifles should be legal anywhere.
Why not handguns? Because they are concealable, easily dismissable and easily silenced. Rifles and shotguns are bulky, much messier and louder. So it is clear to me which type of gun is more suitable for assassinations. Besides, there is always the common thought that rifle and shotgun sales should be much more restricted than handguns; so even better.
Not necessarily… A person could easily saw off a shotgun. Not that I ever would, it is illegal afterall… I’m just saying, a double barrel shotgun could be modified to be “concealable.”
I have thought of that. So could an old bolt action rifle. Still, without looking into it, I would safely assume handguns are responsible for at leats 85% of death-by-bullet homicides. Maybe mine isn’t the best solution, but it’s my take on it.
Besides, it is not all two handed weapons that could be sawed off, if you forbid the ones that can be sawed off and leave only SPAS-12 shotguns, or ones like that; and similarly you leave only Dragunov-like rifles, then that settles it I think.
Fair enough, good point.
And people say that 47 has too OP magic pockets? If carrying a wide variety of weapons is the main reason why many bodyguards wear custom tailored suits in the first place.
Breitbart Lies. Worth remembering that the new Chief Strategist in the Whitehouse was the executive for this rag. Scary Shit.
You’re asserting that the Second Amendment should not apply to modern small arms, because the Founding Fathers could not have envisioned such weapons in the 18th century. I’m drawing a parallel with the First Amendment and the Internet. I know that the Internet is worldwide, but we’re talking about the United States, and what you publish on the Internet in the U.S. is protected by the First Amendment.
That last part was semi-facetious, but the Continental Congress was made aware of the Belton flintlock, an early repeating weapon, in the 1770s. Considering that several of the Founders were inventors and avid gun collectors anyway, it is far-fetched to assume that they wouldn’t have expected firearms technology to advance beyond what was available in 1791.
The U.S. Supreme Court has already ruled that the Second Amendment is subject to “reasonable regulation,” but that it protects an individual right to own weapons that are in common use at the time and that are used for lawful purposes. The AR-15-pattern rifle meets both criteria. Rifles, of which so-called assault weapons are often a subset (it is a fluid category because what defines an “assault weapon” is determined by statute), are used in fewer homicides, annually, than, for example, blunt weapons.
I don’t see the sense in that.
Well, as long as it’s obviously not needed. [quote]
Anything other than a typical shotgun or a pistol should be classed to higher attention automatically. Both shotgun and pistol should be within reason (you can’t have an AA12 and a Desert Eagle) or you get the same treatment as if you were to get a higher grade weapon. Proof of safe keeping should be required too.
What is less reasonable about owning a Desert Eagle than, say, a Glock 17 or a Smith & Wesson Model 29?
“Licensees shall retain each ATF Form 4473 for a period of not less than 20 years after the date of sale or disposition. Where a licensee has initiated a National Instant Background Check System (NICS) check for a proposed firearms transaction, but the sale, delivery, or transfer of the firearm is not made, the licensee shall record any transaction number on the Form 4473, and retain the Form 4473 for a period of not less than 5 years after the date of the NICS inquiry.”
It is worth noting, however, that all a Firearms Transaction Record shows is that you purchased a firearm. It doesn’t show that you still have it.
“At a recent use-of-force class I was instructing for a Public Risk Management group, the topic of firearms training frequency came up. The discussion was prompted by the fact that during the latest round of FBI suspect interviews conducted for the third book in the Officer Assaulted and Murdered trilogy (‘Violent Encounters’), it was revealed that those suspects believed that police officers trained between two and three times a week with their firearms. In reality, most police departments only train about two times a year, averaging less than 15 hours annually. In contrast to our frequency of training, those same suspects revealed that they practiced on average 23 times a year (or almost twice a month) with their handguns.
“During a poll taken during this class which represented about a half dozen Florida law enforcement agencies, I asked how many train more than twice a year. No hands went up. When asked how many train or qualify with their duty guns only once a year. Everyone raised their hands. Hence, the genesis for this article.” [Emphasis added]