If for no other reason, self defense -- nothing is going to stop the criminals from getting them! Criminals love gun control because they don't care about the laws in the first place! Already a law, and I have no issues with this law actually. The problem is what happens to this information on the back end -- unfortunately it is being recorded and maintained. It is basically a hidden registration of gun purchases. Whose doors do you think the gov't will knock on first should they ever decide to declare all guns illegal and tell everyone to turn over all firearms they own? I shouldn't need a permit -- just a certification stating that I've completed the needed education courses on carrying one.
I might be misunderstanding you, but it looks like you don't have a problem with Timmy and are possibly encouraging others to follow in his footsteps? :?
You really amaze me with your intellect and ability to argue a point some days! Perhaps you can tell Eve Carson's family why their little girl will never be coming home again because she was killed by a scumbag that should have been in jail -- he should have been in jail for a gun charge, of all things, while on probation (http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/2573861/). I dare say, not ALL criminals are actually in jail.
I do have a problem with McVeigh, the same one you have. All I'm saying is, if his actions had started the revolution he was trying for, and they had won, he would he a hero instead of a terrorist.
The slippery slope fallacy is actually pretty common around here; Ken is certainly not the only poster who falls prey to it. http://www.unc.edu/depts/wcweb/handouts/fallacies.html
Shootings in schools in recent years have been alarming. I think it's understandable if people are a little paranoid. True, you can't detonate C4 with a match and you are allowed to board with matches. No lighters. In WWII troops burned C4 to keep warm. If someone does not know this, it does not make them a moron.
Because I remembered this Thread and am interested in our Constitution, Bill of Rights and Amendments I thought I would share a story I saw on ABC National News tonight. http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=4353711&page=1 Guns, and questions about how much power the government has to keep people from owning them, are at the core of one of the most divisive topics in American politics. Nowhere is that divide more pronounced than in the gap between Americans' beliefs about their rights under the Second Amendment, and how courts have interpreted the law. Nearly three out of four Americans — 73% — believe the Second Amendment spells out an individual right to own a firearm, according to a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll of 1,016 adults taken Feb. 8-10. Yet for decades, federal judges have seen the Constitution differently, allowing a range of gun-control measures imposed by governments seeking to curb gun violence. Lower court judges overwhelmingly have ruled that the right "to keep and bear arms" isn't for individuals, but instead applies to state militias, such as National Guard units. The U.S. Supreme Court repeatedly declined to hear appeals of those rulings, fueling the debate over gun control and tension between the law and public opinion. Now, in a benchmark case that arises against a backdrop of election-year politics, the high court will take its first definitive look at the Second Amendment. However the nine justices rule in the case, their decision will reshape the national debate over guns, a conflict that pits images of America's history of frontier liberty against concerns about public safety. "A Supreme Court decision has a moral, political and cultural meaning as well as a legal meaning," says Temple University law professor David Kairys, who has long been in the thick of the debate over gun rights and firearms violence as a defender of gun restrictions. "I think it is going to have a huge impact." The case tests the constitutionality of a handgun ban in Washington, D.C., where in 1976 officials imposed one of the nation's strictest gun-control laws in response to alarming levels of gun violence. The justices will hear arguments on March 18; a ruling is likely by the end of June. If the court decides there is an individual right to bear arms, it will be a huge victory for gun-rights advocates. It would reverse years of legal precedent and embolden politicians and groups such as the National Rifle Association (NRA) that have touted gun rights. It also likely would discourage new gun regulations and inspire challenges to other gun restrictions. The possibility that the D.C. dispute could jeopardize a range of federal firearms laws — including those banning individuals from owning machine guns and those establishing rules for transporting weapons — has led the Bush administration to take a step back from its strong support of gun rights. In 2001, the administration reversed decades of Justice Department positions when then-attorney general John Ashcroft said the Second Amendment did cover an individual right to have guns. Do You Have a Legal Right to Own a Gun? The article continues on the link above. Sherry
This will be interesting. I can imagine stacks of amicus briefs, on both sides of the issue, rooms full of them in fact. Thanks for the information.
this is america. i don't see why anyone with the means and the resources to do so safely shouldn't be able to shoot off mortar shells or machine guns or howitzers or whatever he can get his hands on so long as he's not hurting or bothering anyone else. and he ought to be able to do it just for the hell of it if that's what he wants to do...
Hereagain it is not against the law to own an automatic weapon unlike previously said. Even a felon should know that.
get something important to worry about. this is a message board, not a spelling test. i never capitalize anything....
Technically, strictly speaking, no it is not against the law to own an automatic weapon. The US army is currently in possession of thousands, if not millions. Federal, state, and local law enforcement organizations also own quite a few. Is there one or two private citizens who might legally own one? I would say there just migh be, but to get permission would be extremely difficult to the point where you might as well say that IT IS ILLEGAL.
From 1270wmpm today: I guess the store clerk had better gun control! :mrgreen: Robber Flees After Clerk Draws Gun A Wake County man is accused of trying to rob a Smithfield convenience store. Police said the suspect entered the Super Discount Mini Mart on South Brightleaf Boulevard early Saturday morning and demanded the clerk put his hands in the air and freeze. Instead, the clerk grabbed a gun hidden behind the counter and pointed it at the would-be robber. The suspect then fled from the business but was located nearby. Daron Fabulous Oliver, 23, of Raleigh was charged with attempted robbery and jailed under a $50,000 bond. No injuries were reported in the botched holdup.
You just burst my bubble I'll have you know Was reading this thread and thinking a tazer could help me (and my 2 DDs) out with our situation which I think I sufficiently RANTED about in the PSA thread. But you are right, that is probably exactly what would happen:evil::banghead: I would end up getting sued.
