guns

[oldngray]

sober--

oldngray says otherwise.

Minors can't legally buy guns but their parents can gift to them. I'm pretty sure there is no federal minimum age for long guns though handguns are more restricted. There doesn't need to be any 4473 transfer paperwork on a gift.

 

[The Other Side]

A story about idiots with nothing better to do with their lives.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/nightli...rs-extreme-open-carry-approach-133920790.html

TOS.

 

[1BROWNWRENCH]

A large part of my collection was inherited or received as a gift.

 

[oldngray]

Here is an example of how to gift a gun to a child in Florida for example.One of states with most lenient gun laws. Perfectly legal to gift to a minor child but requires the permission of both parents.
http://www.ehow.com/list_6756222_florida-gun-transfer-laws.html

 

[bbsam]

Minors can't legally buy guns but their parents can gift to them. I'm pretty sure there is no federal minimum age for long guns though handguns are more restricted. There doesn't need to be any 4473 transfer paperwork on a gift.

well where would a kid get the money to buy a gun collection anyway? Gifting make perfect sense.

 

[728ups]

NRA: Stalkers deserve guns, too
By Jane C. Timm
The National Rifle Association is challenging proposed legislation that would prohibit stalkers and perpetrators of domestic violence from buying guns, arguing that not all stalkers are violent and that the bill violates their Second Amendment rights.

The bill, introduced by Minnesota Democrat Sen. Amy Klobuchar, would shore up some loopholes in existing federal law, which already bars those convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence against “intimate partners” to include those who harm “dating partners” and adds convicted stalkers to the grouping.

The NRA wrote to senators to voice their opposition to the bill, noting that the group “strongly opposes” the legislation because it “manipulates emotionally compelling issues such as ‘domestic violence’ and ‘stalking’ simply to cast as wide a net as possible for firearm prohibitions,” according to the Huffington Post, which obtained the letter.

The NRA also argued that stalkers shouldn’t be prohibited from buying guns.

“’Stalking’ offenses do not necessarily include violent or even threatening behavior,” the letter continues. “Under federal law, for example, stalking includes ‘a course of conduct’ that never involves any personal contact whatsoever, occurs wholly through the mail, online media, or telephone service, is undertaken with the intent to ‘harass’ and would be reasonably expected to cause (even if it doesn’t succeed in causing) ‘substantial emotional distress’ to another person.”

The NRA is ignoring some pretty significant numbers when they push against reform: 76% of women who are murdered by an intimate partner were stalked beforehand, according to a study by the New York City Department of Health and a number of universities. At least three women a day are murdered by a boyfriend or a husband, according to the American Psychological Association. Furthermore, domestic abusers with access to guns are seven times more likely to murder their partners, according to a study funded by a number of national health organizations.

The NRA did not immediately respond to requests for comment from msnbc.

 

[728ups]

 

[728ups]

 

[overflowed]

Depends on who you're talking to. A lot of "anti gun" folks aren't "anti gun" at all. I have no problem with responsible gun ownership but to me responsible has a high bar.

If you are a responsible gun owner, then when a deranged lunatic (who up until this moment is a "law abiding citizen) opens fire in a dark and smoky theatre, you are responsible if you open fire. If you hit an innocent patron, you are responsible.

If you have guns, IMO, you are responsible whether you are present or not. You are responsible for those weapons not being stolen and not in any way coming into the hands of unsupervised minors.

There is a post in this thread that puts it very well. Gun ownership is like having an infant child that will never grow up. The owner must always know where the weapon is and who is around it. There are no exceptions and failure to do so should have very steep penalties. I understand and support Second Amendment rights but with strong emphasis on responsibility. There can't be any "Oooops" moments in gun ownership.

I have no issue with what you're saying for once. From the skimming I did there are very adamant anti gun people. I'm very responsible with my guns. You liken it to infants or children. I would add dogs as well. I'm not going to read 420 pages of this discussion seems you are in the middle of the ground on this issue from the limited posts of yours I read. I thought you would be pro you make yourself sound like a hood rat sometimes.hahha

 

[rod]

 

[bbsam]

That's funny! And true.

 

[oldngray]

 

[bbsam]

View attachment 14018

Well then, go ahead and buy an AR-15.

But there are some things to know about your purchase.

The Supreme Court determines what rights the Constitution grants you. That is set forth in--The Constitution.

You might want to hunt with the AR after all because if the tyrannical government comes to trample you, the AR will be useless. You will need at the very least an RPG launcher and a lot of RPG's...and a lot of luck.

Don't expect your local gun dealer to point these things out. They have a sale to make.

 

[BigUnionGuy]

You might want to hunt with the AR after all because if the tyrannical government comes to trample you, the AR will be useless. You will need at the very least an RPG launcher and a lot of RPG's...and a lot of luck.

You seem blissfully unaware.... of what "Law Abiding" people can own.

http://autoweapons.com

http://autoweapons.com/products/destructivedevices.html

And, who is going to come "take" them ??

Our fellow Americans ??

 

[bbsam]

You seem blissfully unaware.... of what "Law Abiding" people can own.

http://autoweapons.com

http://autoweapons.com/products/destructivedevices.html

And, who is going to come "take" them ??

Our fellow Americans ??

who showed up at Waco? Ruby Ridge? Fellow Americans.

 

[UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)]

There is something to be said for being blissfully unaware.


Resident know-it-all.

 

[bbsam]

You seem blissfully unaware.... of what "Law Abiding" people can own.

http://autoweapons.com

http://autoweapons.com/products/destructivedevices.html

And, who is going to come "take" them ??

Our fellow Americans ??

And now that you've educated me, how many of the above mentioned weapons would I need to secure myself and about 1500 like minded individuals from the full force of the tyrannical United States government? What should we use against helicopter gun ships? What if they strafe us with fighter jets? Any idea how to fortify against "bunker busters"?

 

[realbrown1]

And now that you've educated me, how many of the above mentioned weapons would I need to secure myself and about 1500 like minded individuals from the full force of the tyrannical United States government? What should we use against helicopter gun ships? What if they strafe us with fighter jets? Any idea how to fortify against "bunker busters"?

I was a soldier in the 80's. If our government ordered us to attack American's or take their weapons, they would face out right mutiny in the military.

No American soldier would attack American civilians unless there was a heck of a good reason.

 

[bbsam]

I was a soldier in the 80's. If our government ordered us to attack American's or take their weapons, they would face out right mutiny in the military.

No American soldier would attack American civilians unless there was a heck of a good reason.

Of course they would. We had a whole bloody war to prove it too.

 

[bbsam]

I was a soldier in the 80's. If our government ordered us to attack American's or take their weapons, they would face out right mutiny in the military.

No American soldier would attack American civilians unless there was a heck of a good reason.

At what point in the military were you told which orders you could obey or disobey? Those coming from a sergeant? Lieutenant? All the way up to colonel? One of my best friends is a colonel in the Marines. I've never gotten the sense from him that nuanced decision making was something that officers valued or even tolerated from their subordinates.