If you can't see the difference in those two statements YOU are the one that is suffering from willing blindness. The concept of responsibility is lost on you, but let me try to explain, no law-abiding citizen should be restricted from the right to own, and carry a firearm for their own protection, amusement, whatever, notice the term ...law-abiding. The restrictions that I am ok with are for people that have given up their rights, either through criminal activity, or adjudicated mental defect. I support a repeal of the 1934 National Firearms Act, the Gun Control Act of 1968, and an amendment of the 1986 Firearm Owners Protection Act to remove any restrictions on law-abiding citizens.If you can't find the contradiction in these two statements, you're suffering from willful blindness. I suspect that's the case, given the rest of what you've offered in the form of ontological argument.
We dont need mroe gun control, we need less. Actually, we need a law on the books requiring every citizen to be armed at all times.
Criminals prey on the weak, and dont follow the laws to begin with.
If everyone had a gun on them at all times with authorization to use deadly force, then there would be a lot less violent crime. Criminals will think twice before their next action if they are afraid they are going to get shot. Right now, too many laws still favor the aggressor instead of the victim. This must change.
I already quoted you on that. Do you draw some distinction between "freedom" and "free country"? Or do you wish to amend your remarks?
Of course they don't. They do need to follow the law and the rules of any commercial venue in doing so, however, whether that's a flea market or a gun show. It's in the interests of gun show sponsors to require checks for all who buy firearms at their shows. It would protect them from the sort of attack Bloomberg engaged in. It would strengthen the position of honest gun owners everywhere.
You do want that, right?
If you can't see the difference in those two statements YOU are the one that is suffering from willing blindness. The concept of responsibility is lost on you, but let me try to explain, no law-abiding citizen should be restricted from the right to own, and carry a firearm for their own protection, amusement, whatever, notice the term ...law-abiding. The restrictions that I am ok with are for people that have given up their rights, either through criminal activity, or adjudicated mental defect. I support a repeal of the 1934 National Firearms Act, the Gun Control Act of 1968, and an amendment of the 1986 Firearm Owners Protection Act to remove any restrictions on law-abiding citizens.
requring private sellers to do those types of checks would pretty much end the private gun market
which is stupid, since its NOT the source of most/almost all of the guns that really cause crime.
it would bandaid strawpurchases(which are already illegal) and still be impossible to enforce anywhere but a gunshow.
so it would be yet another law that screws joe blow and doesnt affect the criminals its meant to stop
So you do wish to amend your previous statement. And you're even nuttier than I suspected. nice to know.
I don't want gunshow sponsors to be seen as enabling ineligible persons from obtaining firearms.
I own firearms, and enjoy gunshows, and think that voluntary measures from the gun owning community can prevent legislation that may be contrary to our interest.
Raving about repeal of the 1934 National Firearms Act gives gun owners a bad name in the rest of America, and anybody with enough sense to pour piss out of a boot knows it.
If they did not arrest anybody then how is it a sting operation?
Also if a large number of illegal guns enter NY from AZ or other states through backdoor gun show rules then yes they do have a direct intrest to look into it.
Here I held out hope that you might actually comprehend a simple statement, I guess you really are as stupid as I though.
Gun show sponsors don't help ineligible people obtain firearms.
Hardly. You should educate yourself about what he NFA is, did, and what it has meant for firearms owners to this day. It was a de facto ban on a entire class of firearms, the 30's equivalent of the Assault Weapons Ban, and almost included all firearms including pistols.
Amusing typo. It's self explanatory how you amended your remarks, yet refuse to acknowledge that. A non-zealot would be embarrassed
Doesn't matter what it "looks like" to the ignorant.Never said they did. It just looks that way to some.
No, it didn't, but you would ignorantly think so. It established a tax of $200 to purchase NFA items. I can start the paperwork today and in a couple months have a machine gun with a suppressor sitting right here next to my other NFA firearm. At the time law makers knew they could not outright ban firearms, so they did an end run around the Constitution and made an outrageous tax to own them that was far out of the affordability of normal persons. It would be akin to today if they tried to make a $4,000 tax to own a handgun. In 1986 that shitbag Rangel attached the Hughes Amendment to the FOPA, which made the manufacture and importation of machine guns for the civilian market illegal even though it was voted down ...twice, on video. While it grandfathered existing machine guns, it destroyed several business, drove the price of machine guns up to ridiculous heights, and did nothing to make anyone on Earth and "safer", or anything to reduce violent gun crime.Almost doesn't count, other than in the minds of delusionists. It did ban several classes of weapons, notably full automatics, grenade launchers, etc.
Never much cared for the Maw Deuce, M203's are awkward, and I have no need for a grenade, but it would be a cool paperweight. An Uzi with a suppressor, hell yea, bad ass gun, and fun as hell to shoot, and a suppressor means I won't go deaf doing it. There's absolutely no difference between a law-abiding citizen owning a full auto, suppressed Uzi, than there is between them owning a semi auto Uzi. The NFA was fear mongering based on "gangster guns", just like the AWB was fear mongering based on "military guns".I'm sure you're pining away for a Browning 50 caliber, tripod mount, just to keep the commies off the lawn. Or a nice M203, just the thing for pesky gophers... or maybe grenades would be better. How about an Uzi with a silencer? Perfect... Just perfect, I'm sure.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act
Good for NY to expose to ridiculous loophole that allows psycopaths, felons, and criminals to aquire deadly weapons.
So you do wish to amend your previous statement. And you're even nuttier than I suspected. nice to know.
I offered that gun show sponsors should demand and perform checks on behalf of the private sellers who sell weapons at their shows, thus voluntarily closing what anti-gun people refer to as the gunshow loophole. I don't want gunshow sponsors to be seen as enabling ineligible persons from obtaining firearms.
I own firearms, and enjoy gunshows, and think that voluntary measures from the gun owning community can prevent legislation that may be contrary to our interest.
Raving about repeal of the 1934 National Firearms Act gives gun owners a bad name in the rest of America, and anybody with enough sense to pour piss out of a boot knows it.