someone should create an anti gun policing force that gets rented by cities/states

There are plenty of videos of someone shooting the gun only to gave it fly out if there hands or explode making it a danger to others. Then people just being idiots with guns which means we are completely allowed to put restrictions such as having to pass tests checks and even prohibit where you can use it like only at a range or in your own home

 

Only if armed.

 

Which is what you stated.

"An armed person running is a threat."

So based on that already posted comment, you support shooting in the back and killing someone, who may not have committed a crime?

 

Incidents that come down to user error, rather than any defect in the design of the firearm. Since such incidents are not happening regularly, out of the countless millions of firearms sold in a given year, the failure rate falls very far below the one percent margin being proposed on the part of yourself. Meaning that next to no firearms would ever be prohibited under such a proposal.

That particular matter aside, a number of mass shootings in the united states have avoided higher body counts due to the firearm utilized by the mass shooter malfunctioning and being rendered useless for an extended period of time. So what is being advocated on the part of yourself is enabling mass shooters to kill more victims, not less.

Factually incorrect. Such restrictions cannot legally be implemented in the united states.

 

Shooting a freeing felon has always been an option but only if he presented a danger to the public. Mostly, if any felon has fired his weapon then attempts to flee, he’s not in the right side. It’s always been troublesome determining if a suspect is indeed armed.

 

He means he wants the case line that embraced "The guilty flee where no man pursueth" as law (true story) again. If you turned and ran you were fair game. Obviously that was ruled unconstitutional.

 

A sound reduction law could really screw over the ability to own a gun.

Guns fire at about 130 Decibels the law could require guns to be below 40 Decibels or have them be illegal and punishable with up to 1 year in prison or a fine of $10K

We already know sound reduction laws are legal as almost every city or town in the USA has them.

 

It would be ruled unconstitutional to single out guns and if it included everything it would make over the road trucks, construction equipment and all aircraft illegal to operate.

You really don't think things through do you?

 

GCAs rarely think things through. Like most leftists, it is any means to achieve the objective...a constant search for the magic ‘word’, ‘phrase’ in the 2A that will be accepted as the ‘loophole’ means, a change in definition, or any other thing they think can be used to perceptually justify restrictions or bans. Thus, ban ammo, require UBCs for ammo, require taggets for propellant, require firing pin ID stamping for fired casings, require extensive taxes on firearm and ammo sales, require a new class of firearm owner insurance, have private companies/banks refuse to do business with gun manufacturers or refuse to hire gun owners, have DRs ID gun owners, ban based on cosmetic appearance, ban based on some nebulous potential ROF, ban ammo based on environmental damage potential (initially lead, but wait for polymer tip (plastic) ban calls, or propellant emissions), ban based on mag capacity, ban based on projectile size, use emotional appeals, ban based on potential to kill, ban based on trigger alterations, ban based on accuracy, etc.. (there are many more means that have been floated or actually used). They either have proposed or attempted to ban/restrict, to subvert or slide by the 2A, alter perceptions, demonize gun owners or firearms, etc. by any means they think will fly with clueless mob followers or politicians to achieve their objectives. One of my new favorites is the call to ban/restrict ‘Sniper’ weapons, a euphemism, that implies a deadly military weapon, identified by optics and accuracy... despite the term applying to the history of hunting implements.
Sack’s entire thread is about the transparent search to find what means flies... as is the majority of GCA posts on this forum.

 

It has ALWAYS been the case that a fleeing felony suspect must pose a threat to he public at large. The act of turning and running making you fair game to being fired at by police is not cut and dry. There are mitigating circumstances. It’s always about the training.
Training police to be more aggressive is always related to past experiences and the suspected presence of firearms. A firearm is an instant threat to everyone, police and the public. That will get everyone’s attention and thoughts by a cop that he/she has a family he ( she) needs to return to that evening. This guy is not a good example of reasonable gun control. He sounds like a plant.

 

There is no reason to even consider the 2@ as a road block to any additional gun regulations. By memory there are mandatory bgc in 17 states for all purchases and I believe a couple ban assault rifles which has been up held federally . To sit and perpetually whine about gun control is farcical. It’s also ridiculous to whine about the left when a majority of republicans and nra members favor universal background checks. It’s not the left that is delusional.

 

Thanks for proving my point... your posts are a poster child example as is your quick attempt at a defense.

BTW, your credibility has been thoroughly trashed...for the most part, by you.

 

Nothing to say worth while ? Thought not.

 

What, no pivot to trashing the NRA or Trump?

 

I already said enough to cover your responding post.

 

Speaking of Trump the idiot savant and the criminal based NRA that Ollie extorted, allegedly by Wayne.
https://www.nydailynews.com/news/po...0190426-bpcmyjzayjhfdkzturxuae3vlm-story.html

 

I guess the heck you did.....not that everyone should actually read your perpetually winded diatribes.

 

What you describe is the rule, NOW. And what I'm telling you is way back in the hoary past if you turned and ran you were fair game. If not killed your turning and running was considered affirmative evidence of your guilt that was essentially unable to be rebutted.

 

Simple way around the courts.

Have the state let the electric and water companies go tax free if they force consumers to sign arbitration contracts that ban the use of fire arms, and then simply have the state court uphold the contract under the arbitration clause which would only allow people to file a claim with an arbitrator who would of course vote in their favor.

This would all be a backroom deal with them being forced to say they decided the policy all on there own after paying people to protest their support of gun ownership with everyone still in on it.

 

Nope that is complete level headed comment, I will kill the 2A whether it be thought the amendment process or through corrupt backroom deals with businesses that hold peoples lives in their hands.

The 2A caused SandyHook. The NRA interpretation is to blame and they should be held accountable

 

And with rhetoric like that no one will even need to lift a finger to oppose you because you'll hoist yourself on your own petard

 

Are you serious, that is totally disallowed by them being utilities.

It would have to be an illegal backroom deal, otherwise it could not happen, however after which it did all of those who participated in that deal, once investigated, would be indicted for violating open government regulation's such as the Sunshine Law.

You really have a problem with understanding the Constitution and the what you once called the "laws of the land."

Truthfully, you are making yourself with each progressive post appear to look really uninformed as to the "laws of the land" or "the Constitution."

 

Not true, Telephone companies are considered Utilities or have monopolies but they can use them.

Investigated by who?

It is also not illegal for the government to ask private citizens to do favors for them in return for tax benefits

 

Good deal, I appreciate your admission as an anti-gunner, you have zero regard for as you once stated "the laws of the land," but are willing to become a criminal to achieve your anti-gunner goal.

You are a perfect example of why no sensible person should take any anti-gun supporter, seriously.

You advocate going criminal to destroy a natural right, are you really that hateful of the Second?