st0wandgrow
Well-Known Member
That would depend. Did the bank manager act reasonably? Did he follow protocol, and give the thief what he was demanding (money)? Or did he try to play Rambo, jump the counter, and get people killed in the process?
Adam Lanza's mother
- Thread starter st0wandgrow
- Start date
Remember, if your car gets stolen, its all your fault for not anticipating it. The police will want to talk to you, stealing cars is illegal.
st0wandgrow
Well-Known Member
A handgun, no. I have never fired one. Rifles and shotguns, for sure. Handled, fired, hunted with plenty. I'm originally from Western Canada, and have been big game hunting on many occasions. I have bagged several whitetails, a couple elk, moose, pheasant, and have been along on a grizzly hunt .... but didn't get a chance to shoot one.
I am by no means a gun enthusiast, but I do support the right for people to own guns. I do think there needs to be an adult conversation about what types of guns should be permitted, and what the process in obtaining those guns should be. IMO, a gun should NEVER be sold to someone without some type of screening process first. What that process entails is up for debate, and I am open to suggestions.
How many people did you kill? Don't you know guns are only designed to kill people, they don't do anything else but kill people. You cannot kill animals with guns, guns only kill people and they guy you bought your gun from originally bought that gun so that he could kill people. Did you have to kill him to get his gun?
Do you ever listen to yourself?
st0wandgrow
Well-Known Member
Do you ever listen to yourself?
People like you will be the reason that there will be more stringent gun laws passed. If gun advocates had a voice of reason on their side of the table, willing and able to not only make a compelling argument but also willing to *listen* and not be such a rigid toolbox, then you may not take it up the ass as badly as you otherwise will. BUT, as it stands, the general public and legislators get to listen to people like you stomping your feet and trotting out these ridiculous justifications for your weapon stockpile, while not ever showing the ability to listen or reason.
Pull your pants down and bend over ...... it's coming.
FlyLikeAnEagle
Well-Known Member
It isn't coming, Its going to take a constitutional amendment to bring this change about. What you or anyone thinks is irrelevant as you do not get to decide on the issue. They can't make the possession of the millions of assault looking rifles illegal to own, no ex post facto laws can be made in the USA, so they are ALWAYS going to be out there.
You always bring suck poignant debate to the table. However do you do it?
ChesusRice
Well-Known Member
no it wont
all it will take is regulations on barrel length magazine capacity and receiver design
I have more than 100 high capacity magazines already, they will still be legal to own and use. What law on receiver design will affect any of my firearms? What law on barrel length will make a barrel grow longer?no it wont
all it will take is regulations on barrel length magazine capacity and receiver design
I think you missed the point, but you're as stupid as a log so its normal.
ChesusRice
Well-Known Member
And if they make them illegal to use and sell
you have 100 paper weights
Ever heard of a plug in a shotgun receiver?
Cannot have ex post facto laws in the USA, I have them legally now, they will be grandfathered and I will still be able to own, use and enjoy them as much as I wish.
A plug in a shotgun receiver is only required if you are hunting certain animals, otherwise fill that shotgun with as many shells as you can and do as much squirrel hunting as you please.
If only you knew more about the subjects you profess as fact.
ChesusRice
Well-Known Member
FlyLikeAnEagle
Well-Known Member
I won't have to register anything, it is illegal for the Federal government to register guns and that law cannot be repealed. You know very little on this subject matter, are you sure you wish to continue?
LOL at your broken link
ChesusRice
Well-Known Member
The United States Supreme Court, in deciding the case of Haynes v. United States in favor of the defendant, effectively gutted the National Firearms Act of 1934. As one could possess an NFA firearm and choose not to register it, and not face prosecution due to Fifth Amendment protections, the Act was unenforceable. To deal with this, Congress rewrote the Act to make registration of existing firearms impossible except by the government (previously, an existing firearm could be registered by any citizen). In addition to fixing the defect identified in Haynes, the revision tightened definitions of the firearms regulated by the Act, as well as incorporating a new category of firearm, the Destructive Device, which was first regulated in the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968. This revision is known as the National Firearms Act of 1968 to differentiate it from the NFA of 1934, which is a different (and now void) law.
Which has all been made moot by the Firearm owners protection act of 1986.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_Owners_Protection_Act
LeaderAndLuminary
Member
lol Once again I find you on here crying on a thread devoted to something not related to cannabis. You really are really something. Before I started reading your posts I didn't quite understand just how retarded you could get. I am nominating you for the world's stupidest person. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE donate your brain to science when you die!! I am being serious when I say that. But try taking a jog around the block you fat retarded chimp. At least it would put some oxygen back in your retarded brain.
Beefbisquit
Well-Known Member
I'm all for storage laws, but the lady had her guns locked up! What more do you want? She did her due diligence, gun owners shouldn't be held responsible for what a criminal does with their firearms if they do their due diligence.
So, she wasn't guilty of anything, other than maybe being blind to the fact that her son was a psychopath.