Belgian_Draft 0 #26 December 2, 2008 QuoteQuoteI'm unaware of any current laws that restrict my gun ownership desires in any way. I can own as many as I want, I don't have to register them, I don't have to have any proof of purchase or ownership, I don't have a cooling off period, I can carry concealed. Nope, I'm good where it's at. More laws are not going to provide any increase in safety from ILLEGALLY POSSESSED WEAPONS. It will simply add technical hurdles or limits to legal ownership. The V.Tech massacre was with legally bought weapons. The problem was that the perp, who was clearly unsuited to be a gun owner, WAS able to buy them legally because the laws and checks were so flawed. Quite right. The very same laws that protect our right to privacy allowed him to obtain those weapons.HAMMER: Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the object we are trying to hit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
stitch 0 #27 December 2, 2008 QuoteQuoteI'm unaware of any current laws that restrict my gun ownership desires in any way. I can own as many as I want, I don't have to register them, I don't have to have any proof of purchase or ownership, I don't have a cooling off period, I can carry concealed. Nope, I'm good where it's at. More laws are not going to provide any increase in safety from ILLEGALLY POSSESSED WEAPONS. It will simply add technical hurdles or limits to legal ownership. The V.Tech massacre was with legally bought weapons. The problem was that the perp, who was clearly unsuited to be a gun owner, WAS able to buy them legally because the laws and checks were so flawed.So I suppose the remedy would be all citizens must present a psychologic profile stating stable mental health. The problem there, the same as with prescription drugs, if you're desperate enough you'll find a doctor that is willing to do your bidding."No cookies for you"- GFD "I don't think I like the sound of that" ~ MB65 Don't be a "Racer Hater" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DSE 3 #28 December 2, 2008 Quote The Tiahrt Amendment: He would allow law enforcement to misuse gun trace data to attack gun shops that sold guns legally. Their theory is that if a lot of crime guns are traced back to a gun shop, then the gun shop must be doing something wrong and it should be shut down. The problem with this is that guns sometimes fall into criminal hands, even though the gun shop did everything right. And the high-volume gun shops will have more traces come back to them than low-volume shops - that doesn't mean they are complicit in selling to criminals. This is the wrong way to fight crime, and even the BATF has a public statement against this because the data is invalid. The "gun show loophole": He would ban the private sale of firearms, requiring each and every transaction to go through a gun dealer and a background check. No more sales between buddies or family members. And of course, the gun dealers charge a fee of $25 and up for this service, increasing the price of the transaction. This would also likely spell an end to most gun shows in America. "Childproof guns": This is unproven technology which requires batteries, electronics and or radio waves to ensure that a gun can only be fired by someone who owns it. It's unreliable and makes a gun less likely to function properly in a self defense situation. There are other ways to keep guns away from kids than to make all guns less reliable. In fact, with this technology, parents would be MORE likely to leave their guns laying around in the open, thinking that their children would be safe. "Assault Weapons": Yeah, that one's already been tried for 10 years under Clinton, and it was a proven failure. This is just a irrational emotional response to guns that "look scary". It ignores the fact that AR15's are the most popular rifle of all in target shooting competitions. But under Obama, they would be banned. This is how Obama "respects the 2nd Amendment". And the public is not gullible enough to buy his forked-tongue rhetoric, and is responding by going to gun shops in droves and clearing the shelves now, so that they won't be stuck with some namby-pamby unreliable politically-correct gun later. You better go get yours too. Subjective interpretation? I thought you were interested only in facts? What has been done today, this week, this month, or on any day since the election victory that would provoke this freak-out regarding a plank that has been on his policy page for months? The Constitution of the United States guarantees a lot more than the right to bear arms. Or is Speakers Corner now doomed to a daily vitriolic anti- president blast because sore losers can't cope with democracy in action? I'm more interested in seeing what Objective Obama accpomplishes over the next four years after eight of Dictator Decider. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #29 December 2, 2008 QuoteActually, you're missing (well, ignoring) the point. The AWB was an answer to a problem that doesn't exist. The true goal, of course, is to ban guns incrementally. This is a supposition not supported by facts. If you recall why the AWB went into effect, it was due to a rash of gun crimes, specifically ones like the LA shootout, where criminals were outgunning law enforcement. Nowhere is it stated that the "goal" was to incrementally take away all the guns from all the gun owners except perhaps in gun advocate statements. The law makers, not really knowing better, looked at the types of guns that were available and made rules they thought would eliminate them. They simply didn't know enough about the subject to understand that parts can be swapped to make an acceptable gun unacceptable and vice versa. They lacked a good metric by which to gauge the potential of certain weapons and wrote a law that sort of worked and sort of didn't. My thinking is that the NRA should take the lead here and come up with something that actually means something and makes more sense. The basic idea is that (to use a JR phrase) gun-o-phobes don't like a LOT of people being killed all at once by a single crazy person. Personally I don't think that's too unreasonable of a position to take, so I think something about the amount of kinetic energy that can be delivered over the course of a given time period makes a bit more sense as it would put ALL weapons under the same standard and would not rely on the "scary" features so often brought up.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #30 December 2, 2008 Quote The law makers, not really knowing better, looked at the types of guns that were available and made rules they thought would eliminate them. They simply didn't know enough about the subject to understand that parts can be swapped to make an acceptable gun unacceptable and vice versa. They lacked a good metric by which to gauge the potential of certain weapons and wrote a law that sort of worked and sort of didn't. total bullshit. They knew exactly what they were doing, and had a couple publicized incidents to use to demonize the threat of "scary shit." Keep making up stories, man. The law absolutely failed to accomplish anything. People were still killed by AK-47s imported along with drugs. Most crime was still done with handguns. It did force many law abiding citizens to carry reduced capacity magazines (and some of us are still stuck with this nuisance). BTW, you're absolutely wrong that no one would miss gun shows as well. There is not a single major gun seller in the Bay Area now, so availability and pricing have suffered. But as I said, Obama isn't as stupid as Gore. He'll tell the Brady people to fuck themselves. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #31 December 2, 2008 Quotetotal bullshit. So, do YOU want the total bullshit law or . . . do you want to make an actual difference and come up with a better proposal? You're probably going to have a law either way. You wanna just whine about it or do something constructive?quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 7 #32 December 2, 2008 Quotefully automatic weapons are already illegal. No, they are not. They just have a bunch of stupid laws all around them that drive up the price and make you jump through a bunch of hoops to own them. All of the laws were designed to prevent "certain types" of people to be able to own them. However "other types" were allowed to own them all day. In 1934 the National Firearms Act added a 200 dollar tax onto items that cost 3.00 to 100 bucks. It was nothing more than a way to prevent the poor from being able to afford them since it was about the average monthly wage of a Detroit auto worker. In today's dollars it would be about 3,200. The 1968 law made it harder for "certain types" of people to buy firearms. And that they had to have a "sporting purpose" A provision to make hunters happy, but prevent the general populace form having weapons that were best for self defense. The 1986 Huges Amendment banned the importation or manufacture of new machine guns. But the current ones are still perfectly legal. All that did was jack up the prices so only the "rich" again could afford them. The 1989 "Bush Ban" made it so imports were not allowed...Again really doing nothing but raising the prices out of the range of "certain" people. The 1994 AWB was a ban that went against weapons that according to the DOJ were used in less than 4% of crimes. It was "feel good" legislation that served nothing and no one. When it sunset 10 years later....Despite cries of sure death on the streets....Nothing happened."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
headoverheels 291 #33 December 3, 2008 QuoteBTW, you're absolutely wrong that no one would miss gun shows as well. There is not a single major gun seller in the Bay Area now, so availability and pricing have suffered. What do you consider "major?" Here is my local Bay Area dealer. http://www.reedsindoorrange.com/guns.html Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #34 December 3, 2008 good to know. At the other end from me, but still close enough. I considered TriCity, the Guns Exchange in SF, and Traders as the biggest players back when I was still buying them (fueled by the Davis Administration). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #35 December 3, 2008 QuoteQuotetotal bullshit. So, do YOU want the total bullshit law or . . . do you want to make an actual difference and come up with a better proposal? You're probably going to have a law either way. You wanna just whine about it or do something constructive? As I've told you, it's unlikely to come back. It's really your side's onus now, since the public opinion (and Supreme Court) is on the side of the 2nd amendment. And for Californians, irrelevant, as we got our own version that supercedes. But I'm on board with the NRA strategy of resist nearly everything. We have enough already to enforce, high time we actually do so. The Obama Administration is free to begin by going after those who fail Brady checks. The past two presidents failed to do so. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChasingBlueSky 0 #36 December 3, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteI'm unaware of any current laws that restrict my gun ownership desires in any way. I can own as many as I want, I don't have to register them, I don't have to have any proof of purchase or ownership, I don't have a cooling off period, I can carry concealed. Nope, I'm good where it's at. More laws are not going to provide any increase in safety from ILLEGALLY POSSESSED WEAPONS. It will simply add technical hurdles or limits to legal ownership. The V.Tech massacre was with legally bought weapons. The problem was that the perp, who was clearly unsuited to be a gun owner, WAS able to buy them legally because the laws and checks were so flawed. Quite right. The very same laws that protect our right to privacy allowed him to obtain those weapons. Do you mean the 4th Amendment? Because it's not there anymore thanks to FISA._________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 7 #37 December 3, 2008 QuoteThis is a supposition not supported by facts. Actually it is supported by facts. The DOJ released a report that stated that less than 4% of the types of weapons banned by the AWB had been used in a crime. QuoteIf you recall why the AWB went into effect, it was due to a rash of gun crimes, specifically ones like the LA shootout, where criminals were outgunning law enforcement. And if you recall the weapons used in the LA shootout were illegally converted FULL AUTO weapons. The crime for converting, or even telling someone how to convert, a semi to full auto is a crime with a max 10 year prison sentence. Those guns were ALREADY illegal long before the shootout...Like 1934. QuoteNowhere is it stated that the "goal" was to incrementally take away all the guns from all the gun owners except perhaps in gun advocate statements. Feinstein told 60 Minutes television: "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them, Mr. and Mrs. America turn them all in, I would have done it." This was after she slipped the AWB into the Clinton-Schumer crime bill. She also tried to ban .50 cal rifles with some claim to terrorism that does not exist. QuoteThe basic idea is that (to use a JR phrase) gun-o-phobes don't like a LOT of people being killed all at once by a single crazy person. And I also agree. But to trample all over someones rights is not the answer. You want to save more lives? Ban swimming pools. There are more guns than swimming pools in the US, yet pools kill more people. Quotehttp://fightingforliberty.com/290/swimming-pool-deaths-vs-gun-deaths/ Estimated guns in the United States: 275 million (roughly). Estimated swimming pools in the United States: 2.5 million (roughly - according to Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, 2004) Unintentional firearm deaths ages 0-14 (according to the CDC) from 2000 to 2005: 412. Unintentional drowning deaths from 2000 to 2005 ages 0-14: 4,993 .*** 275m guns and only 2.5 million pools. Quotehttp://timlambert.org/2001/07/levittpoolsvsguns/ What’s more dangerous: a swimming pool or a gun? When it comes to children, there is no comparison: a swimming pool is 100 times more deadly."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites skybill 19 #38 December 3, 2008 Hi JR, C&E Gun Show this weekend 06 & 07DEC at the Crown Expo Center, Fayetteville, NC ...400 tables, admin $7.00. Got my permits, got my $$$. This "Loop hole" thing really gets me?? Maybe the Fayetteville show is the only one with licensed FFL dealers that have phone lines in to their tables, run background checks, require pistol permits and deal just like a gun shop in town. Where's the "Loop Hole??"SCR-2034, SCS-680 III%, Deli-out Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Amazon 7 #39 December 3, 2008 Gun show this weekend here in the Seattle area tooDecember 6, 2008 WAC Gun Show 12/6/2008 - 12/7/2008 varies Information: 425-255-8410 Times: Sat 9am-5pm; Sun 9am-3pm Admission: $6 (17+) Location:Commercial Bldg #100 Hey J and V.. want to come up for the show.. and singe some dead animal parts after the show?? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Belgian_Draft 0 #40 December 3, 2008 Quote Gun show this weekend here in the Seattle area tooDecember 6, 2008 WAC Gun Show 12/6/2008 - 12/7/2008 varies Information: 425-255-8410 Times: Sat 9am-5pm; Sun 9am-3pm Admission: $6 (17+) Location:Commercial Bldg #100 Hey J and V.. want to come up for the show.. and singe some dead animal parts after the show?? Grab me a case of 7.62x39 FMJ. Could use a couple pounds of H450. Getting harder to find all the time. Just ship to me and I'll send a check when it arrives. HAMMER: Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the object we are trying to hit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Amazon 7 #41 December 3, 2008 Check out Wades Guns in Bellevue.. I went over there at lunch to pick something up and they had a whole bunch... did not check the pricing on the x39..... I was looking at the full tins of 440 rounds of 7.62x54r sniper stuff for $199 Oh and sitting right behind that... was a very nice M2 on a tripod.. for only $11,999 That would be a hell of a lot of fun at the range.. but the price of ammo at $3.49 a round might get a wee bit spendy to shoot very much. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Belgian_Draft 0 #42 December 3, 2008 The 39 stuff is getting pricey. Last weekend the cheapest I saw was $300/1000rd. Seriously, though, if you know where I can get some H450 let me know. My .270 loves the stuff.HAMMER: Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the object we are trying to hit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Amazon 7 #43 December 3, 2008 Quote The 39 stuff is getting pricey. Last weekend the cheapest I saw was $300/1000rd I got rid of all my x39 commie stuff( as JR calls it) I do still have some x54R that I will not be getting rid of... in fact I am on the trail of a real Dragunov SVD Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites futuredivot 0 #44 December 3, 2008 Cool! I've read about those bad ass Russian sniper chicks-I think you could pull it offYou are only as strong as the prey you devour Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites FallingOsh 0 #45 December 3, 2008 Quote The V.Tech massacre was with legally bought weapons. The problem was that the perp, who was clearly unsuited to be a gun owner, WAS able to buy them legally because the laws and checks were so flawed. It was also in a gun free safe zone. -------------------------------------------------- Stay positive and love your life. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Ron 7 #46 December 3, 2008 Quote Last weekend the cheapest I saw was $300/1000rd. I bought 4.5k rounds of 7.62 X 39 at Academy Sports for I think 150.00 per k. But even online has it for around 200 per k. for stuff like Wolf."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,647 #47 December 3, 2008 QuoteQuote The V.Tech massacre was with legally bought weapons. The problem was that the perp, who was clearly unsuited to be a gun owner, WAS able to buy them legally because the laws and checks were so flawed. It was also in a gun free safe zone. No, it was neither gun free nor safe, because a looney could get a gun without any difficulty thanks to inept laws.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Nightingale 0 #48 December 3, 2008 I don't have a problem with requiring all transfers to go through a licensed dealer. I also don't have a problem with a basic background check for criminal convictions and restraining orders, since with modern technology, such checks can be done pretty much instantly, so there is no reason not to make sure that the new owner of the gun is legally able to own a firearm. There's no reason this would shut down gun shows. They could simply have a licensed dealer on the premises and a computer with internet access. It seems like what really interferes with gun shows is the "cooling off" period. When a dealer travels to a gun show, unless he has made arrangements for a local dealer to hold his inventory until it can be released to the purchasers, he's going to have trouble selling the guns unless he's going to hang out in town for the duration of the waiting period. I think a waiting period is not unreasonable, provided it is only applied to people who own no handguns (the background check will reveal handguns registered to a person...long guns are not registered, so there is no way to verify ownership quickly), and the waiting period should be waived if the purchaser is the subject of a protective order or appears with a letter from a judge or law enforcement department stating that the waiting period should be waived because the person may be in danger. Having a waiting period for people who already own a gun is an unreasonable restriction on a constitutional right, but there is probably a decent constitutional argument that states and local governments have a compelling interest in preventing crimes of passion that a waiting period for a first gun is a reasonable restriction (note: this is not my personal opinion. I don't like waiting periods, but they are probably constitutional for a first gun, IMO). The waiting period for a second gun is unreasonable, because in the majority of situations they can always go get the one they've already got, so the waiting period is just a hoop to jump through and doesn't actually increase safety. With regards to the childproof/only the legal owner can fire it technology: that's just stupid! When I go to the range with friends, I frequently use their guns and they use mine. I'd never buy a handgun without firing the same model. When I'm thinking of buying a new gun, I find a friend with the same model I'm looking at and ask them to go with me to the range so I can try theirs, because just because a gun looks like the right one doesn't mean it's going to fit your hand properly or feel right. If you want to keep guns away from kids, buy a gun safe or buy a gun lock, and use it, and educate the kids. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites FallingOsh 0 #49 December 3, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuote The V.Tech massacre was with legally bought weapons. The problem was that the perp, who was clearly unsuited to be a gun owner, WAS able to buy them legally because the laws and checks were so flawed. It was also in a gun free safe zone. No, it was neither gun free nor safe, because a looney could get a gun without any difficulty thanks to inept laws. Yes, it was a declared gun free zone. -------------------------------------------------- Stay positive and love your life. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites FallingOsh 0 #50 December 3, 2008 Good post. -------------------------------------------------- Stay positive and love your life. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next Page 2 of 9 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
skybill 19 #38 December 3, 2008 Hi JR, C&E Gun Show this weekend 06 & 07DEC at the Crown Expo Center, Fayetteville, NC ...400 tables, admin $7.00. Got my permits, got my $$$. This "Loop hole" thing really gets me?? Maybe the Fayetteville show is the only one with licensed FFL dealers that have phone lines in to their tables, run background checks, require pistol permits and deal just like a gun shop in town. Where's the "Loop Hole??"SCR-2034, SCS-680 III%, Deli-out Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #39 December 3, 2008 Gun show this weekend here in the Seattle area tooDecember 6, 2008 WAC Gun Show 12/6/2008 - 12/7/2008 varies Information: 425-255-8410 Times: Sat 9am-5pm; Sun 9am-3pm Admission: $6 (17+) Location:Commercial Bldg #100 Hey J and V.. want to come up for the show.. and singe some dead animal parts after the show?? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Belgian_Draft 0 #40 December 3, 2008 Quote Gun show this weekend here in the Seattle area tooDecember 6, 2008 WAC Gun Show 12/6/2008 - 12/7/2008 varies Information: 425-255-8410 Times: Sat 9am-5pm; Sun 9am-3pm Admission: $6 (17+) Location:Commercial Bldg #100 Hey J and V.. want to come up for the show.. and singe some dead animal parts after the show?? Grab me a case of 7.62x39 FMJ. Could use a couple pounds of H450. Getting harder to find all the time. Just ship to me and I'll send a check when it arrives. HAMMER: Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the object we are trying to hit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #41 December 3, 2008 Check out Wades Guns in Bellevue.. I went over there at lunch to pick something up and they had a whole bunch... did not check the pricing on the x39..... I was looking at the full tins of 440 rounds of 7.62x54r sniper stuff for $199 Oh and sitting right behind that... was a very nice M2 on a tripod.. for only $11,999 That would be a hell of a lot of fun at the range.. but the price of ammo at $3.49 a round might get a wee bit spendy to shoot very much. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Belgian_Draft 0 #42 December 3, 2008 The 39 stuff is getting pricey. Last weekend the cheapest I saw was $300/1000rd. Seriously, though, if you know where I can get some H450 let me know. My .270 loves the stuff.HAMMER: Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the object we are trying to hit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #43 December 3, 2008 Quote The 39 stuff is getting pricey. Last weekend the cheapest I saw was $300/1000rd I got rid of all my x39 commie stuff( as JR calls it) I do still have some x54R that I will not be getting rid of... in fact I am on the trail of a real Dragunov SVD Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
futuredivot 0 #44 December 3, 2008 Cool! I've read about those bad ass Russian sniper chicks-I think you could pull it offYou are only as strong as the prey you devour Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FallingOsh 0 #45 December 3, 2008 Quote The V.Tech massacre was with legally bought weapons. The problem was that the perp, who was clearly unsuited to be a gun owner, WAS able to buy them legally because the laws and checks were so flawed. It was also in a gun free safe zone. -------------------------------------------------- Stay positive and love your life. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 7 #46 December 3, 2008 Quote Last weekend the cheapest I saw was $300/1000rd. I bought 4.5k rounds of 7.62 X 39 at Academy Sports for I think 150.00 per k. But even online has it for around 200 per k. for stuff like Wolf."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,647 #47 December 3, 2008 QuoteQuote The V.Tech massacre was with legally bought weapons. The problem was that the perp, who was clearly unsuited to be a gun owner, WAS able to buy them legally because the laws and checks were so flawed. It was also in a gun free safe zone. No, it was neither gun free nor safe, because a looney could get a gun without any difficulty thanks to inept laws.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nightingale 0 #48 December 3, 2008 I don't have a problem with requiring all transfers to go through a licensed dealer. I also don't have a problem with a basic background check for criminal convictions and restraining orders, since with modern technology, such checks can be done pretty much instantly, so there is no reason not to make sure that the new owner of the gun is legally able to own a firearm. There's no reason this would shut down gun shows. They could simply have a licensed dealer on the premises and a computer with internet access. It seems like what really interferes with gun shows is the "cooling off" period. When a dealer travels to a gun show, unless he has made arrangements for a local dealer to hold his inventory until it can be released to the purchasers, he's going to have trouble selling the guns unless he's going to hang out in town for the duration of the waiting period. I think a waiting period is not unreasonable, provided it is only applied to people who own no handguns (the background check will reveal handguns registered to a person...long guns are not registered, so there is no way to verify ownership quickly), and the waiting period should be waived if the purchaser is the subject of a protective order or appears with a letter from a judge or law enforcement department stating that the waiting period should be waived because the person may be in danger. Having a waiting period for people who already own a gun is an unreasonable restriction on a constitutional right, but there is probably a decent constitutional argument that states and local governments have a compelling interest in preventing crimes of passion that a waiting period for a first gun is a reasonable restriction (note: this is not my personal opinion. I don't like waiting periods, but they are probably constitutional for a first gun, IMO). The waiting period for a second gun is unreasonable, because in the majority of situations they can always go get the one they've already got, so the waiting period is just a hoop to jump through and doesn't actually increase safety. With regards to the childproof/only the legal owner can fire it technology: that's just stupid! When I go to the range with friends, I frequently use their guns and they use mine. I'd never buy a handgun without firing the same model. When I'm thinking of buying a new gun, I find a friend with the same model I'm looking at and ask them to go with me to the range so I can try theirs, because just because a gun looks like the right one doesn't mean it's going to fit your hand properly or feel right. If you want to keep guns away from kids, buy a gun safe or buy a gun lock, and use it, and educate the kids. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FallingOsh 0 #49 December 3, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuote The V.Tech massacre was with legally bought weapons. The problem was that the perp, who was clearly unsuited to be a gun owner, WAS able to buy them legally because the laws and checks were so flawed. It was also in a gun free safe zone. No, it was neither gun free nor safe, because a looney could get a gun without any difficulty thanks to inept laws. Yes, it was a declared gun free zone. -------------------------------------------------- Stay positive and love your life. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FallingOsh 0 #50 December 3, 2008 Good post. -------------------------------------------------- Stay positive and love your life. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
