Elderly California store owner fires at armed robbery suspect who shouts, 'He shot my arm off!’

I would say wanting people to seek permission before exercising a civil right doesn’t seem like a position a strong supporter of the 2nd amendment would have.

 

and you still asked the question? Not everyone can control a shotgun properly.

 

And in no logical world is that a logical comparison. Kids die from dog bites and drowning in pools, are they next on your list of things to ban?

 

Agree for the most part. Although we had a similar “ban” from 1994 to 2004. This ban is more comprehensive because it makes it more difficult to produce a variant of an existing firearm that doesn’t violate the definition of assault weapon. By the end of the 1994 ban more AR-15 type rifles/carbines were being produced and sold than before the ban. Again pointing to what you say below about Dems driving gun sales.

If this current bill were to pass the Senate it’s unlikely it would survive scrutiny by the current Supreme Court. Unless they can get that sexual predator Uncle Tom (Clarence Thomas) off the SC, law like this is dead on arrival. That doesn’t mean it wouldn’t be implemented for months or years while cases are working their way up to the Supreme Court.

Yes, it would be interesting to know how many people own an AR-15 or similar firearm for the sole reason they think they will be banned. I personally know a couple.

I certainly own more ammunition than I would if the price didn’t fluctuate so wildly on every ban scare.

Every new gun owner created by ban threats is another voter/citizen with skin in the game. It is a very strange way to approach the issue. I guess since there is such a large demographic of citizens and politicians still perceiving value in the 2A it’s impossible to do what Australia did in 1996. Pretty much everyone went along with the NFA there right? And it was FAST. No time for those opposed to organize politically or from a civil disobedience perspective.

Dems know at some point Republicans will join them and Australian type fast action will be possible. There are some principled Republicans but most are just riding the 2A vote train. Saying so won’t increase my popularity on PF but you know how much I care about that. LOL

I believe that is the long game.

They keep trying that (1994 assault weapons ban and various state bans) but manufacturers keep innovating around “feature restrictions”. Again, this bill is more airtight in that regard.

I think it’s important to consider negative consequences of stopping new sales and grandfathering existing weapons. The most troubling to me is how it would greatly incentivize theft. Anyone with an NRA sticker on their pickup is going to be the only path to a weapon for a criminal wanting one. That and trunks of police cruisers. And retired cops who are exempt from this whole bill. (Barf).

The second negative consequence would be pricing the lower earning demographics out of a right still enjoyed by upper earning demographics. The value of grandfathered weapons will skyrocket. Not as much as pre 1986 automatic weapons initially, but enough to make the “right” to own them based entirely on economic status.

To open another can of worms, then you are getting into disproportionately affecting availability by race and gender…which seems inappropriate as Democrats are usually opposed to such inequalities.

Short answer, I am attempting a large measure of pragmatism and hopefully a lesser but significant measure of stoicism.

The boy who cried wolf applies here in my opinion. There is no wolf until there is and when the wolf materializes is impossible to predict. I am fortunate enough to be able to prepare myself for the eventual appearance of the wolf with the understanding many can’t. I own what I need barring loss to fire or theft etc. But that doesn’t mean I approach this from the position “I’ve got mine so everyone else can pound sand”. I’m just answering your question about impact on me personally. I believe the guy or gal that wants to compete in a firearm sport like 3-gun has as much right to an AR-15 or shotgun as I do. Or the single mom that believes the 2A means what it says.

I’m overall more concerned for others than myself if this passes the senate. The only scenario I don’t have contingency plans for is a repeal of the 2A. Anything short of that, the law is on my side no matter what congress does.

 

Depends on the situation. It's very deadly in close proximity if you are engaging a single perpetrator. Against 3-4 or more intruders? Not so much.

 

You are right. People who insist that criminals, pedophiles and mentally sick don't need permission before exercising a civil right are much stronger supporters of the 2nd amendment than me.

 

good news! Buying a gun from a dealer means form 4473 and those aren’t allowed.

 

Read again:

“Nottingham's gun crime problem is often blown out of proportion. It currently ranks fifth beneath London, Manchester, Liverpool and the West Midlands for firearms-related crime. But whereas *** in other cities the problem has grown steadily since the mid-1980s***, in Nottingham it virtually exploded overnight.”...
THE OBSERVER, Crime wave overwhelms thin blue line, Chief constable vows to carry on fight as gun crime and drug culture puts regional police force under pressure, By Tony Thompsonand Martin Bright, Sat 26 Mar 2005. (*** mine)
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2005/mar/27/ukcrime.prisonsandprobation

 

So which is it?
Gun crime has risen steadily since the mid '80s or gun crime rose after the 1997 handgun ban?

 

Irrational gun control laws were imposed on British subjects long before the 1996 Dunblane Gun Ban, and whenever the public is disarmed violent crime will increase for reasons that should be obvious by now.

"The Firearms Act 1937 incorporated various modifications to the 1920 Act [a de facto gun ban] based on the recommendations of a 1934 committee chaired by Sir Archibald Bodkin."

"The same year, the Home Secretary ruled that self-defence was no longer a suitable reason for applying for a firearm certificate and directed police to refuse such applications on the grounds that "firearms cannot be regarded as a suitable means of protection and may be a source of danger".[81]" Wiki

The Failure of the 1996 Gun Ban became especially apparent as violent crime soared immediately after it was imposed.

" 'Unless the growth in offences is reversed,' it says, 'this will become a lawless land' and adds: 'Parts of the country are already not far from that.'" BBC, 1/18/00 quoting "The Mirror," "Papers focus on rising crime."

 

Irrational?
You want to compare homicide figures between the UK and USA?

 

Also, learn what British Subject is.
UK passport holders are British Citizens.

 

Violent crime including Armed crime goes up after the public is disarmed.
Conclusion it is irrational to disarm the public unless the goal is to increase crime.

BBC, Armed crime on the increase, 12/26/99.

 

Yeah but you come off as wanting everyone to have that(including people not in those categories you just listed, of which they are mostly already not allowed to exercise that right due to due process, )you know, like a drivers license, which is what you compared it to. You are including people not in those categories, however.

 

You are right - I don't want to sell arms to criminals, pedophiles and mentally sick.
I also want that every one who own a gun must pass a test which shows he/she can use it safely, the same as with cars.

 

Does the UK still have a throne and a Queen?

“Under the terms of the 1948 act, Irish aliens, though not British subjects, were to be treated as British subjects when resident in the United Kingdom or other parts of the Empire/Commonwealth. This provision stemmed from U.K. policy makers' desire to preserve both a useful labor supply and cordial relations with the Irish Free State. Its terms were repeated in the Republic of Ireland Act, 1949, following Ireland's departure from the Commonwealth and assumption of republican status. For a more detailed explication of the negotiations and the reasoning behind this, see Kathleen Paul, “A Case of Mistaken Identity: The Irish in Post-war Britain,” International Labor and Working-Class History (in press). While emphasizing the continuity of British subjecthood, the bill provided for the alternative title of “Commonwealth citizen” for those residents of the Empire who resented the implications of the term “subject.” Ironically, this clause, originally inserted in order to appease dominion and colonial nationalisms, became a means of discrimination against non-U.K. residents. Both the 1962 and 1968 immigration bills referred to the control of “Commonwealth citizen” rather than “British subject” immigration. By using the term “Commonwealth citizen,” the U.K. government suggested that the restrictions were being placed on members of the Commonwealth rather than on British subjects. Compare this change of heart to 1948 when “British subject” was all and “Commonwealth citizen” a quiet, barely mentioned, alternative.”
CAMBRIDGE CORE, Journal of British Studies, “British Subjects” and “British Stock”: Labour's Postwar Imperialism, By Kathleen Paul, 10 January 2014.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/jour...-imperialism/A2AA88C0874A7637E1423E9776D1AF6D

 

Plenty of people own cars who don’t have licenses or even insurance. And it could be decades since they took a drivers test. Owning a car also isn’t in the constitution BTW, most people who legally own firearms know how to use them safely. Accidents are still rare. Far more rare than car accidents for example.

 

It's still possible because of weak laws.

 

It's according to a US governmental agency, and they give a link to it.
So the discrimination is even to be found when judges passes the sentence to a criminal. That leaves zero to the imagination how things are in every day life in the US. And so it's obvious black people are also discriminated when sending in their resumes... as I also sourced. So the question is more, how much of a white nationalist are you now to refuse to concede to this, or are you conceding?

 

Of course it is possible to break the law.
It's -always- possible to break the law; as such it is impossible to prevent someone from breaking the law.
Fact remains: It's -still- against the law. When someone does it, enforce the law.

 

I served in the army and I saw many accidents. What should be taught? Never point gun to a person for a fun. Check TWICE if you removed bullets from a gun. Keep you guns in a place unreachable for kids.Know how to assemble and disassemble the gun.

Now about accidents with guns (each year about 500 people die from gun accidents, much more are wounded):
https://efsgv.org/learn/type-of-gun-violence/unintentional-shootings/

 

They should make a law about enforcing the law

 

Why do you try and derail every thread with a post about racism, even when it has absolutely nothing to do with racism? Every thread.

 

I read it. It starts with "Nottingham", and it then names other cities.
I published data of the ENTIRE country.

 

Not too many. How many guns are in circulation? Then do some math on how often accidents are happening. Any accident is too many when it comes to a gun, but cars certainly kill and injure a lot of people every year too. But there isn’t a rush to test everyones driving skills each year. It would save ALOT more lives. And it’s not a sexy subject.