Guns
 

One rifle and 3 handguns. Target shooting for sure and safety at home second.

keep spinning your narrative, we all see where the crazier and crazier is coming from.... you re not getting support with these rants. Also i am not sure why you are cursing considering you attacked my grammar and english language skills...yet I do not feel the need to curse to express myself.

move on son..........now to gun control unless you wish to make more off topic attacks..we shall see.

You are offended by “shitpost” after calling people who think calling his victims the “fast food option” is, at best, in poor taste, possible pedophiles. Priceless.

Some people should not own firearms.

[QUOTESome people should not own firearms.[/QUOTE]

YES!!!!!!! Finally!!!!!! The whole point of this accidentally launched thread!!!!!

YES!!!!!!! Finally!!!!!! The whole point of this accidentally launched thread!!!!![/QUOTE]

Not a single person this entire time has said every person should own one or that some laws restricting some, like violent felons or the mentally deranged, from possession is unconstitutional. That’s the one thing that has been unanimous.

I do genuinely love that OP dropped a hot topic controversy and didn’t come back for over 1,000 posts.

Again, keep spinning your false narrative. People can read your thoughtful posts and make their own minds. Doesnt look like the great majority here care, if not all, yet you keep providing your gift posts.

Maybe can go on topic to which I say

Yes some people should not own firearms and agree with you 100% on that

1. How do you identify the people who should not have firearms?
2. How do you deny them the right to legally own them?
3. How do you prevent them from getting firearms illegally?

Notes on the above:
1. Some calls are simple (Manson) but many of these people who go on rampages are pretty normal up to that point.
2. Taking away someone's rights based on comments by others (neighbors, ex-girlfriends, etc.) is risky. People who write about murder (Alfred Hitchcock, Ed Poe, Steve King) are not necessarily planning to do it.
3. Look how commonplace illegal drugs are in this country. Obtaining guns illegally would be (or already is) just as common. Gangs don't arm themselves legally, by going through background checks, etc. More gun control laws won't hinder them one bit. In fact, it will make their gun selling activities that much more lucrative.

Past violent or deranged behavior would be a start. They can’t own guns and certainly can’t purchase guns. A problem seems to be background checks aren’t even completed. Your solution to the issues identified above is because we can’t restrict these people perfectly we might as well just let everyone have them?

I offered no solution in my post and the words you are trying to put in my mouth are not at all what I think.

That’s why I used a question mark to, you know, signify a question. Is that your solution?

Are you incapable of reading and comprehending a simple sentence?

Not a single person has said, implied, or intimated that the mentally deranged, convicted violent offenders etc. have an unrestricted right to firearms.

I am continually amused that it keeps coming back to arguing things that are irrelevant or fictional. Background checks are already the law (nobody has yet been able to post specifically what they mean by strengthening them after they learn this), assault rifles have not been available for teens to buy since 1986 when the registry closed and it became a serious federal crime, and nobody is advocating arming mental patients and prisoners. It is easier, of course, to argue against fantasy positions of what people wish somebody else had said, but it is a silly straw man.

I’m asking a question - what is your position? The question mark should make that clear.

People have, in fact, already answered the question about the need to strengthen the background check process. They are routinely not done in time to stop a sale. They should be done.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna36391

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna36391

I've been active on this thread, which has well over 1,000 posts. If you want to know my position, read and try to comprehend.

There is no simple answer. People who propose simple answers (ban "assault" weapons, ban scary looking rifles, more gun control, don't let the wrong people have guns) are being, well, simplistic.

I'm the proud owner of two machine guns NFA weapons I'm at 10 and an AK-47 just something to think about sometimes when somebody comes to the house I don't know who you are or what you are but you're a real idiot we're proud American people we like baseball cards the American pastime don't know who you are what you are but it doesn't sound like anybody I want to know or want to be involved with you have a blessed day you and yours

Sent from my TMRVL4G using Tapatalk

Actually running them doesn’t require “strengthening” the law. The FBI can simply run them through NICS; an automated system, as is in its name. The FBI doing its job under the law doesn’t require a new law, it’s already there.

If the law says there has to be a background check before a gun sale happens and that is not being done, the law clearly needs to be enforced better. Instead of arguing against the semantics of it do you agree with that at least?

It’s not semantics; some of the participants simply do not know the laws and propose bizarre or vague things as a result. There has been talk of strengthening them, without defining what that means. The law gives the state plenty of time to do it. It’s an automated check in an instant system. They can do them if they wanted too. The laws allows them too. There is nothing to change there. If you’d like for the FBI to be competent, that is an entirely separate matter than anything I said.

Do I think it needs to be done better? This has been answered several times. Background checks clearly are not in accord with the Constitution (you do not need the state to approve your mouth to practice free speech, you do not need the state to give you permission after they look into you to have a right to not incriminate yourself, etc.), but background checks don’t really bother me. Personally I don’t think it makes much of a real difference whether the FBI is incompetent or not in this regard. Background checks do not seem to work at their goal. The vast majority of them are performed with seemingly little to no impact. It is a quixotic quest to create a Utopia where people are only murdered with older technology tools that are more palatable to a political faction. That ship sailed before 1776.

Welcome to the board Desi. You mentioned baseball cards, what do you collect ?

I collect post war baseball cards and machine guns

Sent from my TMRVL4G using Tapatalk

Awesome, post some pictures.

Got to combine them for it to be cool.

It's the thread that just won't die!

Should I bump up the covid vaccine thread or have you finally learned they are garbage and did absolutely nothing, unless you consider making things worse, something?

I have lots of these too that MSM also didn't tell you. Ever wonder why they try so hard to keep relevant information away from the public? Think, just maybe they, MSM, are told what to talk about and show you?

https://youtu.be/UD7q7vZtbMY

Send more YouTube clips. Can’t be wrong if you have those.

If it's on the internet, it must be true!

Like vehicles, guns should be used responsibly. I see little difference between an irresponsible gun owner and a drunk driver. I support law abiding gun owners.

1950's sluggers exercising their right to bare arms. And bear arms.

George Carlin put it best as far as I am concerned:

Everyone in this country is running around yammering about their fucking rights. "I have a right, you have no right, we have a right."

Folks I hate to spoil your fun, but... there's no such thing as rights. They're imaginary. We made 'em up. Like the boogie man. Like Three Little Pigs, Pinocio, Mother Goose, shit like that. Rights are an idea. They're just imaginary. They're a cute idea. Cute. But that's all. Cute...and fictional.

*****

Now, if you think you do have rights, I have one last assignment for ya. Next time you're at the computer get on the Internet, go to Wikipedia. When you get to Wikipedia, in the search field for Wikipedia, i want to type in, "Japanese-Americans 1942" and you'll find out all about your precious fucking rights. Alright. You know about it.

In 1942 there were 110,000 Japanese-American citizens, in good standing, law abiding people, who were thrown into internment camps simply because their parents were born in the wrong country. That's all they did wrong. They had no right to a lawyer, no right to a fair trial, no right to a jury of their peers, no right to due process of any kind. The only right they had was...right this way! Into the internment camps.

Just when these American citizens needed their rights the most...their government took them away. and rights aren't rights if someone can take em away. They're privileges. That's all we've ever had in this country is a bill of TEMPORARY privileges; and if you read the news, even badly, you know the list get's shorter, and shorter, and shorter.

_____________________________

ALL THIS DEBATE ABOUT GUN RIGHTS IS AKIN TO DEBATING THE NUMBER OF ANGELS THAT CAN DANCE ON THE HEAD OF A PIN: FICTION. YOUR RIGHTS ARE WHAT FIVE ASSHOLES IN WASHINGTON DECIDE THEY ARE. PERIOD END OF STORY.

https://photos.imageevent.com/exhibi...ike%20drop.gif

Oh yay, it's starting over again.

It certainly is, and as you know, it is even worse up here.

I heard they banned all transfers of handguns for you fellers up north. I’m sure we will see crime plummet as the bad guys just stop. Yes. I’m sure that’s why, and that that will happen.

I would think most on both sides would agree that just because effective power lies in the whim of the state due to their monopoly on the means of control and mass violence, that does not mean the populace should take a nihilistic apathy of not caring, or not doing what we can to preserve rights (I’ve yet to find someone who doesn’t like any of them). Imagine a world where nobody even debated or tried to preserve anything but the will of the state. I find it hard to imagine many would enjoy that.

I can imagine it. North Korea. A country where 25 million people are starving or thin, and one guy is so fat he's basically round.

You forgot to mention specifically WHO did this and WHO was responsible for it.

Irrelevant. The government does shitty stuff every day; the guardians (courts) are supposed to put a stop to it. Instead. the Supreme Court approved it. They are the true villains of the internment story because they failed to be the check on governmental overreach. As the recent Dobbs case makes crystal clear, all these 'rights' can be reconfigured whenever five idiots decide they want to do it.

“Sometimes you just have to march right in and demand all your rights. Even if you are not sure what your rights are, or even who you are talking to. And when you leave, slam the door”….. Jack Handey

While I have favored a right to abortion personally (I must concede the increasing push for "after-birth abortion" that appears to be simply first degree murder and my states radical legislation makes me start to re-examine some of my thinking on having limits), I am unable to figure how the 14th amendment provides an unlimited right to abortion through a certain trimester. Try as I might, as I have read it over and over again through my life, I am never able to find this in the document whatsoever. This certainly would be absolutely shocking to its authors. Many on the left have recognized over the last five decades that this ruling was not exactly on solid ground, to say the least. The Supreme Court's 2022 ruling that this issue defaults to the states and the people under the 10th amendment does not appear to be a random decision by five assholes, but a 6-3 ruling to actually use the document they are supposed to be using, as was the decision around the same time that the 2nd cannot be ignored. They have ignored this document many times, such as to allow the internment, but Dobbs is not an example of this. One should never mistake something they don't like with being wrong.

Though I certainly do not want to get involved in the original discussion, I feel compelled to ask this one question:


Why are 'radicals' only labeled as such when coming from one end of the 'spectrum'?

Depending where you get your news (or "news" if you prefer that) it is possible to read about "radicals" like - for example - AOC on the one hand, or Marjorie Taylor Greene on the other...

I do not think this is true. Each side labels the other sides more extreme takes, or the ones they dislike the most even though that is incorrect usage, as radical. Read the propaganda from each party and you will see this.

I am stuck in the middle with some very conservative (I do not think the state should steal half my money and I like the Constitution as actually written) and deeply left (I’m fine with abortion, I am in favor of universal health care, I am young enough to still be a little bitter about the police harassing young people for being young people in public) views. Both the traditional sides have some radical views.

Some of California’s laws are pretty radical. I’ll stand by that. They tend to go as far to one side in a uniparty state as possible. That seems to meet the dictionary.

Greg- it sounds like we have a lot of common ground- I wish everyone would understand that...it's a shame that those on the extreme are ALWAYS the loudest...and are ALWAYS provided a mic.

Again- IMO: DOGS are far better people than people are.

I think one thing people could try to do is understand why the other side is so “extreme” in their views. I tend to support abortion rights. Fully understand why those opposed to it are extremely opposed to it though and won’t vilify them for it - they consider it murder.

Now we can all agree about the dogs, they remain adorable no matter what else they do :D

:confused:

Oh, it's working wonders already!
Amazing how those that can't think for themselves think that taking guns and gun rights away from legal law abiding citizens will actually reduce gun crimes. Lets all listen to our incompetent govt and their funded media and ignore the elephant in the room.
Canadian murder rates reach new highs — and it's mainly due to gang violence
https://torontosun.com/opinion/golds...n-will-say-why
https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/many-c...poll-1.5907346
https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canad...5bf52c439199ce

Surely the gangs will stop and give up their guns now that is illegal. Surely the law-abiding people losing effective ability to defend themselves won't become victims. Surely!

I've heard Canada is also redrawing the so-called and ever fluid 'assault weapon' rules, though most of the articles don't seem to give any specifics on what they actually are proposing specifically (https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/gun...earm-1.6661936). Presuming the typical ban-aesthetic-features-and-anything-that-looks-like-it-may-have-been-invented-after-1900?

It's bizarro world up here I tell you!!! Our moronic leader is on a huge controlling power trip. Calling him a dictator doesn't even describe him fully, tbh.
I believe he actually thinks he is the smartest person to ever walk the face of the earth.
'Largest gun ban in Canadian history': Bill amendment could criminalize millions of hunting rifles

https://nationalpost.com/news/canada...ation_with_ads

Tough when people think they’re smarter than others and don’t understand their ideas might not be so sound, agreed. We should all learn from that thought perhaps.

Canadian firearms ownership will be dealt its most massive blow in history.

The amendment not only proposes to prohibit a vast array of rifles and shotguns (with no mention of compensation for current owners), it also includes changing the definition of a prohibited firearm in the criminal code to include: "a firearm that is a rifle or shotgun, that is capable of discharging center-fire ammunition in a semi-automatic manner and that is designed to accept a detachable cartridge magazine with a capacity greater than five cartridges of the type for which the firearm was originally designed."

We're not sliding down the slippery slope, were skiing down it.


People really need to wake up! You guys are a lot more lucky than us for sure as you actually have a constitution that isn't written on toilet paper and judges in place to ensure, for the most part, it is upheld.

People also need to wake up the fact that despite your constitution, your Democratic party is trying to blow it up and do the same things as our Liberals up here and around the world before it is too late.
https://youtu.be/WcnETSsSLOQ

This phrasing is so weird. If a firearm can accept a 1 round detachable magazine, it can accept a hypothetical thousand round detachable magazine. The round limiter here does nothing and bans essentially any detachable magazine gun. The provisions specifically naming a host of firearms include even more extreme examples, there are literal single shot guns and bolt action manually operated arms on it. This includes some even pre-US civil war technology. Looks like you’ll be allowed some single shots or manual arms based on a 100% undefined and arbitrary nature of the name stamped on the receiver. The “cartridges of the type” seems to be learning from the recent California drama where a magazine ban’s poor verbiage has led to some putting a small magazine of a different caliber in a non functional place and using a standard capacity mag in the mag well to run the gun as normal, which DOJ insists is illegal but meets the law as actually written.

Amusingly, this verbiage would not ban belt feeds by feature, only if naked specifically in the list. So it would be okay to have a few hundred rounds through a semi auto belt fed support weapon that is not specifically named in the ban list BUT you can’t have an old Mauser bolt action or a Ruger single shot. The banners not knowing anything about the subject (we had as many demonstrably false mechanical claims in this very thread as we did banner posts) usually makes these laws bizarrely phrased and inconsistent like this.

The Constitution has stopped a lot of the worst infringements in the US; but we are just a couple justices away from a court that will rule to completely ignore the parts of the Constitution it doesn’t like and invent completely fictional clauses that do not exist in said document. The lack of any enforcement power already allows the banner states to pass one unconstitutional and illegal law after another, just a little less extreme. I’m allowed to keep my detachable mag semi autos, but you can’t buy a new one here unless you remove tons of other parts to sneak around the rules, and my ability to keep mine comes with a host of legal traps that have nothing to do with safety and everything to do with trying to make us political criminals. It is even technically illegal under these political punishment laws for me to stop for lunch on my way to or from the range. Thankfully people are made safe by this law. Yes, that’s what we’re doing. It’s about the children. And safety. Yep.

"Getting real weird with how financial institutions are starting to say how you can and cant use your money legally"

https://twitter.com/WallStreetSilv/s...Ut-dvP5S50XJjg

If only that bank allowed its patrons to acquire something like paper money that folds, this could have been avoided. We can only dream. Just a hunch that there’s more to the denial than the fact it was for a gun. Either way, Twitter and YouTube are poor sources for news. Parlor probably worse. Seems like a basic fact that is forgotten by many.

Gun ownership poll
 

I’d like to actually see something that shows this transaction was even for a gun. I also have a hard time believing that there is an automated message that says “this type of merchant.”

Bank claims it’s photoshopped and looking at the monitor and the background, I’d be inclined to believe the bank.

Customer went to the bank and closed the account? How does that store clerk know this info?

Pretty convenient that the store, customer, or any info that could be used to verify if this is true is nowhere to be found.

Anyway, agree 100% with you. Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, etc are awful “sources” of news.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Could be fake/untrue but its not like this isn't in the works.

https://www.npr.org/2022/09/15/11230...erican-exrpess
https://www.ny1.com/nyc/all-boroughs...munition-sales
https://www.newsweek.com/credit-card...pinion-1742160
https://wamu.org/story/22/09/11/majo...ack-gun-sales/
https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/11/busin...ode/index.html

And with Liberal countries around the world and already being a thing in China, digital currency will definitely makes things even worse once cash is completely removed.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/ostp/news...ing%20a%20CBDC.

I suppose, and it's not too hard to figure out coming from you, that MSM is still your preferred source for what you think is factual unbiased news?

Had a hoax active shooter lockdown at my school today (North Central HS in Spokane, among others). It happened at the beginning of lunch. Many of my students were convinced it was connected with the teens who robbed three gun stores within the past month. Those shop robberies have spread a lot of rumors - true or false I don't know. Second article is about the lockdowns, and my school had it nothing like LCHS. SWAT came into my school and entered a few classrooms before the hoax was finalized.

https://www.kxly.com/spokane-police-...op-burglaries/

https://www.spokesman.com/stories/20...hools-in-lock/

Sent from my SM-G9900 using Tapatalk

Things "look like" they might be changing for the better up here thanks to Carey Price and the Natives?
https://torontosun.com/opinion/colum...l-gun-controls

Plan to eventually owned guns = 0
 

.

I own four vintage shotguns that have not been shot in many years.

Have been seriously considering giving my guns to the four beneficiaries (all gun enthusiast with proper storage equipment) defined within my will now, instead of later. Would be another positive step in simplifying/eliminating the extra stuff I have as I prepare for future retirement (3-4 years out). Would like to eventually downsize to a much smaller house/accommondations so what I no longer own I will no longer need to deal with in a move.

Banning video games such as the GTA series, television shows such as Breaking Bad, and music labeled with “explicit lyrics” would actually reduce violent crime quite a bit…..not to mention imposing heavy fines/long jail terms/death penalty on the offenders - whichever one(s) fit the crime.

This is a spiritual battle being waged, but one side completely refuses to acknowledge this fact. Said side has too much to lose if it’s wrong, I suppose.

i hate the music you are referring too as well but becomes a slippery slope when start to say what has a bad influence on people so lets control it...who gets to control it and who doesnt get controlled who barely makes the cut who makes a huuuge profit versus the guy that gets cut so has to file bankruptcy is a very thin line....who decides and how you know thats fair.........politics plays a role which means not a pure decision but a political one.

where are the parents as well who can help control their kids ability to view certain content and i would think that should be a parents choice not political.... i agree on the jail terms etc but again thats politics..

..death penalty i never for because if one person killed and was due to politics not fair....if kill one person by mistake ever not fair ..costs more to kill someone than to keep in jail...if somebody kills a hostage and knows will now get the death penalty why not kill more since punishment the same.... people have been let out of jail on death row years later when proven were innocent...if killed zero chance to free them...not sure how anyone can be for death penalty when everyone knows people go on death row that are later freed for being innocent ..

Even if the suppositions were true, I would be as against banning music, films and games and ignoring the first amendment as I am against ignoring the second amendment.

I don’t think there’s much of a connection though. Violence has been prevalent in art and literature since the very beginning. Homer and Hesiod, the first western literature are replete with it. Fiction tends to always go in the most shocking direction. I think there is much to be said for the time when people spoke properly, wore suits when they went anywhere in public, and would be horrified to hear the words common on radio said so publicly. The current form, in which there are less social restrictions on people’s choices and lives than ever before certainly has not made for a happier youth, with depression being almost trendy among my generation and the next one. But I don’t think 1) there is a way to have everything perfect and 2) it has not produced much violence, statistically.

In fact, violence went down for the generation of NWA and Call of Duty. Violence has steadily dropped with time until it rocketed in 2020 for reasons that don’t seem to be generational or entertainment related.

My gut feeling would be that flooding kids with displays of violence from early childhood and on probably isn’t good. My gut feeling when I’m at a gun store and see someone trying to buy their favorite weapon in call of duty is that this is a moron and maybe should choose not to exercise his right to do that. But I don’t think the data backs up this feeling. “Ban X to solve our problems” formulations are almost never even close to true and rarely stand to even cursory examination. Playing Call of Duty doesn’t make one a murderer, listening to rap doesn’t make one a murderer, no more than owning a firearm does.

real life is still far different than video game world as well...they were saying violence was caused by early nintendo games and early IBM games which were 100x or more less real looking then todays games....perhaps 100 years from now in the meta verse if you can touch and feel everything we can revisit...