As others have said, you are ignorant of basic facts when attempting to discern use from ownership/possession. Your example is use of a deadly weapon to further a criminal offense, which is a criminal offense itself.
no folks, the public should not own fully-auto firearms, especially handguns. attachments that allow virtual full-auto firing, should be banned.
Uhhh, exactly how many fully automatic handguns are there? To be honest, I can't think of a single one (well, not counting in movies, those do not count because they are not real). And please describe an attachment that allows "virtual full-auto firing". Because I really do have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.
He must be talking about Glock 18, Uzi submachine guns , and bump fire stocks for AR rifles. I don't see them used in many crimes and most criminals would just run out of ammo faster if they had these guns.
you really are demonstrating you don't know much about firearms. Why should the public not own full auto when civilian police have them for self defense - - - Updated - - - He has never told us why the public cannot be trusted with the same weapons civilian cops are issued for self defense. He apparently thinks full auto is too terrifying and deadly for honest citizens to own. Why? who knows: we have yet to see a rational argument in support of such a position
police go through a thorough background check, training course, and psychological exam to make sure they are qualified to enforce the law, make arrests, and use firearms above & beyond what the general public can possess and use.
I've been through a more thorough background check several times and have qualified several times with semiautomatic and automatic weapons. I have worked in the DEA, FBI, CIA, ICBM missile silos, on nuclear capable aircraft, NASA, nuclear power plants, etc...... for over 26 years. I have several relatives, including my son, with a higher security clearance than me. I can possess and use full auto firearms, except I cannot afford them because the federal government infringed on my right to keep and bear arms by using supply and demand to drive the cost of full auto firearms out of my reach when they outlawed the production of full auto firearms.
so if I, as a non LEO (actually retired federal prosecutor) can prove I know more about the law than a cop and can shoot better than the average cop, make an argument why I am able own most police weapons but not full autos Do you understand that civilian police have no greater right to shoot another civilian than you or I do? BTW the average cop KNOWS less about the laws of deadly force and how to shoot than the average non LEO civilian who gets a CCW license. Police almost never beat Non LEO civilians in tactical shooting contests that require instant decision making on shoot/no shoot targets.
He cannot afford them because a dishonest POS politician named Hughes who conspired with another POS Democrat politician to claim an amendment to the Firearm owners protection act passed when it did not and that amendment caused the price of legal to own machine guns to skyrocket so we will put you down for favoring discrimination against the poor
is that what I said? they simply know more about the law than the average Joe...and that's why they should be able to use/possess guns that the general public should not? no sir, I did not say that.
I dig the whole Texas thing. I get it. I like it. And it's too bad they couldn't bottle it for the rest of America to get with the program. God bless Texas, indeed!
so you agree that people who have good training should be able to OWN machine guns Good. that is a start
Well, since it is a constitutional right, why not have some kind of classes at high school level . . . at least on how to safely handle a firearm? What is your opinion on that?
again, you're very dishonestly misrepresenting my comments. do you want have a debate with others, or yourself?
so tell us why should no civilian (who is not a cop) be able to legally own a machine gun even though they can legally own all sorts of other firearms after you answer that we will proceed. I believe all civilians of age with a clean record should be able to own any and all firearms used by CIVILIAN police officers as well as the standard issue military rifle
before civilian non-police can own an AR-15, AK-47, or other semi-auto military-style weapon, they should first go through a thorough background check, training and psych exam, just like police go through.
so you believe constitutional rights are subject to said tests. we were talking about machine guns not semi autos. Do you actually understand the difference? and why should an AR 15 require such infringements on our rights but say pistols or shotguns do not police go through those tests not because they bear arms but because they have the power of arrest. you do understand that constitutional rights are a prohibition on government actions why don't you tell us what firearms ordinary citizens should be able to own without all that red tape-if any
the reason why the 2nd Amendment doesn't mention specific types of weapons the public could possess, is because in 1789 all weapons, including military ones, were pretty damn basic. had that Amendment been written today, it would have surely distinguished between those weapons acceptable for civilian possession, and those weapons that should only be possessed by military personnel.
that is pure speculation that I call BS on. the entire purpose of the 2A was that the citizens could prevent the army from becoming a tool of tyranny. so your claims have absolutely no merit. The founders would not want the federal military better armed than the entire civilian body
au contrare, I believe the FFs would indeed have limited the arsenal of the citizen unregulated militia to be different than that of the armed forces of the USA.
and that is based on what? but they didn't and there is no evidence to support your claim so lets get back to your claims what firearms are you willing to let the supreme sovereign own without undergoing unconstitutional prerequisites and why are you so afraid of fully automatic weapons owned by honest civilians
lol!!!! Southwest Ohio must be very quiet, peaceful, and the neighbors live half a mile away from one another.
I can hit my neighbor's house with a slingshot. we own all sorts of weapons but we shoot them at proper ranges. My wife owns golf clubs too. My wife and son are both national champion archers. we could hit houses with golf balls or arrows but we don't. why are guns different?
I honestly can't help you if you see no difference between a single-shot .22 rifle and a full-auto .223 sub-machine gun.
