so a license and a car are a right? is that right? musta missed that in reading the bill of rights.
The right to not have another human being impede on your freedom! Being able to force you to do something. Take your time. Resources And that of the police. Directed by government, politicians!
The government and police indirectly directed by the people.
Man, Callen... you talk of living in fear... yet here you oppose routine traffic stops that are placed with the safety of the general public in mind.
If they start stopping cars to discover your political affiliations... let us know and we can have a discussion. Right now... they are trying to make a presence to deter drunks from killing our children- hardly something to frown upon.
And that's just it. You are allowing the government to stop you for no reason to search you. Obedient. What's next? I don't want to give the government this right. Nor should you. And none of this is related to DWI's.
Think critically folks. Think what your giving up. Think of countries were their police have all power over you. Do you really want to live in a police state?
Alcohol kills people at times. This is true. Fat kills people too. So does a sedentary lifestyle. Don't forget the f**king sun too- bastard star that strikes us with cancer. And cars... the big comparison for gun strokers.
Big f**king deal. None of the above items have been designed for the purpose of killing things. Every death that results from the discharge of a firearm marks an event where the gun- as a tool- has performed admirably and served its purpose exactly as designed.
Stop trying to weakly validate guns and their rightful place in society by comparing them to esophagus sized wieners that people choke on and the like. If gun lovers would just say, "F**k you guys. I f**king love my military style assault rifle and shooting the shit out of my empty beer cans up at the landfill. You'll have to pry my 'fancy' gun from my cold dead hands before I give up shooting beer cans at the landfill... f**kers"... I'd have more respect.
Stop trying to convince intelligent people that there is a reasonable argument. There is not. It's not even close. It's not even remotely close. But as I said... most people aren't very smart and most people are very selfish: gun lovers do not need to fear having their guns taken from them. Instead, they can continue to fear hostile governments with devious plans and home invaders that are plotting an invasion of their home likely at this minute.
In my first post I said I wasn't trying to win anyone over. And I did say I shoot oranges and apples that are rotting at my parents orchard and hope to never shoot at anything else. More fun than empty beer cans, and it even helps with the compost.
I was merely pointing out all the attention that guns receive and a major topic at every debate. Why not spend some of that focus on something that kills even more, like drunk driving? Alcohol may not be designed to kill, but more innocent children die from drunk drivers than as a result from a homicide where a gun was used regardless of that fact. Alcohol is designed to impair judgment, and every time someone gets into a car and kills a 5 year old child because they were drunk and couldn't make the right judgment, the alcohol "has performed admirably and served its purpose exactly as designed." What difference does the purpose make? I think a ban on alcohol is extreme, but when was the last time you heard any politician talk about reducing DUI's? But they can't talk for 5 minutes without bringing up guns.
We can agree on one thing at least....That Bastard Star of ours!
When people see a DUI checkpoint most people are glad the law is being enforced (except for the idiot who had too many and decided to drive).
If police enforced gun laws like they do alcohol laws people would bitch that they are trying to take their guns away.
And Most people are sheep. I don't want to live in a police state and NO human has the right to impead my travels on public lands.
Are you serious? So you're against random checkpoints in high DUI areas? That's far from living in a police state.
And yes, the police do have the right to impede your travel if you are driving by car. A license isn't a right.
I'm with Callen. Completely against random checkpoints. I see it as a violation of the 4th amendment and has no place in this country. It is a completely fascist notion. I understand that the Supremes made it legal in 1990, but it was a hotly debated issue back then and I completely disagree with their ruling that it isn't a violation of a persons protection against illegal search and seizure.Thankfully the Supremes left it up to states to decide, and I live in a state that doesn't allow it.
a fascist notion is murdering 6 million Jews just cause.
we have random breath tests(RBT) here in Australia. no one think its a violation of any right. driving whilst over the legal limit is a crime here. isn't it over there?. if you make the stupid decision to get behind the wheel of a car drunk, putting not only your life but also the lives of others in danger then stiff shit for you if you get caught. better than having to inform ones next of kin youre dead cause you're stupid or informing someone else their child/father/husband/whatever is dead cause some arsehole decided driving whilst drunk was a good idea.
Sad sad sad.
Willing to give up a fundamental right so easily.
And we wonder how Hitler pulled it off.
so you think its a right to drive drunk?
sad sad sad
Dumbest correlation ever on this board. Worse than when Thirty says I like child molesters because I'm against DP.
your point ? or what message are you trying to relay ? gun right's taken away from Americans ? or are you saying stricter gun laws would have saved this girls life ? stricter gun laws will not stop an accident like this they only make it harder for responsible gun owners to have gun's and will not affect the criminals, it seems you keep posting this stuff in effort to tell all of us you want guns taken away from everybody.
gun laws are stricter than they ever have been and cities that ban guns still have gun related killings and robberies ......showed them uhh ?
the only people being affected by gun laws are the responsible gun owners, the criminals don't give a shit about strict gun laws, go ahead and search for how well the strict gun laws are helping America I'm sure some politician has drummed up some propaganda malarial to suit the needs of their fear of guns followers.
I'm a responsible gun owner and let me tell you something amigo, I sleep good at night.
Godfather.
what about a gun law that requires a trigger lock?
WOuld you agree that such a law might at least make it less likely for something like this to happen?
That's generally what laws like that are for...to help prevent innocent loss of life. But people like you will scream that your rights would be taken away and children will continue to die because of irresponsible gun owners.
Remember the Thomas Nine !! (10/02/2018)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago 2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy 2013: London ON, Chicago; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE) 2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston 2020: Oakland, Oakland:2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana 2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville 2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
stricter in a few select places. Ohios laws are very very loose. minimal at best. thousands go out of state and are later found to have been used in crime elsewhere. thats thousands of initially legal purchases.
All guns, at some point during their lifespan, have been legal.
GF... the point is obvious: more guns equals more deaths by guns. Period.
you can say the same about anything, pot, car's, cigarettes, and even a law or two.
Alcohol kills people at times. This is true. Fat kills people too. So does a sedentary lifestyle. Don't forget the f**king sun too- bastard star that strikes us with cancer. And cars... the big comparison for gun strokers.
Big f**king deal. None of the above items have been designed for the purpose of killing things. Every death that results from the discharge of a firearm marks an event where the gun- as a tool- has performed admirably and served its purpose exactly as designed.
Stop trying to weakly validate guns and their rightful place in society by comparing them to esophagus sized wieners that people choke on and the like. If gun lovers would just say, "F**k you guys. I f**king love my military style assault rifle and shooting the shit out of my empty beer cans up at the landfill. You'll have to pry my 'fancy' gun from my cold dead hands before I give up shooting beer cans at the landfill... f**kers"... I'd have more respect.
Stop trying to convince intelligent people that there is a reasonable argument. There is not. It's not even close. It's not even remotely close. But as I said... most people aren't very smart and most people are very selfish: gun lovers do not need to fear having their guns taken from them. Instead, they can continue to fear hostile governments with devious plans and home invaders that are plotting an invasion of their home likely at this minute.
In my first post I said I wasn't trying to win anyone over. And I did say I shoot oranges and apples that are rotting at my parents orchard and hope to never shoot at anything else. More fun than empty beer cans, and it even helps with the compost.
I was merely pointing out all the attention that guns receive and a major topic at every debate. Why not spend some of that focus on something that kills even more, like drunk driving? Alcohol may not be designed to kill, but more innocent children die from drunk drivers than as a result from a homicide where a gun was used regardless of that fact. Alcohol is designed to impair judgment, and every time someone gets into a car and kills a 5 year old child because they were drunk and couldn't make the right judgment, the alcohol "has performed admirably and served its purpose exactly as designed." What difference does the purpose make? I think a ban on alcohol is extreme, but when was the last time you heard any politician talk about reducing DUI's? But they can't talk for 5 minutes without bringing up guns.
We can agree on one thing at least....That Bastard Star of ours!
When people see a DUI checkpoint most people are glad the law is being enforced (except for the idiot who had too many and decided to drive).
If police enforced gun laws like they do alcohol laws people would bitch that they are trying to take their guns away.
And Most people are sheep. I don't want to live in a police state and NO human has the right to impead my travels on public lands.
Are you serious? So you're against random checkpoints in high DUI areas? That's far from living in a police state.
And yes, the police do have the right to impede your travel if you are driving by car. A license isn't a right.
I'm with Callen. Completely against random checkpoints. I see it as a violation of the 4th amendment and has no place in this country. It is a completely fascist notion. I understand that the Supremes made it legal in 1990, but it was a hotly debated issue back then and I completely disagree with their ruling that it isn't a violation of a persons protection against illegal search and seizure.Thankfully the Supremes left it up to states to decide, and I live in a state that doesn't allow it.
a fascist notion is murdering 6 million Jews just cause.
we have random breath tests(RBT) here in Australia. no one think its a violation of any right. driving whilst over the legal limit is a crime here. isn't it over there?. if you make the stupid decision to get behind the wheel of a car drunk, putting not only your life but also the lives of others in danger then stiff shit for you if you get caught. better than having to inform ones next of kin youre dead cause you're stupid or informing someone else their child/father/husband/whatever is dead cause some arsehole decided driving whilst drunk was a good idea.
Sad sad sad.
Willing to give up a fundamental right so easily.
And we wonder how Hitler pulled it off.
so you think its a right to drive drunk?
sad sad sad
Dumbest correlation ever on this board. Worse than when Thirty says I like child molesters because I'm against DP.
Alcohol kills people at times. This is true. Fat kills people too. So does a sedentary lifestyle. Don't forget the f**king sun too- bastard star that strikes us with cancer. And cars... the big comparison for gun strokers.
Big f**king deal. None of the above items have been designed for the purpose of killing things. Every death that results from the discharge of a firearm marks an event where the gun- as a tool- has performed admirably and served its purpose exactly as designed.
Stop trying to weakly validate guns and their rightful place in society by comparing them to esophagus sized wieners that people choke on and the like. If gun lovers would just say, "F**k you guys. I f**king love my military style assault rifle and shooting the shit out of my empty beer cans up at the landfill. You'll have to pry my 'fancy' gun from my cold dead hands before I give up shooting beer cans at the landfill... f**kers"... I'd have more respect.
Stop trying to convince intelligent people that there is a reasonable argument. There is not. It's not even close. It's not even remotely close. But as I said... most people aren't very smart and most people are very selfish: gun lovers do not need to fear having their guns taken from them. Instead, they can continue to fear hostile governments with devious plans and home invaders that are plotting an invasion of their home likely at this minute.
In my first post I said I wasn't trying to win anyone over. And I did say I shoot oranges and apples that are rotting at my parents orchard and hope to never shoot at anything else. More fun than empty beer cans, and it even helps with the compost.
I was merely pointing out all the attention that guns receive and a major topic at every debate. Why not spend some of that focus on something that kills even more, like drunk driving? Alcohol may not be designed to kill, but more innocent children die from drunk drivers than as a result from a homicide where a gun was used regardless of that fact. Alcohol is designed to impair judgment, and every time someone gets into a car and kills a 5 year old child because they were drunk and couldn't make the right judgment, the alcohol "has performed admirably and served its purpose exactly as designed." What difference does the purpose make? I think a ban on alcohol is extreme, but when was the last time you heard any politician talk about reducing DUI's? But they can't talk for 5 minutes without bringing up guns.
We can agree on one thing at least....That Bastard Star of ours!
When people see a DUI checkpoint most people are glad the law is being enforced (except for the idiot who had too many and decided to drive).
If police enforced gun laws like they do alcohol laws people would bitch that they are trying to take their guns away.
And Most people are sheep. I don't want to live in a police state and NO human has the right to impead my travels on public lands.
Are you serious? So you're against random checkpoints in high DUI areas? That's far from living in a police state.
And yes, the police do have the right to impede your travel if you are driving by car. A license isn't a right.
Are you serious about living in a place where the police can stop you at anytime and fuck with you??? REALLY? Like in China and North Korea?
Cops pull everyone over Into a Church parking lot, file them through check point. Herding the sheep. And many just say bahhhhhh.
Fk that.
and the dwi thing so many are willing to give up their liberty, there's already an avenue, .."probable cause".
............fk imagine being a minority in fkn South Carolina coming up to a road block.
I've never said racism doesn't still exist, especially in my,state. I've never been through a checkpoint and been "herded" through a parking lot. Every single time ive been through one, the entire process took no more than 5 minutes. Seems like a small price to pay in an effort to decrease DUIs. But what do I know? I've only been a fireman for 13 years. I guess I haven't seen enough death yet directly caused by impaired driving.
Horrible price to pay. Giving up your rights as a free human.
I don't see how this is giving up a right. Driving is not a right, it requires a license. That also requires time, going to the DMV, paperwork, etc. Is giving yup an afternoon to go to the DMV taking away your human rights too? In many states by having a driver's license you are granting permission to perform alcohol tests. I have never even been asked to exit my vehicle when at a DUI checkpoint. They simply ask 1 or 2 questions and wave me on. And as others have pointed out if you don't wish to agree to that, no one is forcing you to drive.
Alcohol kills people at times. This is true. Fat kills people too. So does a sedentary lifestyle. Don't forget the f**king sun too- bastard star that strikes us with cancer. And cars... the big comparison for gun strokers.
Big f**king deal. None of the above items have been designed for the purpose of killing things. Every death that results from the discharge of a firearm marks an event where the gun- as a tool- has performed admirably and served its purpose exactly as designed.
Stop trying to weakly validate guns and their rightful place in society by comparing them to esophagus sized wieners that people choke on and the like. If gun lovers would just say, "F**k you guys. I f**king love my military style assault rifle and shooting the shit out of my empty beer cans up at the landfill. You'll have to pry my 'fancy' gun from my cold dead hands before I give up shooting beer cans at the landfill... f**kers"... I'd have more respect.
Stop trying to convince intelligent people that there is a reasonable argument. There is not. It's not even close. It's not even remotely close. But as I said... most people aren't very smart and most people are very selfish: gun lovers do not need to fear having their guns taken from them. Instead, they can continue to fear hostile governments with devious plans and home invaders that are plotting an invasion of their home likely at this minute.
In my first post I said I wasn't trying to win anyone over. And I did say I shoot oranges and apples that are rotting at my parents orchard and hope to never shoot at anything else. More fun than empty beer cans, and it even helps with the compost.
I was merely pointing out all the attention that guns receive and a major topic at every debate. Why not spend some of that focus on something that kills even more, like drunk driving? Alcohol may not be designed to kill, but more innocent children die from drunk drivers than as a result from a homicide where a gun was used regardless of that fact. Alcohol is designed to impair judgment, and every time someone gets into a car and kills a 5 year old child because they were drunk and couldn't make the right judgment, the alcohol "has performed admirably and served its purpose exactly as designed." What difference does the purpose make? I think a ban on alcohol is extreme, but when was the last time you heard any politician talk about reducing DUI's? But they can't talk for 5 minutes without bringing up guns.
We can agree on one thing at least....That Bastard Star of ours!
When people see a DUI checkpoint most people are glad the law is being enforced (except for the idiot who had too many and decided to drive).
If police enforced gun laws like they do alcohol laws people would bitch that they are trying to take their guns away.
And Most people are sheep. I don't want to live in a police state and NO human has the right to impead my travels on public lands.
Are you serious? So you're against random checkpoints in high DUI areas? That's far from living in a police state.
And yes, the police do have the right to impede your travel if you are driving by car. A license isn't a right.
Are you serious about living in a place where the police can stop you at anytime and fuck with you??? REALLY? Like in China and North Korea?
Cops pull everyone over Into a Church parking lot, file them through check point. Herding the sheep. And many just say bahhhhhh.
Fk that.
and the dwi thing so many are willing to give up their liberty, there's already an avenue, .."probable cause".
............fk imagine being a minority in fkn South Carolina coming up to a road block.
I've never said racism doesn't still exist, especially in my,state. I've never been through a checkpoint and been "herded" through a parking lot. Every single time ive been through one, the entire process took no more than 5 minutes. Seems like a small price to pay in an effort to decrease DUIs. But what do I know? I've only been a fireman for 13 years. I guess I haven't seen enough death yet directly caused by impaired driving.
Horrible price to pay. Giving up your rights as a free human.
I don't see how this is giving up a right. Driving is not a right, it requires a license. That also requires time, going to the DMV, paperwork, etc. Is giving yup an afternoon to go to the DMV taking away your human rights too? In many states by having a driver's license you are granting permission to perform alcohol tests. I have never even been asked to exit my vehicle when at a DUI checkpoint. They simply ask 1 or 2 questions and wave me on. And as others have pointed out if you don't wish to agree to that, no one is forcing you to drive.
A 91 page thread and you just made the best post so far.
Alcohol kills people at times. This is true. Fat kills people too. So does a sedentary lifestyle. Don't forget the f**king sun too- bastard star that strikes us with cancer. And cars... the big comparison for gun strokers.
Big f**king deal. None of the above items have been designed for the purpose of killing things. Every death that results from the discharge of a firearm marks an event where the gun- as a tool- has performed admirably and served its purpose exactly as designed.
Stop trying to weakly validate guns and their rightful place in society by comparing them to esophagus sized wieners that people choke on and the like. If gun lovers would just say, "F**k you guys. I f**king love my military style assault rifle and shooting the shit out of my empty beer cans up at the landfill. You'll have to pry my 'fancy' gun from my cold dead hands before I give up shooting beer cans at the landfill... f**kers"... I'd have more respect.
Stop trying to convince intelligent people that there is a reasonable argument. There is not. It's not even close. It's not even remotely close. But as I said... most people aren't very smart and most people are very selfish: gun lovers do not need to fear having their guns taken from them. Instead, they can continue to fear hostile governments with devious plans and home invaders that are plotting an invasion of their home likely at this minute.
In my first post I said I wasn't trying to win anyone over. And I did say I shoot oranges and apples that are rotting at my parents orchard and hope to never shoot at anything else. More fun than empty beer cans, and it even helps with the compost.
I was merely pointing out all the attention that guns receive and a major topic at every debate. Why not spend some of that focus on something that kills even more, like drunk driving? Alcohol may not be designed to kill, but more innocent children die from drunk drivers than as a result from a homicide where a gun was used regardless of that fact. Alcohol is designed to impair judgment, and every time someone gets into a car and kills a 5 year old child because they were drunk and couldn't make the right judgment, the alcohol "has performed admirably and served its purpose exactly as designed." What difference does the purpose make? I think a ban on alcohol is extreme, but when was the last time you heard any politician talk about reducing DUI's? But they can't talk for 5 minutes without bringing up guns.
We can agree on one thing at least....That Bastard Star of ours!
When people see a DUI checkpoint most people are glad the law is being enforced (except for the idiot who had too many and decided to drive).
If police enforced gun laws like they do alcohol laws people would bitch that they are trying to take their guns away.
And Most people are sheep. I don't want to live in a police state and NO human has the right to impead my travels on public lands.
Are you serious? So you're against random checkpoints in high DUI areas? That's far from living in a police state.
And yes, the police do have the right to impede your travel if you are driving by car. A license isn't a right.
They actually don't have the right to impede your travel without a cause. But its so easy to find a probably cause they may as well. Changed lanes too fast/too slow, turned too sharp, it wouldn't be difficult to attempt to justify any stop.
your point ? or what message are you trying to relay ? gun right's taken away from Americans ? or are you saying stricter gun laws would have saved this girls life ? stricter gun laws will not stop an accident like this they only make it harder for responsible gun owners to have gun's and will not affect the criminals, it seems you keep posting this stuff in effort to tell all of us you want guns taken away from everybody.
gun laws are stricter than they ever have been and cities that ban guns still have gun related killings and robberies ......showed them uhh ?
the only people being affected by gun laws are the responsible gun owners, the criminals don't give a shit about strict gun laws, go ahead and search for how well the strict gun laws are helping America I'm sure some politician has drummed up some propaganda malarial to suit the needs of their fear of guns followers.
I'm a responsible gun owner and let me tell you something amigo, I sleep good at night.
Godfather.
what about a gun law that requires a trigger lock?
WOuld you agree that such a law might at least make it less likely for something like this to happen?
That's generally what laws like that are for...to help prevent innocent loss of life. But people like you will scream that your rights would be taken away and children will continue to die because of irresponsible gun owners.
my thought is even with a trigger lock it would only take someone to forget to put it on. all new guns in Florida are sold with some kind of locking device that I've noticed and if they are used or not is up the owner I guess, keeping a gun from kid's is a no brainer I couldn't imagine how a parent would feel if their child found their gun and something bad happened but I don't believe it is just cause for a law to limit gun ownership or throw some other bullshit law into the mix
your point ? or what message are you trying to relay ? gun right's taken away from Americans ? or are you saying stricter gun laws would have saved this girls life ? stricter gun laws will not stop an accident like this they only make it harder for responsible gun owners to have gun's and will not affect the criminals, it seems you keep posting this stuff in effort to tell all of us you want guns taken away from everybody.
gun laws are stricter than they ever have been and cities that ban guns still have gun related killings and robberies ......showed them uhh ?
the only people being affected by gun laws are the responsible gun owners, the criminals don't give a shit about strict gun laws, go ahead and search for how well the strict gun laws are helping America I'm sure some politician has drummed up some propaganda malarial to suit the needs of their fear of guns followers.
I'm a responsible gun owner and let me tell you something amigo, I sleep good at night.
Godfather.
what about a gun law that requires a trigger lock?
WOuld you agree that such a law might at least make it less likely for something like this to happen?
That's generally what laws like that are for...to help prevent innocent loss of life. But people like you will scream that your rights would be taken away and children will continue to die because of irresponsible gun owners.
my thought is even with a trigger lock it would only take someone to forget to put it on. all new guns in Florida are sold with some kind of locking device that I've noticed and if they are used or not is up the owner I guess, keeping a gun from kid's is a no brainer I couldn't imagine how a parent would feel if their child found their gun and something bad happened but I don't believe it is just cause for a law to limit gun ownership or throw some other bullshit law into the mix
Godfather.
I think most gun owners don't mind rational laws. Trigger locks make sense. I was only annoyed by that because I bought several on clearance from a store going out of business before it was even a law and kept them for future use. Now I'm still required to buy a new one with every gun purchase, even though I have a bunch in unopened packages, but that's a first world problem. And most of the time I don't even use them anyway because they are stored in a gun safe that are 100 times more secure than a simple trigger lock, but I consider buying a $10 lock as part of the cost of a gun to help find a solution to gun violence and that's okay.
Its the irrational gun laws that irritate most gun owners. (Depending on your state) Laws that aren't designed to protect anyone, but designed to just be a hassle. Some features are banned because they look mean, and nothing to do with functionality. Some guns made one year are legal, but the identical gun made the following year is not (without any changes to the gun). Some guns you can buy it used, but not new. Those laws are designed to complicate things so that the gun manufactures and dealers stop selling in certain states, and nothing about safety in mind.
The right is always pissing their pants about gun control. Most if not all of the suggestions that I have seen from the left relate to stronger background checks and assault weapon controls.
Faux News controls the sheep.
Remember the Thomas Nine !! (10/02/2018)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago 2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy 2013: London ON, Chicago; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE) 2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston 2020: Oakland, Oakland:2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana 2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville 2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
The right is always pissing their pants about gun control. Most if not all of the suggestions that I have seen from the left relate to stronger background checks and assault weapon controls.
Faux News controls the sheep.
Maybe those are the suggestions, but some of the laws that are in affect are different, at least from my experience.
Living in CA with already gun laws and background checks I've come across that many times. I have no interest in assault rifles so I am not as familiar with those laws and restrictions. I like classic revolvers and lever action rifles, things out of the old west. But on multiple occasions have found a gun is restricted because of the reasons I mentioned above. Zero consideration to safety. Obviously there are many guns laws that do have good safety measures, but there are some that don't.
The right is always pissing their pants about gun control. Most if not all of the suggestions that I have seen from the left relate to stronger background checks and assault weapon controls.
Faux News controls the sheep.
Maybe those are the suggestions, but some of the laws that are in affect are different, at least from my experience.
Living in CA with already gun laws and background checks I've come across that many times. I have no interest in assault rifles so I am not as familiar with those laws and restrictions. I like classic revolvers and lever action rifles, things out of the old west. But on multiple occasions have found a gun is restricted because of the reasons I mentioned above. Zero consideration to safety. Obviously there are many guns laws that do have good safety measures, but there are some that don't.
example? What law are you referring to?
Remember the Thomas Nine !! (10/02/2018)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago 2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy 2013: London ON, Chicago; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE) 2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston 2020: Oakland, Oakland:2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana 2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville 2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
I listed some above. Some guns are banned literally because they "look mean."
I'm not a gun expert or dealer, but my understanding is other guns can be purchased used if it is already in the state, but no new guns of that make and model can be brought through state lines. Or a gun made in 2001 is fine, but an identical 2002 is illegal. I've been told through gun dealers this is a result of extensive (aka expensive) testing such as the gun drop test. Most states require a test once, where CA may require it every year even if no changes are made to the gun, requiring gun manufactures to pay high fees to complete the testing on a gun that is already being sold and already passed the safety tests. So a gun made while the tests were performed are okay, any year after (even though they are identical) are not. CA is one of a few, if not the only, state with those requirements.
I listed some above. Some guns are banned literally because they "look mean."
I'm not a gun expert or dealer, but my understanding is other guns can be purchased used if it is already in the state, but no new guns of that make and model can be brought through state lines. Or a gun made in 2001 is fine, but an identical 2002 is illegal. I've been told through gun dealers this is a result of extensive (aka expensive) testing such as the gun drop test. Most states require a test once, where CA may require it every year even if no changes are made to the gun, requiring gun manufactures to pay high fees to complete the testing on a gun that is already being sold and already passed the safety tests. So a gun made while the tests were performed are okay, any year after (even though they are identical) are not. CA is one of a few, if not the only, state with those requirements.
but you said "zero consideration to safety" when it appears that the gun drop test relates to safety
That's why I asked...there is generally a good reason for restrictions. Reasons beyond "the gubment dun gone tak ma gunz away"
Remember the Thomas Nine !! (10/02/2018)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago 2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy 2013: London ON, Chicago; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE) 2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston 2020: Oakland, Oakland:2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana 2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville 2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
I quoted "looks mean" but I believe the quote was from Feinstein and was "looks scary." Which is why some grips are banned. I am for reasonable gun control and checks.
The drop test is for safety, but to be one of the only, if not the only state to require it multiple times for the same gun is not necessary. With expensive testing and state registration fees for it, the implication most have for that is to limit the gun manufactures, and not necessarily for the safety of the test. And the result is two identical guns where one is legal and the other is not so it has no impact on safety (after it passes the first test).
I will admit there are also gun laws that allow loopholes as well that gun owners take advantage of. For example assault rifles can not have a detachable magazine. It is not considered "detachable" if a tool is required to remove it. So guns are made so the magazine can be removed using a spare bullet as a tool (basically a hole too big for a finger, but the tip of the bullet will fit in to push a button that detaches the magazine) and a new magazine can be used. This obviously defeats the intent of the law.
Alcohol kills people at times. This is true. Fat kills people too. So does a sedentary lifestyle. Don't forget the f**king sun too- bastard star that strikes us with cancer. And cars... the big comparison for gun strokers.
Big f**king deal. None of the above items have been designed for the purpose of killing things. Every death that results from the discharge of a firearm marks an event where the gun- as a tool- has performed admirably and served its purpose exactly as designed.
Stop trying to weakly validate guns and their rightful place in society by comparing them to esophagus sized wieners that people choke on and the like. If gun lovers would just say, "F**k you guys. I f**king love my military style assault rifle and shooting the shit out of my empty beer cans up at the landfill. You'll have to pry my 'fancy' gun from my cold dead hands before I give up shooting beer cans at the landfill... f**kers"... I'd have more respect.
Stop trying to convince intelligent people that there is a reasonable argument. There is not. It's not even close. It's not even remotely close. But as I said... most people aren't very smart and most people are very selfish: gun lovers do not need to fear having their guns taken from them. Instead, they can continue to fear hostile governments with devious plans and home invaders that are plotting an invasion of their home likely at this minute.
In my first post I said I wasn't trying to win anyone over. And I did say I shoot oranges and apples that are rotting at my parents orchard and hope to never shoot at anything else. More fun than empty beer cans, and it even helps with the compost.
I was merely pointing out all the attention that guns receive and a major topic at every debate. Why not spend some of that focus on something that kills even more, like drunk driving? Alcohol may not be designed to kill, but more innocent children die from drunk drivers than as a result from a homicide where a gun was used regardless of that fact. Alcohol is designed to impair judgment, and every time someone gets into a car and kills a 5 year old child because they were drunk and couldn't make the right judgment, the alcohol "has performed admirably and served its purpose exactly as designed." What difference does the purpose make? I think a ban on alcohol is extreme, but when was the last time you heard any politician talk about reducing DUI's? But they can't talk for 5 minutes without bringing up guns.
We can agree on one thing at least....That Bastard Star of ours!
When people see a DUI checkpoint most people are glad the law is being enforced (except for the idiot who had too many and decided to drive).
If police enforced gun laws like they do alcohol laws people would bitch that they are trying to take their guns away.
And Most people are sheep. I don't want to live in a police state and NO human has the right to impead my travels on public lands.
Are you serious? So you're against random checkpoints in high DUI areas? That's far from living in a police state.
And yes, the police do have the right to impede your travel if you are driving by car. A license isn't a right.
They actually don't have the right to impede your travel without a cause. But its so easy to find a probably cause they may as well. Changed lanes too fast/too slow, turned too sharp, it wouldn't be difficult to attempt to justify any stop.
I guess it depends on your definition of impede your travel. Yes, police need to see a violation of a "primary" offense to pull you over. But DUI checkpoints also impede your travel and are legal.
will myself to find a home, a home within myself we will find a way, we will find our place
Alcohol kills people at times. This is true. Fat kills people too. So does a sedentary lifestyle. Don't forget the f**king sun too- bastard star that strikes us with cancer. And cars... the big comparison for gun strokers.
Big f**king deal. None of the above items have been designed for the purpose of killing things. Every death that results from the discharge of a firearm marks an event where the gun- as a tool- has performed admirably and served its purpose exactly as designed.
Stop trying to weakly validate guns and their rightful place in society by comparing them to esophagus sized wieners that people choke on and the like. If gun lovers would just say, "F**k you guys. I f**king love my military style assault rifle and shooting the shit out of my empty beer cans up at the landfill. You'll have to pry my 'fancy' gun from my cold dead hands before I give up shooting beer cans at the landfill... f**kers"... I'd have more respect.
Stop trying to convince intelligent people that there is a reasonable argument. There is not. It's not even close. It's not even remotely close. But as I said... most people aren't very smart and most people are very selfish: gun lovers do not need to fear having their guns taken from them. Instead, they can continue to fear hostile governments with devious plans and home invaders that are plotting an invasion of their home likely at this minute.
In my first post I said I wasn't trying to win anyone over. And I did say I shoot oranges and apples that are rotting at my parents orchard and hope to never shoot at anything else. More fun than empty beer cans, and it even helps with the compost.
I was merely pointing out all the attention that guns receive and a major topic at every debate. Why not spend some of that focus on something that kills even more, like drunk driving? Alcohol may not be designed to kill, but more innocent children die from drunk drivers than as a result from a homicide where a gun was used regardless of that fact. Alcohol is designed to impair judgment, and every time someone gets into a car and kills a 5 year old child because they were drunk and couldn't make the right judgment, the alcohol "has performed admirably and served its purpose exactly as designed." What difference does the purpose make? I think a ban on alcohol is extreme, but when was the last time you heard any politician talk about reducing DUI's? But they can't talk for 5 minutes without bringing up guns.
We can agree on one thing at least....That Bastard Star of ours!
When people see a DUI checkpoint most people are glad the law is being enforced (except for the idiot who had too many and decided to drive).
If police enforced gun laws like they do alcohol laws people would bitch that they are trying to take their guns away.
And Most people are sheep. I don't want to live in a police state and NO human has the right to impead my travels on public lands.
Are you serious? So you're against random checkpoints in high DUI areas? That's far from living in a police state.
And yes, the police do have the right to impede your travel if you are driving by car. A license isn't a right.
I'm with Callen. Completely against random checkpoints. I see it as a violation of the 4th amendment and has no place in this country. It is a completely fascist notion. I understand that the Supremes made it legal in 1990, but it was a hotly debated issue back then and I completely disagree with their ruling that it isn't a violation of a persons protection against illegal search and seizure.Thankfully the Supremes left it up to states to decide, and I live in a state that doesn't allow it.
a fascist notion is murdering 6 million Jews just cause.
we have random breath tests(RBT) here in Australia. no one think its a violation of any right. driving whilst over the legal limit is a crime here. isn't it over there?. if you make the stupid decision to get behind the wheel of a car drunk, putting not only your life but also the lives of others in danger then stiff shit for you if you get caught. better than having to inform ones next of kin youre dead cause you're stupid or informing someone else their child/father/husband/whatever is dead cause some arsehole decided driving whilst drunk was a good idea.
Sad sad sad.
Willing to give up a fundamental right so easily.
And we wonder how Hitler pulled it off.
so you think its a right to drive drunk?
sad sad sad
I can't tell if you're just reading what you want into this discussion, are intentionally misconstruing what people are saying, or just not understanding, but nobody is condoning drunk driving. Some of us just have a different tolerance level for authoritarian state actions.
im trying to understand why anyone would take issue with a checkpoint whose sole purpose is to catch people driving over the legal alcohol limit and remove them from the roads. I don't see RBT(random breath test) as they're called here in Australia as an authoritarian measure nor an invasion of my rights.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Alcohol kills people at times. This is true. Fat kills people too. So does a sedentary lifestyle. Don't forget the f**king sun too- bastard star that strikes us with cancer. And cars... the big comparison for gun strokers.
Big f**king deal. None of the above items have been designed for the purpose of killing things. Every death that results from the discharge of a firearm marks an event where the gun- as a tool- has performed admirably and served its purpose exactly as designed.
Stop trying to weakly validate guns and their rightful place in society by comparing them to esophagus sized wieners that people choke on and the like. If gun lovers would just say, "F**k you guys. I f**king love my military style assault rifle and shooting the shit out of my empty beer cans up at the landfill. You'll have to pry my 'fancy' gun from my cold dead hands before I give up shooting beer cans at the landfill... f**kers"... I'd have more respect.
Stop trying to convince intelligent people that there is a reasonable argument. There is not. It's not even close. It's not even remotely close. But as I said... most people aren't very smart and most people are very selfish: gun lovers do not need to fear having their guns taken from them. Instead, they can continue to fear hostile governments with devious plans and home invaders that are plotting an invasion of their home likely at this minute.
In my first post I said I wasn't trying to win anyone over. And I did say I shoot oranges and apples that are rotting at my parents orchard and hope to never shoot at anything else. More fun than empty beer cans, and it even helps with the compost.
I was merely pointing out all the attention that guns receive and a major topic at every debate. Why not spend some of that focus on something that kills even more, like drunk driving? Alcohol may not be designed to kill, but more innocent children die from drunk drivers than as a result from a homicide where a gun was used regardless of that fact. Alcohol is designed to impair judgment, and every time someone gets into a car and kills a 5 year old child because they were drunk and couldn't make the right judgment, the alcohol "has performed admirably and served its purpose exactly as designed." What difference does the purpose make? I think a ban on alcohol is extreme, but when was the last time you heard any politician talk about reducing DUI's? But they can't talk for 5 minutes without bringing up guns.
We can agree on one thing at least....That Bastard Star of ours!
When people see a DUI checkpoint most people are glad the law is being enforced (except for the idiot who had too many and decided to drive).
If police enforced gun laws like they do alcohol laws people would bitch that they are trying to take their guns away.
And Most people are sheep. I don't want to live in a police state and NO human has the right to impead my travels on public lands.
Are you serious? So you're against random checkpoints in high DUI areas? That's far from living in a police state.
And yes, the police do have the right to impede your travel if you are driving by car. A license isn't a right.
I'm with Callen. Completely against random checkpoints. I see it as a violation of the 4th amendment and has no place in this country. It is a completely fascist notion. I understand that the Supremes made it legal in 1990, but it was a hotly debated issue back then and I completely disagree with their ruling that it isn't a violation of a persons protection against illegal search and seizure.Thankfully the Supremes left it up to states to decide, and I live in a state that doesn't allow it.
a fascist notion is murdering 6 million Jews just cause.
we have random breath tests(RBT) here in Australia. no one think its a violation of any right. driving whilst over the legal limit is a crime here. isn't it over there?. if you make the stupid decision to get behind the wheel of a car drunk, putting not only your life but also the lives of others in danger then stiff shit for you if you get caught. better than having to inform ones next of kin youre dead cause you're stupid or informing someone else their child/father/husband/whatever is dead cause some arsehole decided driving whilst drunk was a good idea.
Sad sad sad.
Willing to give up a fundamental right so easily.
And we wonder how Hitler pulled it off.
so you think its a right to drive drunk?
sad sad sad
I can't tell if you're just reading what you want into this discussion, are intentionally misconstruing what people are saying, or just not understanding, but nobody is condoning drunk driving. Some of us just have a different tolerance level for authoritarian state actions.
im trying to understand why anyone would take issue with a checkpoint whose sole purpose is to catch people driving over the legal alcohol limit and remove them from the roads. I don't see RBT(random breath test) as they're called here in Australia as an authoritarian measure nor an invasion of my rights.
agreed, but they're also a great source of revenue in California, ever notice they always do them on holiday's or during a celebration of some kind, a few of my friends have had 502's and it cost them in the end about $10,000 when all was said and done.
Alcohol kills people at times. This is true. Fat kills people too. So does a sedentary lifestyle. Don't forget the f**king sun too- bastard star that strikes us with cancer. And cars... the big comparison for gun strokers.
Big f**king deal. None of the above items have been designed for the purpose of killing things. Every death that results from the discharge of a firearm marks an event where the gun- as a tool- has performed admirably and served its purpose exactly as designed.
Stop trying to weakly validate guns and their rightful place in society by comparing them to esophagus sized wieners that people choke on and the like. If gun lovers would just say, "F**k you guys. I f**king love my military style assault rifle and shooting the shit out of my empty beer cans up at the landfill. You'll have to pry my 'fancy' gun from my cold dead hands before I give up shooting beer cans at the landfill... f**kers"... I'd have more respect.
Stop trying to convince intelligent people that there is a reasonable argument. There is not. It's not even close. It's not even remotely close. But as I said... most people aren't very smart and most people are very selfish: gun lovers do not need to fear having their guns taken from them. Instead, they can continue to fear hostile governments with devious plans and home invaders that are plotting an invasion of their home likely at this minute.
In my first post I said I wasn't trying to win anyone over. And I did say I shoot oranges and apples that are rotting at my parents orchard and hope to never shoot at anything else. More fun than empty beer cans, and it even helps with the compost.
I was merely pointing out all the attention that guns receive and a major topic at every debate. Why not spend some of that focus on something that kills even more, like drunk driving? Alcohol may not be designed to kill, but more innocent children die from drunk drivers than as a result from a homicide where a gun was used regardless of that fact. Alcohol is designed to impair judgment, and every time someone gets into a car and kills a 5 year old child because they were drunk and couldn't make the right judgment, the alcohol "has performed admirably and served its purpose exactly as designed." What difference does the purpose make? I think a ban on alcohol is extreme, but when was the last time you heard any politician talk about reducing DUI's? But they can't talk for 5 minutes without bringing up guns.
We can agree on one thing at least....That Bastard Star of ours!
When people see a DUI checkpoint most people are glad the law is being enforced (except for the idiot who had too many and decided to drive).
If police enforced gun laws like they do alcohol laws people would bitch that they are trying to take their guns away.
And Most people are sheep. I don't want to live in a police state and NO human has the right to impead my travels on public lands.
Are you serious? So you're against random checkpoints in high DUI areas? That's far from living in a police state.
And yes, the police do have the right to impede your travel if you are driving by car. A license isn't a right.
I'm with Callen. Completely against random checkpoints. I see it as a violation of the 4th amendment and has no place in this country. It is a completely fascist notion. I understand that the Supremes made it legal in 1990, but it was a hotly debated issue back then and I completely disagree with their ruling that it isn't a violation of a persons protection against illegal search and seizure.Thankfully the Supremes left it up to states to decide, and I live in a state that doesn't allow it.
a fascist notion is murdering 6 million Jews just cause.
we have random breath tests(RBT) here in Australia. no one think its a violation of any right. driving whilst over the legal limit is a crime here. isn't it over there?. if you make the stupid decision to get behind the wheel of a car drunk, putting not only your life but also the lives of others in danger then stiff shit for you if you get caught. better than having to inform ones next of kin youre dead cause you're stupid or informing someone else their child/father/husband/whatever is dead cause some arsehole decided driving whilst drunk was a good idea.
Sad sad sad.
Willing to give up a fundamental right so easily.
And we wonder how Hitler pulled it off.
so you think its a right to drive drunk?
sad sad sad
I can't tell if you're just reading what you want into this discussion, are intentionally misconstruing what people are saying, or just not understanding, but nobody is condoning drunk driving. Some of us just have a different tolerance level for authoritarian state actions.
im trying to understand why anyone would take issue with a checkpoint whose sole purpose is to catch people driving over the legal alcohol limit and remove them from the roads. I don't see RBT(random breath test) as they're called here in Australia as an authoritarian measure nor an invasion of my rights.
agreed, but they're also a great source of revenue in California, ever notice they always do them on holiday's or during a celebration of some kind, a few of my friends have had 502's and it cost them in the end about $10,000 when all was said and done.
Of course they do them more on holidays, since that's when people are more likely to drink. I have no sympathy for people who get caught driving while impaired and have to pay a fine (though I'll admit I don't know what a 502 is, since I don't live in California). In BC you would have a driving prohibition for a period of time, may have to do a driving course, may have to have an interlock device put in, and may also face criminal charges. I don't have a problem with any of that, as long as the method of measuring impairment is valid.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
Of course they do them more on holidays, since that's when people are more likely to drink. I have no sympathy for people who get caught driving while impaired and have to pay a fine (though I'll admit I don't know what a 502 is, since I don't live in California). In BC you would have a driving prohibition for a period of time, may have to do a driving course, may have to have an interlock device put in, and may also face criminal charges. I don't have a problem with any of that, as long as the method of measuring impairment is valid.
I listed some above. Some guns are banned literally because they "look mean."
I'm not a gun expert or dealer, but my understanding is other guns can be purchased used if it is already in the state, but no new guns of that make and model can be brought through state lines. Or a gun made in 2001 is fine, but an identical 2002 is illegal. I've been told through gun dealers this is a result of extensive (aka expensive) testing such as the gun drop test. Most states require a test once, where CA may require it every year even if no changes are made to the gun, requiring gun manufactures to pay high fees to complete the testing on a gun that is already being sold and already passed the safety tests. So a gun made while the tests were performed are okay, any year after (even though they are identical) are not. CA is one of a few, if not the only, state with those requirements.
but you said "zero consideration to safety" when it appears that the gun drop test relates to safety
That's why I asked...there is generally a good reason for restrictions. Reasons beyond "the gubment dun gone tak ma gunz away"
What's funny is Feinstein has always hated guns in the hands of the people yet for years she carried concealed.
Do as I say and not as I do...
Also California started their "assault weapons ban" years ago with a list of criteria such as having a bayonet, pistol grip, flash suppressor, threaded barrel etc, etc. So yes all the mean looking guns were targeted.
This brought on one of the more interesting pistol designs called the thumbhole stock.
I listed some above. Some guns are banned literally because they "look mean."
I'm not a gun expert or dealer, but my understanding is other guns can be purchased used if it is already in the state, but no new guns of that make and model can be brought through state lines. Or a gun made in 2001 is fine, but an identical 2002 is illegal. I've been told through gun dealers this is a result of extensive (aka expensive) testing such as the gun drop test. Most states require a test once, where CA may require it every year even if no changes are made to the gun, requiring gun manufactures to pay high fees to complete the testing on a gun that is already being sold and already passed the safety tests. So a gun made while the tests were performed are okay, any year after (even though they are identical) are not. CA is one of a few, if not the only, state with those requirements.
but you said "zero consideration to safety" when it appears that the gun drop test relates to safety
That's why I asked...there is generally a good reason for restrictions. Reasons beyond "the gubment dun gone tak ma gunz away"
What's funny is Feinstein has always hated guns in the hands of the people yet for years she carried concealed.
Do as I say and not as I do...
Also California started their "assault weapons ban" years ago with a list of criteria such as having a bayonet, pistol grip, flash suppressor, threaded barrel etc, etc. So yes all the mean looking guns were targeted.
This brought on one of the more interesting pistol designs called the thumbhole stock.
I don't think you are making an equal comparison. If she had lobbied against personal ownership of handguns you might have a point.
She didn't do that.
Remember the Thomas Nine !! (10/02/2018)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago 2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy 2013: London ON, Chicago; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE) 2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston 2020: Oakland, Oakland:2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana 2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville 2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
I listed some above. Some guns are banned literally because they "look mean."
I'm not a gun expert or dealer, but my understanding is other guns can be purchased used if it is already in the state, but no new guns of that make and model can be brought through state lines. Or a gun made in 2001 is fine, but an identical 2002 is illegal. I've been told through gun dealers this is a result of extensive (aka expensive) testing such as the gun drop test. Most states require a test once, where CA may require it every year even if no changes are made to the gun, requiring gun manufactures to pay high fees to complete the testing on a gun that is already being sold and already passed the safety tests. So a gun made while the tests were performed are okay, any year after (even though they are identical) are not. CA is one of a few, if not the only, state with those requirements.
but you said "zero consideration to safety" when it appears that the gun drop test relates to safety
That's why I asked...there is generally a good reason for restrictions. Reasons beyond "the gubment dun gone tak ma gunz away"
What's funny is Feinstein has always hated guns in the hands of the people yet for years she carried concealed.
Do as I say and not as I do...
Also California started their "assault weapons ban" years ago with a list of criteria such as having a bayonet, pistol grip, flash suppressor, threaded barrel etc, etc. So yes all the mean looking guns were targeted.
This brought on one of the more interesting pistol designs called the thumbhole stock.
I don't think you are making an equal comparison. If she had lobbied against personal ownership of handguns you might have a point.
She didn't do that.
I remember it being quite differently.
"If I could’ve 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 ’em all in — I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren’t here."
Comments
https://illuminutti.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/jacob-rothschild1.jpg
https://hatoffoil.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/gates-rothschild.jpg
Think critically folks. Think what your giving up. Think of countries were their police have all power over you. Do you really want to live in a police state?
WOuld you agree that such a law might at least make it less likely for something like this to happen?
That's generally what laws like that are for...to help prevent innocent loss of life. But people like you will scream that your rights would be taken away and children will continue to die because of irresponsible gun owners.
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Chicago; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
Godfather.
They simply ask 1 or 2 questions and wave me on. And as others have pointed out if you don't wish to agree to that, no one is forcing you to drive.
all new guns in Florida are sold with some kind of locking device that I've noticed and if they are used or not is up the owner I guess, keeping a gun from kid's is a no brainer I couldn't imagine how a parent would feel if their child found their gun and something bad happened but I don't believe it is just cause for a law to limit gun ownership or throw some other bullshit law into the mix
Godfather.
Its the irrational gun laws that irritate most gun owners. (Depending on your state) Laws that aren't designed to protect anyone, but designed to just be a hassle. Some features are banned because they look mean, and nothing to do with functionality. Some guns made one year are legal, but the identical gun made the following year is not (without any changes to the gun). Some guns you can buy it used, but not new. Those laws are designed to complicate things so that the gun manufactures and dealers stop selling in certain states, and nothing about safety in mind.
Faux News controls the sheep.
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Chicago; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
Living in CA with already gun laws and background checks I've come across that many times. I have no interest in assault rifles so I am not as familiar with those laws and restrictions. I like classic revolvers and lever action rifles, things out of the old west. But on multiple occasions have found a gun is restricted because of the reasons I mentioned above. Zero consideration to safety. Obviously there are many guns laws that do have good safety measures, but there are some that don't.
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Chicago; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
I'm not a gun expert or dealer, but my understanding is other guns can be purchased used if it is already in the state, but no new guns of that make and model can be brought through state lines. Or a gun made in 2001 is fine, but an identical 2002 is illegal. I've been told through gun dealers this is a result of extensive (aka expensive) testing such as the gun drop test. Most states require a test once, where CA may require it every year even if no changes are made to the gun, requiring gun manufactures to pay high fees to complete the testing on a gun that is already being sold and already passed the safety tests. So a gun made while the tests were performed are okay, any year after (even though they are identical) are not. CA is one of a few, if not the only, state with those requirements.
That's why I asked...there is generally a good reason for restrictions. Reasons beyond "the gubment dun gone tak ma gunz away"
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Chicago; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
The drop test is for safety, but to be one of the only, if not the only state to require it multiple times for the same gun is not necessary. With expensive testing and state registration fees for it, the implication most have for that is to limit the gun manufactures, and not necessarily for the safety of the test. And the result is two identical guns where one is legal and the other is not so it has no impact on safety (after it passes the first test).
I will admit there are also gun laws that allow loopholes as well that gun owners take advantage of. For example assault rifles can not have a detachable magazine. It is not considered "detachable" if a tool is required to remove it. So guns are made so the magazine can be removed using a spare bullet as a tool (basically a hole too big for a finger, but the tip of the bullet will fit in to push a button that detaches the magazine) and a new magazine can be used. This obviously defeats the intent of the law.
we will find a way, we will find our place
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
I know threads weave and bob but somehow this is a good side point.
Some people argue rights just because they have that right.
Godfather.
Godfather.
If you're pissed you're pissed.
It takes one to know one.
Do as I say and not as I do...
Also California started their "assault weapons ban" years ago with a list of criteria such as having a bayonet, pistol grip, flash suppressor, threaded barrel etc, etc. So yes all the mean looking guns were targeted.
This brought on one of the more interesting pistol designs called the thumbhole stock.
ick
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Chicago; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
She didn't do that.
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Chicago; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
"If I could’ve 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 ’em all in — I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren’t here."
From her lips to our ears.
He can't believe that the AR-15 is available for public purchase.
That's enough evidence for me folks....should be for you too.
He designed the weapon for war. A $90 addition makes the AR-15 fully automatic.
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Chicago; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana