Life in America has become so dangerous that people have resorted to
extreme measures to reclaim basic safety we take for granted.

Curved hallways to reduce a gunmans line of vision, hiding spots that
can fit up to 30 students and bulletproof windows are sadly becoming the
norm in American schools.

With mass shootings on the rise in the US and becoming deadlier €” there
have been 287 in 2019, according to the Gun Violence Archive €” schools
are being renovated to add built-in security features, with the hope of
protecting students in the event of an active shooter situation.

https://www.news.com.au/world/north-...672043a02fb4e5
--
Bod

On Thursday, September 5, 2019 at 12:33:43 PM UTC-4, Bod wrote:
Life in America has become so dangerous that people have resorted to
extreme measures to reclaim basic safety we take for granted.

Curved hallways to reduce a gunmans line of vision, hiding spots that
can fit up to 30 students and bulletproof windows are sadly becoming the
norm in American schools.

With mass shootings on the rise in the US and becoming deadlier €” there
have been 287 in 2019, according to the Gun Violence Archive €” schools
are being renovated to add built-in security features, with the hope of
protecting students in the event of an active shooter situation.

https://www.news.com.au/world/north-...672043a02fb4e5
--
Bod

Some of that, IDK, questionable. But some basic things, like making
classroom doors strong and lockable from the inside seem like a good
idea for new construction. Of course that will take 50 years to cover
any reasonable percentage of schools.

On Thu, 5 Sep 2019 17:33:37 +0100, Bod wrote:

Life in America has become so dangerous that people have resorted to
extreme measures to reclaim basic safety we take for granted.

Curved hallways to reduce a gunmans line of vision, hiding spots that
can fit up to 30 students and bulletproof windows are sadly becoming the
norm in American schools.

With mass shootings on the rise in the US and becoming deadlier €” there
have been 287 in 2019, according to the Gun Violence Archive €” schools
are being renovated to add built-in security features, with the hope of
protecting students in the event of an active shooter situation.

https://www.news.com.au/world/north-...672043a02fb4e5

We put seat belts and cameras on school busses now too. That is
probably a better use of the money if protecting kids is your issue
but school bus crashes barely even make the local news.

On Thu, 5 Sep 2019 10:01:20 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Thursday, September 5, 2019 at 12:33:43 PM UTC-4, Bod wrote:
Life in America has become so dangerous that people have resorted to
extreme measures to reclaim basic safety we take for granted.

Curved hallways to reduce a gunmans line of vision, hiding spots that
can fit up to 30 students and bulletproof windows are sadly becoming the
norm in American schools.

With mass shootings on the rise in the US and becoming deadlier €” there
have been 287 in 2019, according to the Gun Violence Archive €” schools
are being renovated to add built-in security features, with the hope of
protecting students in the event of an active shooter situation.

https://www.news.com.au/world/north-...672043a02fb4e5
--
Bod

Some of that, IDK, questionable. But some basic things, like making
classroom doors strong and lockable from the inside seem like a good
idea for new construction. Of course that will take 50 years to cover
any reasonable percentage of schools.

There are lots of things they could do on the cheap to make schools
safer but when it comes to school boards, always start with the most
expensive option. What is wrong with a garden variety $2 barrel bolt
for classroom doors? They are already steel and fire rated. The walls
are block and the door openings are poured solid with a #5 in it if
the school was built in the last 40 years or so in Florida.
I said a long time ago, paint a line along the wall behind which you
can't be seen from the door and put a lock on the inside of the door.

Of course there is also this cheap "active shooter" kit you could use
anywhere.
http://gfretwell.com/ftp/Active%20sh...onse%20kit.jpg

If you knew everyone in the room would be throwing 2 pound concrete
"twinkies" at you, it might make you reconsider your plan.

On Thursday, September 5, 2019 at 2:10:50 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Thu, 5 Sep 2019 17:33:37 +0100, Bod wrote:

Life in America has become so dangerous that people have resorted to
extreme measures to reclaim basic safety we take for granted.

Curved hallways to reduce a gunmans line of vision, hiding spots that
can fit up to 30 students and bulletproof windows are sadly becoming the
norm in American schools.

With mass shootings on the rise in the US and becoming deadlier €” there
have been 287 in 2019, according to the Gun Violence Archive €” schools
are being renovated to add built-in security features, with the hope of
protecting students in the event of an active shooter situation.

https://www.news.com.au/world/north-...672043a02fb4e5

We put seat belts and cameras on school busses now too. That is
probably a better use of the money if protecting kids is your issue
but school bus crashes barely even make the local news.

Show me one where it was a deliberate crash and it killed 15 students
and I'll show you one that makes the news. School bus crashes are seldom
in the news because they are rarely fatal or even life threatening injuries..

On 9/5/2019 12:33 PM, Bod wrote:
With mass shootings on the rise in the US and becoming deadlier €” there have been 287 in 2019,


The democrats created this problem years ago when they started going soft on crime.Â* Now the gun-grabbin' dems want to fix the problem they created by banning guns.

--
Get off my lawn!

On Thursday, September 5, 2019 at 2:43:11 PM UTC-4, Grumpy Old White Guy wrote:
On 9/5/2019 12:33 PM, Bod wrote:
With mass shootings on the rise in the US and becoming deadlier €” there have been 287 in 2019,


The democrats created this problem years ago when they started going soft on crime.Â* Now the gun-grabbin' dems want to fix the problem they created by banning guns.

--
Get off my lawn!


Ridiculous. None of the mass shooters have been a career criminal or had
any serious criminal history, been arrested or convicted of any serious crimes,
at most they typically have some minor brushes with the law. Why
do you mostly post nonsense?

Odessa
Walmart El Paso
Dayton
Parkland
Gilroy
Sandy Hook
San Bernardino
Orlando
Las Vegas
TX Church
Charleston Church
CA Synagogue
Cleveland Synagogue

On 9/5/2019 2:54 PM, trader_4 wrote:
On Thursday, September 5, 2019 at 2:43:11 PM UTC-4, Grumpy Old White Guy wrote:
On 9/5/2019 12:33 PM, Bod wrote:
With mass shootings on the rise in the US and becoming deadlier €” there have been 287 in 2019,

The democrats created this problem years ago when they started going soft on crime.Â* Now the gun-grabbin' dems want to fix the problem they created by banning guns.

--
Get off my lawn!

Ridiculous. None of the mass shooters have been a career criminal or had
any serious criminal history, been arrested or convicted of any serious crimes,
at most they typically have some minor brushes with the law. Why
do you mostly post nonsense?

Odessa
Walmart El Paso
Dayton
Parkland
Gilroy
Sandy Hook
San Bernardino
Orlando
Las Vegas
TX Church
Charleston Church
CA Synagogue
Cleveland Synagogue



Well, if as you say, these mass shooters had near-squeaky-clean criminal records, how can you ever effectively restrict gun purchases?

--
Get off my lawn!

writes:
On Thu, 5 Sep 2019 10:01:20 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

There are lots of things they could do on the cheap to make schools
safer

Starting with banning possetion of weapons of war. I don't have a problem
with personal posssion of a revolver or bolt-action rifle. Hunting
weapons.

When the amendment was written, "arms" consisted of swords, long knives,
pole-arms and the occasional muzzle loader.

Today, "arms" includes the Mk 84 2000#er, powered miniguns, and nuclear devices.

So, a reasonable person would conclude that the amendment doesn't require
the government to allow one to possess a Mk84 or a B-43; therefore the
question is where one draws the line. I draw it before any military
sidearm or longarm, myself. There is _zero_ need for such a thing in the
hands of an untrained civilian. Period.

trader_4 writes:
On Thursday, September 5, 2019 at 2:43:11 PM UTC-4, Grumpy Old White Guy wr=
ote:
On 9/5/2019 12:33 PM, Bod wrote:
With mass shootings on the rise in the US and becoming deadlier =E2=80=
=94 there have been 287 in 2019,
=20
=20
The democrats created this problem years ago when they started going soft=
on crime.=C2=A0 Now the gun-grabbin' dems want to fix the problem they cre=
ated by banning guns.
=20
--=20
Get off my lawn!


Ridiculous. None of the mass shooters have been a career criminal or had
any serious criminal history, been arrested or convicted of any serious cri=
mes,
at most they typically have some minor brushes with the law. Why
do you mostly post nonsense?=20

Indeed. Grumpy doesn't appear to be able to think cogently or actually
look up the facts. There is a higher percentage of americans imprisioned
than any time in history, and overall crime rates have decreased since the
1970's.

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...me-in-the-u-s/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United...rceration_rate

But facts don't matter to Trumpets.

On Thursday, September 5, 2019 at 3:26:17 PM UTC-4, Grumpy Old White Guy wrote:
On 9/5/2019 2:54 PM, trader_4 wrote:
On Thursday, September 5, 2019 at 2:43:11 PM UTC-4, Grumpy Old White Guy wrote:
On 9/5/2019 12:33 PM, Bod wrote:
With mass shootings on the rise in the US and becoming deadlier €” there have been 287 in 2019,

The democrats created this problem years ago when they started going soft on crime.Â* Now the gun-grabbin' dems want to fix the problem they created by banning guns.

--
Get off my lawn!

Ridiculous. None of the mass shooters have been a career criminal or had
any serious criminal history, been arrested or convicted of any serious crimes,
at most they typically have some minor brushes with the law. Why
do you mostly post nonsense?

Odessa
Walmart El Paso
Dayton
Parkland
Gilroy
Sandy Hook
San Bernardino
Orlando
Las Vegas
TX Church
Charleston Church
CA Synagogue
Cleveland Synagogue



Well, if as you say, these mass shooters had near-squeaky-clean criminal records, how can you ever effectively restrict gun purchases?

--
Get off my lawn!

You haven't been paying attention. Many of them would have failed a reasonable background check. We need a process where to buy a gun you need a permit issued by the local police chief after a real background check. That is where you can look at their arrest records, convictions, driving records, interactions with the local police, check with employers, those they live with, neighbors, etc.

On 9/5/2019 4:18 PM, trader_4 wrote:
On Thursday, September 5, 2019 at 3:26:17 PM UTC-4, Grumpy Old White Guy wrote:
On 9/5/2019 2:54 PM, trader_4 wrote:
On Thursday, September 5, 2019 at 2:43:11 PM UTC-4, Grumpy Old White Guy wrote:
On 9/5/2019 12:33 PM, Bod wrote:
With mass shootings on the rise in the US and becoming deadlier €” there have been 287 in 2019,
The democrats created this problem years ago when they started going soft on crime.Â* Now the gun-grabbin' dems want to fix the problem they created by banning guns.

--
Get off my lawn!
Ridiculous. None of the mass shooters have been a career criminal or had
any serious criminal history, been arrested or convicted of any serious crimes,
at most they typically have some minor brushes with the law. Why
do you mostly post nonsense?

Odessa
Walmart El Paso
Dayton
Parkland
Gilroy
Sandy Hook
San Bernardino
Orlando
Las Vegas
TX Church
Charleston Church
CA Synagogue
Cleveland Synagogue


Well, if as you say, these mass shooters had near-squeaky-clean criminal records, how can you ever effectively restrict gun purchases?

--
Get off my lawn!
You haven't been paying attention. Many of them would have failed a reasonable background check. We need a process where to buy a gun you need a permit issued by the local police chief after a real background check. That is where you can look at their arrest records, convictions, driving records, interactions with the local police, check with employers, those they live with, neighbors, etc.

you_4 stated:

"None of the mass shooters have been a career criminal or had
any serious criminal history, been arrested or convicted of any serious crimes,
at most they typically have some minor brushes with the law. "

So, with no record of violence, how will your gun-grabbin libtards screen potential do-bads fairly?Â* The problem is that homicidal criminals ignore existing gun laws.


Hell, some idiots even ignore judge's orders.Â* What good are more gun laws?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUc-j-xvLA4


--
Get off my lawn!

On 9/5/2019 3:37 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
writes:
On Thu, 5 Sep 2019 10:01:20 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:
There are lots of things they could do on the cheap to make schools
safer
Starting with banning possetion of weapons of war. I don't have a problem
with personal posssion of a revolver or bolt-action rifle. Hunting
weapons.

When the amendment was written, "arms" consisted of swords, long knives,
pole-arms and the occasional muzzle loader.

Today, "arms" includes the Mk 84 2000#er, powered miniguns, and nuclear devices.

So, a reasonable person would conclude that the amendment doesn't require
the government to allow one to possess a Mk84 or a B-43; therefore the
question is where one draws the line. I draw it before any military
sidearm or longarm, myself. There is _zero_ need for such a thing in the
hands of an untrained civilian. Period.



Are you sure about that?Â* Have you been paying attention to the whack-jobs that been infiltrating our government?Â* They're certainly not people our founding fathers would approve of.

Make no mistake, I prefer a peaceful existence in a polite society but this new crowd of nutjob democrats scares the bejeebers out of me.


--
Get off my lawn!

On Thursday, September 5, 2019 at 5:08:13 PM UTC-4, Grumpy Old White Guy wrote:
On 9/5/2019 4:18 PM, trader_4 wrote:
On Thursday, September 5, 2019 at 3:26:17 PM UTC-4, Grumpy Old White Guy wrote:
On 9/5/2019 2:54 PM, trader_4 wrote:
On Thursday, September 5, 2019 at 2:43:11 PM UTC-4, Grumpy Old White Guy wrote:
On 9/5/2019 12:33 PM, Bod wrote:
With mass shootings on the rise in the US and becoming deadlier €” there have been 287 in 2019,
The democrats created this problem years ago when they started going soft on crime.Â* Now the gun-grabbin' dems want to fix the problem they created by banning guns.

--
Get off my lawn!
Ridiculous. None of the mass shooters have been a career criminal or had
any serious criminal history, been arrested or convicted of any serious crimes,
at most they typically have some minor brushes with the law. Why
do you mostly post nonsense?

Odessa
Walmart El Paso
Dayton
Parkland
Gilroy
Sandy Hook
San Bernardino
Orlando
Las Vegas
TX Church
Charleston Church
CA Synagogue
Cleveland Synagogue


Well, if as you say, these mass shooters had near-squeaky-clean criminal records, how can you ever effectively restrict gun purchases?

--
Get off my lawn!
You haven't been paying attention. Many of them would have failed a reasonable background check. We need a process where to buy a gun you need a permit issued by the local police chief after a real background check. That is where you can look at their arrest records, convictions, driving records, interactions with the local police, check with employers, those they live with, neighbors, etc.

you_4 stated:

"None of the mass shooters have been a career criminal or had
any serious criminal history, been arrested or convicted of any serious crimes,
at most they typically have some minor brushes with the law. "

So, with no record of violence, how will your gun-grabbin libtards screen potential do-bads fairly?Â* The problem is that homicidal criminals ignore existing gun laws.


We don't rely on criminals obeying the law, we rely on gun stores, gun
owners, complying with the law before making a sale. I thought the vast
majority of gun owners are decent, honest Americans. Why wouldn't they
obey the law and not sell guns to someone who doesn't have a permit?
As to how to screen, it's already being done for pistols in many states,
including here. Classic example is the Parkland school shooter. The
police had been to his house 21 times for trouble, they knew he was
being treated for mental illness. That's more than enough to deny the
permit. The Dayton shooter, his mother called the police aFTER he had
already bought his AK-47. Had the police checked with mom, who he was
living with, that likely would have lead to reasons to block that permit,
including that he had a kill list and a rape list ten years earlier.
But when gun extremists refuse to have a permit process, there is no
checking. It's not that background checking can't help prevent at least
some of these, it's that there is no real checking.

In article ,
says...

Starting with banning possetion of weapons of war. I don't have a problem
with personal posssion of a revolver or bolt-action rifle. Hunting
weapons.

When the amendment was written, "arms" consisted of swords, long knives,
pole-arms and the occasional muzzle loader.

Today, "arms" includes the Mk 84 2000#er, powered miniguns, and nuclear devices.

So, a reasonable person would conclude that the amendment doesn't require
the government to allow one to possess a Mk84 or a B-43; therefore the
question is where one draws the line. I draw it before any military
sidearm or longarm, myself. There is _zero_ need for such a thing in the
hands of an untrained civilian. Period.





When it was witten the reason for arms was to be able to prevent the
government from taking total charge of the country. The arms are not
for hunting or sports. There for I say that the population should be
able to own anything the military has.

Just too many nut jobs on the loose now. Not sure what can be done
about them.

Speeking of nut jobe, if some of the ones in congress and running for
congress get power, we may need the arms. I am just glad I may not be
around long enough to see that.


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

On 9/5/2019 6:17 PM, Ralph Mowery wrote:
Speeking of nut jobe, if some of the ones in congress and running for
congress get power, we may need the arms. I am just glad I may not be
around long enough to see that.

True!Â* The US voters had better wake up soon or we won't have the free country our ancestors gifted us.

--
Get off my lawn!

On Thu, 5 Sep 2019 15:26:10 -0400, Grumpy Old White Guy
wrote:

On 9/5/2019 2:54 PM, trader_4 wrote:
On Thursday, September 5, 2019 at 2:43:11 PM UTC-4, Grumpy Old White Guy wrote:
On 9/5/2019 12:33 PM, Bod wrote:
With mass shootings on the rise in the US and becoming deadlier €” there have been 287 in 2019,

The democrats created this problem years ago when they started going soft on crime.Â* Now the gun-grabbin' dems want to fix the problem they created by banning guns.

--
Get off my lawn!

Ridiculous. None of the mass shooters have been a career criminal or had
any serious criminal history, been arrested or convicted of any serious crimes,
at most they typically have some minor brushes with the law. Why
do you mostly post nonsense?

Odessa
Walmart El Paso
Dayton
Parkland
Gilroy
Sandy Hook
San Bernardino
Orlando
Las Vegas
TX Church
Charleston Church
CA Synagogue
Cleveland Synagogue



Well, if as you say, these mass shooters had near-squeaky-clean criminal records, how can you ever effectively restrict gun purchases?

Trader thinks cops can restrict sales on a hunch in New Jersey. They
may be able to do it too. New Jersey people tend to bend over and drop
their pants whenever the government tells them to.

On Thu, 05 Sep 2019 19:37:08 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

writes:
On Thu, 5 Sep 2019 10:01:20 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

There are lots of things they could do on the cheap to make schools
safer

Starting with banning possetion of weapons of war. I don't have a problem
with personal posssion of a revolver or bolt-action rifle. Hunting
weapons.

When the amendment was written, "arms" consisted of swords, long knives,
pole-arms and the occasional muzzle loader.

Today, "arms" includes the Mk 84 2000#er, powered miniguns, and nuclear devices.

So, a reasonable person would conclude that the amendment doesn't require
the government to allow one to possess a Mk84 or a B-43; therefore the
question is where one draws the line. I draw it before any military
sidearm or longarm, myself. There is _zero_ need for such a thing in the
hands of an untrained civilian. Period.


Bull****
Anything "destructive" (Bombs, artillery pieces, grenade launchers
etc) is very highly regulated as are machine guns short barreled
rifles or shotguns and suppressors.
As for "military" the common military arm of the day, a smooth bore
musket was vastly inferior to a rifle that your average citizen might
own so that analogy falls flat too. An 18th century rifle was accurate
out to 400-500 yards but a marksman with a musket would have a hard
time holding 3 rounds in a row in a 2 foot circle at 100 yards. They
depended on volley fire from a hundred or more soldiers standing in a
line aiming at the other line assuming someone would hit someone else
a stone's throw away.

On Thursday, September 5, 2019 at 7:25:37 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Thu, 5 Sep 2019 15:26:10 -0400, Grumpy Old White Guy
wrote:

On 9/5/2019 2:54 PM, trader_4 wrote:
On Thursday, September 5, 2019 at 2:43:11 PM UTC-4, Grumpy Old White Guy wrote:
On 9/5/2019 12:33 PM, Bod wrote:
With mass shootings on the rise in the US and becoming deadlier €” there have been 287 in 2019,

The democrats created this problem years ago when they started going soft on crime.Â* Now the gun-grabbin' dems want to fix the problem they created by banning guns.

--
Get off my lawn!

Ridiculous. None of the mass shooters have been a career criminal or had
any serious criminal history, been arrested or convicted of any serious crimes,
at most they typically have some minor brushes with the law. Why
do you mostly post nonsense?

Odessa
Walmart El Paso
Dayton
Parkland
Gilroy
Sandy Hook
San Bernardino
Orlando
Las Vegas
TX Church
Charleston Church
CA Synagogue
Cleveland Synagogue



Well, if as you say, these mass shooters had near-squeaky-clean criminal records, how can you ever effectively restrict gun purchases?

Trader thinks cops can restrict sales on a hunch in New Jersey. They
may be able to do it too. New Jersey people tend to bend over and drop
their pants whenever the government tells them to.

Would denying a permit to Cruz, the Parkland, FL shooter who had 21 police
visits to his house for trouble, where the cops knew he was being treated
for mental illness, be a "hunch"? How about the Dayton shooter, where
he had previously been expelled from high school for having a kill list
and a rape list? How about the Odessa shooter, who had previously failed
the fed check? Would those be hunches? Would you issue them a permit
if you were the chief of police and there was such a process?
Just how whacky and illogical are you?

On Thu, 5 Sep 2019 16:54:01 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Thursday, September 5, 2019 at 7:25:37 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Thu, 5 Sep 2019 15:26:10 -0400, Grumpy Old White Guy
wrote:

On 9/5/2019 2:54 PM, trader_4 wrote:
On Thursday, September 5, 2019 at 2:43:11 PM UTC-4, Grumpy Old White Guy wrote:
On 9/5/2019 12:33 PM, Bod wrote:
With mass shootings on the rise in the US and becoming deadlier €” there have been 287 in 2019,

The democrats created this problem years ago when they started going soft on crime.Â* Now the gun-grabbin' dems want to fix the problem they created by banning guns.

--
Get off my lawn!

Ridiculous. None of the mass shooters have been a career criminal or had
any serious criminal history, been arrested or convicted of any serious crimes,
at most they typically have some minor brushes with the law. Why
do you mostly post nonsense?

Odessa
Walmart El Paso
Dayton
Parkland
Gilroy
Sandy Hook
San Bernardino
Orlando
Las Vegas
TX Church
Charleston Church
CA Synagogue
Cleveland Synagogue



Well, if as you say, these mass shooters had near-squeaky-clean criminal records, how can you ever effectively restrict gun purchases?

Trader thinks cops can restrict sales on a hunch in New Jersey. They
may be able to do it too. New Jersey people tend to bend over and drop
their pants whenever the government tells them to.

Would denying a permit to Cruz, the Parkland, FL shooter who had 21 police
visits to his house for trouble, where the cops knew he was being treated
for mental illness, be a "hunch"? How about the Dayton shooter, where
he had previously been expelled from high school for having a kill list
and a rape list? How about the Odessa shooter, who had previously failed
the fed check? Would those be hunches? Would you issue them a permit
if you were the chief of police and there was such a process?
Just how whacky and illogical are you?

I am just saying without any convictions it is hard to find legal
grounds. It is very easy for monday morning quarterbacks to say how
they would have done things but reality before the fact is a bit
harder.
BTW I still haven't heard anyone tell me in any definitive way how the
latest guy got his gun. The cops are guessing a private sale but I
haven't seen anyone say from whom and what were the details of the
sale or anything about the gun?
I suppose they may still be trying to trace it but as I have said many
times, that is not a simple process.
My guess is they hit a dead end at the first FFL who took delivery
from the manufacturer and the dead guy is not much help working back
the other way. If it was ever reported stolen, game over.

In writes:

[snip]

BTW I still haven't heard anyone tell me in any definitive way how the
latest guy got his gun. The cops are guessing a private sale but I
haven't seen anyone say from whom and what were the details of the
sale or anything about the gun?

Looks like they've got a suspect. No publicly released names, yet.

(ah, for the days when we still had some reporters around
who could look up the records on the house, etc.)

https://sanangelolive.com/news/crime...odessa-shooter

--
__________________________________________________ ___
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key

[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]

On 09/05/2019 01:37 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
So, a reasonable person would conclude that the amendment doesn't require
the government to allow one to possess a Mk84 or a B-43; therefore the
question is where one draws the line. I draw it before any military
sidearm or longarm, myself. There is _zero_ need for such a thing in the
hands of an untrained civilian. Period.

How about trained civilians? Can I have a M-14?

On Thursday, September 5, 2019 at 8:35:22 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Thu, 5 Sep 2019 16:54:01 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Thursday, September 5, 2019 at 7:25:37 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Thu, 5 Sep 2019 15:26:10 -0400, Grumpy Old White Guy
wrote:

On 9/5/2019 2:54 PM, trader_4 wrote:
On Thursday, September 5, 2019 at 2:43:11 PM UTC-4, Grumpy Old White Guy wrote:
On 9/5/2019 12:33 PM, Bod wrote:
With mass shootings on the rise in the US and becoming deadlier €” there have been 287 in 2019,

The democrats created this problem years ago when they started going soft on crime.Â* Now the gun-grabbin' dems want to fix the problem they created by banning guns.

--
Get off my lawn!

Ridiculous. None of the mass shooters have been a career criminal or had
any serious criminal history, been arrested or convicted of any serious crimes,
at most they typically have some minor brushes with the law. Why
do you mostly post nonsense?

Odessa
Walmart El Paso
Dayton
Parkland
Gilroy
Sandy Hook
San Bernardino
Orlando
Las Vegas
TX Church
Charleston Church
CA Synagogue
Cleveland Synagogue



Well, if as you say, these mass shooters had near-squeaky-clean criminal records, how can you ever effectively restrict gun purchases?

Trader thinks cops can restrict sales on a hunch in New Jersey. They
may be able to do it too. New Jersey people tend to bend over and drop
their pants whenever the government tells them to.

Would denying a permit to Cruz, the Parkland, FL shooter who had 21 police
visits to his house for trouble, where the cops knew he was being treated
for mental illness, be a "hunch"? How about the Dayton shooter, where
he had previously been expelled from high school for having a kill list
and a rape list? How about the Odessa shooter, who had previously failed
the fed check? Would those be hunches? Would you issue them a permit
if you were the chief of police and there was such a process?
Just how whacky and illogical are you?

I am just saying without any convictions it is hard to find legal
grounds.

Not hard at all. Many states are doing it and it's been upheld in court.
You still didn't answer the question, would you have issued permits to
those two?



It is very easy for monday morning quarterbacks to say how
they would have done things but reality before the fact is a bit
harder.
BTW I still haven't heard anyone tell me in any definitive way how the
latest guy got his gun. The cops are guessing a private sale

I doubt they are guessing, it's very likely they know but just haven't
said.




but I
haven't seen anyone say from whom and what were the details of the
sale or anything about the gun?

I haven't either, but it's not unusual for them to drag out that kind
of info, maybe because they are still figuring out the details of what
went on and they don't want more info out while they pursue it.
One big question will be if it was really an arms length sale, someone
he found online, at a swap meet, etc or was it someone he already knew.
And if the latter, then it raises the question if that person was a
straw buyer, who knew he was helping him get around the law, in which
case they could be charged.



I suppose they may still be trying to trace it but as I have said many
times, that is not a simple process.
My guess is they hit a dead end at the first FFL who took delivery
from the manufacturer and the dead guy is not much help working back
the other way. If it was ever reported stolen, game over.

It's anybody's guess until we find out. If the reports are correct though
that it was a sale, then they must know, otherwise they could not say
it's a sale. I don't know that anyone has said publicly that it was a sale,
I think that's been coming from sources, etc. and we know how that sometimes
goes.

On Thursday, September 5, 2019 at 8:43:43 PM UTC-4, danny burstein wrote:
In writes:

[snip]

BTW I still haven't heard anyone tell me in any definitive way how the
latest guy got his gun. The cops are guessing a private sale but I
haven't seen anyone say from whom and what were the details of the
sale or anything about the gun?

Looks like they've got a suspect. No publicly released names, yet.

(ah, for the days when we still had some reporters around
who could look up the records on the house, etc.)

https://sanangelolive.com/news/crime...odessa-shooter



well now that opens a whole new dimension. I have no understanding
of any of the laws regarding building and selling guns. My impression
is that the ATF has been pretty lax on even going after guys who
regularly sell guns, but who are not FFLs. One of the Democrats
running, think it was Pete B, said that if he was president he would
order the ATF to require anyone selling more than 6 guns a year to
be licensed as an FFL. Call me crazy, but that sounds very reasonable
to me. But it looks more and more likely that this shooter did use
the private sale loophole, which I;ve been saying was bound to happen.

On Thu, 5 Sep 2019 19:09:00 -0600, rbowman wrote:

On 09/05/2019 01:37 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
So, a reasonable person would conclude that the amendment doesn't require
the government to allow one to possess a Mk84 or a B-43; therefore the
question is where one draws the line. I draw it before any military
sidearm or longarm, myself. There is _zero_ need for such a thing in the
hands of an untrained civilian. Period.

How about trained civilians? Can I have a M-14?

Good point, I was fully trained on the maintenance and firing of the
M1, 1911, M-14, M-16 and the M2. I guess I can have all of them.
5"/38 too I suppose.

On Thu, 5 Sep 2019 19:28:25 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Thursday, September 5, 2019 at 8:35:22 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Thu, 5 Sep 2019 16:54:01 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Thursday, September 5, 2019 at 7:25:37 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Thu, 5 Sep 2019 15:26:10 -0400, Grumpy Old White Guy
wrote:

On 9/5/2019 2:54 PM, trader_4 wrote:
On Thursday, September 5, 2019 at 2:43:11 PM UTC-4, Grumpy Old White Guy wrote:
On 9/5/2019 12:33 PM, Bod wrote:
With mass shootings on the rise in the US and becoming deadlier €” there have been 287 in 2019,

The democrats created this problem years ago when they started going soft on crime.Â* Now the gun-grabbin' dems want to fix the problem they created by banning guns.

--
Get off my lawn!

Ridiculous. None of the mass shooters have been a career criminal or had
any serious criminal history, been arrested or convicted of any serious crimes,
at most they typically have some minor brushes with the law. Why
do you mostly post nonsense?

Odessa
Walmart El Paso
Dayton
Parkland
Gilroy
Sandy Hook
San Bernardino
Orlando
Las Vegas
TX Church
Charleston Church
CA Synagogue
Cleveland Synagogue



Well, if as you say, these mass shooters had near-squeaky-clean criminal records, how can you ever effectively restrict gun purchases?

Trader thinks cops can restrict sales on a hunch in New Jersey. They
may be able to do it too. New Jersey people tend to bend over and drop
their pants whenever the government tells them to.

Would denying a permit to Cruz, the Parkland, FL shooter who had 21 police
visits to his house for trouble, where the cops knew he was being treated
for mental illness, be a "hunch"? How about the Dayton shooter, where
he had previously been expelled from high school for having a kill list
and a rape list? How about the Odessa shooter, who had previously failed
the fed check? Would those be hunches? Would you issue them a permit
if you were the chief of police and there was such a process?
Just how whacky and illogical are you?

I am just saying without any convictions it is hard to find legal
grounds.

Not hard at all. Many states are doing it and it's been upheld in court.
You still didn't answer the question, would you have issued permits to
those two?



It is very easy for monday morning quarterbacks to say how
they would have done things but reality before the fact is a bit
harder.
BTW I still haven't heard anyone tell me in any definitive way how the
latest guy got his gun. The cops are guessing a private sale

I doubt they are guessing, it's very likely they know but just haven't
said.




but I
haven't seen anyone say from whom and what were the details of the
sale or anything about the gun?

I haven't either, but it's not unusual for them to drag out that kind
of info, maybe because they are still figuring out the details of what
went on and they don't want more info out while they pursue it.
One big question will be if it was really an arms length sale, someone
he found online, at a swap meet, etc or was it someone he already knew.
And if the latter, then it raises the question if that person was a
straw buyer, who knew he was helping him get around the law, in which
case they could be charged.



I suppose they may still be trying to trace it but as I have said many
times, that is not a simple process.
My guess is they hit a dead end at the first FFL who took delivery
from the manufacturer and the dead guy is not much help working back
the other way. If it was ever reported stolen, game over.

It's anybody's guess until we find out. If the reports are correct though
that it was a sale, then they must know, otherwise they could not say
it's a sale. I don't know that anyone has said publicly that it was a sale,
I think that's been coming from sources, etc. and we know how that sometimes
goes.

My bet.
The "private sale" is just a guess and most of what we hear might just
be news people guessing.

Of course a guy trading a stolen gun for a few dozen crack rocks is a
private sale too.

On Thu, 5 Sep 2019 19:35:23 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Thursday, September 5, 2019 at 8:43:43 PM UTC-4, danny burstein wrote:
In writes:

[snip]

BTW I still haven't heard anyone tell me in any definitive way how the
latest guy got his gun. The cops are guessing a private sale but I
haven't seen anyone say from whom and what were the details of the
sale or anything about the gun?

Looks like they've got a suspect. No publicly released names, yet.

(ah, for the days when we still had some reporters around
who could look up the records on the house, etc.)

https://sanangelolive.com/news/crime...odessa-shooter



well now that opens a whole new dimension. I have no understanding
of any of the laws regarding building and selling guns. My impression
is that the ATF has been pretty lax on even going after guys who
regularly sell guns, but who are not FFLs. One of the Democrats
running, think it was Pete B, said that if he was president he would
order the ATF to require anyone selling more than 6 guns a year to
be licensed as an FFL. Call me crazy, but that sounds very reasonable
to me. But it looks more and more likely that this shooter did use
the private sale loophole, which I;ve been saying was bound to happen.

There are still too many details yet to be released to say yet whether
another law would have stopped this. By "Built" do they mean he had a
legal receiver (serial numbered) and he assembled the rest of the
parts or did he manufacture a receiver from an 80% casting. If so and
he sold it, there is already a law (actually several) that was broken.
We also don't know if this was a hobbyist, part of an outlaw biker
gang or somewhere in between.

On Thursday, September 5, 2019 at 3:09:50 PM UTC-7, trader_4 wrote:
On Thursday, September 5, 2019 at 5:08:13 PM UTC-4, Grumpy Old White Guy wrote:
On 9/5/2019 4:18 PM, trader_4 wrote:
On Thursday, September 5, 2019 at 3:26:17 PM UTC-4, Grumpy Old White Guy wrote:
On 9/5/2019 2:54 PM, trader_4 wrote:
On Thursday, September 5, 2019 at 2:43:11 PM UTC-4, Grumpy Old White Guy wrote:
On 9/5/2019 12:33 PM, Bod wrote:
With mass shootings on the rise in the US and becoming deadlier €” there have been 287 in 2019,
The democrats created this problem years ago when they started going soft on crime.Â* Now the gun-grabbin' dems want to fix the problem they created by banning guns.

--
Get off my lawn!
Ridiculous. None of the mass shooters have been a career criminal or had
any serious criminal history, been arrested or convicted of any serious crimes,
at most they typically have some minor brushes with the law. Why
do you mostly post nonsense?

Odessa
Walmart El Paso
Dayton
Parkland
Gilroy
Sandy Hook
San Bernardino
Orlando
Las Vegas
TX Church
Charleston Church
CA Synagogue
Cleveland Synagogue


Well, if as you say, these mass shooters had near-squeaky-clean criminal records, how can you ever effectively restrict gun purchases?

--
Get off my lawn!
You haven't been paying attention. Many of them would have failed a reasonable background check. We need a process where to buy a gun you need a permit issued by the local police chief after a real background check. That is where you can look at their arrest records, convictions, driving records, interactions with the local police, check with employers, those they live with, neighbors, etc.

you_4 stated:

"None of the mass shooters have been a career criminal or had
any serious criminal history, been arrested or convicted of any serious crimes,
at most they typically have some minor brushes with the law. "

So, with no record of violence, how will your gun-grabbin libtards screen potential do-bads fairly?Â* The problem is that homicidal criminals ignore existing gun laws.


I thought the vast
majority of gun owners are decent, honest Americans. Why wouldn't they
obey the law and not sell guns to someone who doesn't have a permit?

Not all states issue firearm ownership permits.

As to how to screen, it's already being done for pistols in many states,
including here. Classic example is the Parkland school shooter. The
police had been to his house 21 times for trouble, they knew he was
being treated for mental illness. That's more than enough to deny the
permit.

The mental health check clearly needs improvement.

The Dayton shooter, his mother called the police aFTER he had
already bought his AK-47. Had the police checked with mom, who he was
living with, that likely would have lead to reasons to block that permit,
including that he had a kill list and a rape list ten years earlier.
But when gun extremists refuse to have a permit process, there is no
checking. It's not that background checking can't help prevent at least
some of these, it's that there is no real checking.

On 05/09/2019 19:10, wrote:
On Thu, 5 Sep 2019 17:33:37 +0100, Bod wrote:

Life in America has become so dangerous that people have resorted to
extreme measures to reclaim basic safety we take for granted.

Curved hallways to reduce a gunmans line of vision, hiding spots that
can fit up to 30 students and bulletproof windows are sadly becoming the
norm in American schools.

With mass shootings on the rise in the US and becoming deadlier €” there
have been 287 in 2019, according to the Gun Violence Archive €” schools
are being renovated to add built-in security features, with the hope of
protecting students in the event of an active shooter situation.

https://www.news.com.au/world/north-...672043a02fb4e5

We put seat belts and cameras on school busses now too. That is
probably a better use of the money if protecting kids is your issue
but school bus crashes barely even make the local news.

The point being, that kids in the UK and Oz don't have to go to all
of those extra safety measures, because schoolkids don't have any
worries about being shot at.

--
Bod

On Thursday, September 5, 2019 at 12:33:43 PM UTC-4, Bod wrote:
Life in America has become so dangerous that people have resorted to
extreme measures to reclaim basic safety we take for granted.

Curved hallways to reduce a gunmans line of vision, hiding spots that
can fit up to 30 students and bulletproof windows are sadly becoming the
norm in American schools.

With mass shootings on the rise in the US and becoming deadlier €” there
have been 287 in 2019, according to the Gun Violence Archive €” schools
are being renovated to add built-in security features, with the hope of
protecting students in the event of an active shooter situation.

https://www.news.com.au/world/north-...672043a02fb4e5
--
Bod

It occurs to me that schools provide amenities so that they can "sell"
themselves. Some areas allow students to attend not the closest school,
but one that their parents prefer for one reason or another. A school
saying, "We have all the latest features to ensure the safety of your
child during a mass shooting" might enable them to lure a better class
of parent, even if the likelihood of a shooting at any particular school
is quite small.

Why would they want a better class of parent? Although districts can
build new schools through bond funding, operating expenses can still
be quite tight. Better parents can mobilize to ensure that operating
expenses are covered, even if they have to pay out of their own pockets.

Cindy Hamilton

On Fri, 6 Sep 2019 07:47:02 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 05/09/2019 19:10, wrote:
On Thu, 5 Sep 2019 17:33:37 +0100, Bod wrote:

Life in America has become so dangerous that people have resorted to
extreme measures to reclaim basic safety we take for granted.

Curved hallways to reduce a gunmans line of vision, hiding spots that
can fit up to 30 students and bulletproof windows are sadly becoming the
norm in American schools.

With mass shootings on the rise in the US and becoming deadlier €” there
have been 287 in 2019, according to the Gun Violence Archive €” schools
are being renovated to add built-in security features, with the hope of
protecting students in the event of an active shooter situation.

https://www.news.com.au/world/north-...672043a02fb4e5

We put seat belts and cameras on school busses now too. That is
probably a better use of the money if protecting kids is your issue
but school bus crashes barely even make the local news.

The point being, that kids in the UK and Oz don't have to go to all
of those extra safety measures, because schoolkids don't have any
worries about being shot at.

Until they do.

On Fri, 6 Sep 2019 03:36:12 -0700 (PDT), Cindy Hamilton
wrote:

On Thursday, September 5, 2019 at 12:33:43 PM UTC-4, Bod wrote:
Life in America has become so dangerous that people have resorted to
extreme measures to reclaim basic safety we take for granted.

Curved hallways to reduce a gunmans line of vision, hiding spots that
can fit up to 30 students and bulletproof windows are sadly becoming the
norm in American schools.

With mass shootings on the rise in the US and becoming deadlier €” there
have been 287 in 2019, according to the Gun Violence Archive €” schools
are being renovated to add built-in security features, with the hope of
protecting students in the event of an active shooter situation.

https://www.news.com.au/world/north-...672043a02fb4e5
--
Bod

It occurs to me that schools provide amenities so that they can "sell"
themselves. Some areas allow students to attend not the closest school,
but one that their parents prefer for one reason or another. A school
saying, "We have all the latest features to ensure the safety of your
child during a mass shooting" might enable them to lure a better class
of parent, even if the likelihood of a shooting at any particular school
is quite small.

Why would they want a better class of parent? Although districts can
build new schools through bond funding, operating expenses can still
be quite tight. Better parents can mobilize to ensure that operating
expenses are covered, even if they have to pay out of their own pockets.

Cindy Hamilton

In our school district there is total school choice. You can send your
kid to any school they want to go to if space is available. Schools
actively recruit for academics, social scene or athletics. Personally
I think it is stupid because we have buses criss crossing all over the
county to accommodate them but it is part of a decades old
desegregation plan.

On Friday, September 6, 2019 at 1:21:58 AM UTC-4, RosemontCrest wrote:
On Thursday, September 5, 2019 at 3:09:50 PM UTC-7, trader_4 wrote:
On Thursday, September 5, 2019 at 5:08:13 PM UTC-4, Grumpy Old White Guy wrote:
On 9/5/2019 4:18 PM, trader_4 wrote:
On Thursday, September 5, 2019 at 3:26:17 PM UTC-4, Grumpy Old White Guy wrote:
On 9/5/2019 2:54 PM, trader_4 wrote:
On Thursday, September 5, 2019 at 2:43:11 PM UTC-4, Grumpy Old White Guy wrote:
On 9/5/2019 12:33 PM, Bod wrote:
With mass shootings on the rise in the US and becoming deadlier €” there have been 287 in 2019,
The democrats created this problem years ago when they started going soft on crime.Â* Now the gun-grabbin' dems want to fix the problem they created by banning guns.

--
Get off my lawn!
Ridiculous. None of the mass shooters have been a career criminal or had
any serious criminal history, been arrested or convicted of any serious crimes,
at most they typically have some minor brushes with the law. Why
do you mostly post nonsense?

Odessa
Walmart El Paso
Dayton
Parkland
Gilroy
Sandy Hook
San Bernardino
Orlando
Las Vegas
TX Church
Charleston Church
CA Synagogue
Cleveland Synagogue


Well, if as you say, these mass shooters had near-squeaky-clean criminal records, how can you ever effectively restrict gun purchases?

--
Get off my lawn!
You haven't been paying attention. Many of them would have failed a reasonable background check. We need a process where to buy a gun you need a permit issued by the local police chief after a real background check. That is where you can look at their arrest records, convictions, driving records, interactions with the local police, check with employers, those they live with, neighbors, etc.

you_4 stated:

"None of the mass shooters have been a career criminal or had
any serious criminal history, been arrested or convicted of any serious crimes,
at most they typically have some minor brushes with the law. "

So, with no record of violence, how will your gun-grabbin libtards screen potential do-bads fairly?Â* The problem is that homicidal criminals ignore existing gun laws.


I thought the vast
majority of gun owners are decent, honest Americans. Why wouldn't they
obey the law and not sell guns to someone who doesn't have a permit?

Not all states issue firearm ownership permits.

No **** Sherlock.




As to how to screen, it's already being done for pistols in many states,
including here. Classic example is the Parkland school shooter. The
police had been to his house 21 times for trouble, they knew he was
being treated for mental illness. That's more than enough to deny the
permit.

The mental health check clearly needs improvement.

The Dayton shooter, his mother called the police aFTER he had
already bought his AK-47. Had the police checked with mom, who he was
living with, that likely would have lead to reasons to block that permit,
including that he had a kill list and a rape list ten years earlier.
But when gun extremists refuse to have a permit process, there is no
checking. It's not that background checking can't help prevent at least
some of these, it's that there is no real checking.

On 9/5/2019 7:54 PM, trader_4 wrote:
Would denying a permit to Cruz, the Parkland, FL shooter who had 21 police
visits to his house for trouble, where the cops knew he was being treated
for mental illness, be a "hunch"?


You're assuming a permit can stop a do-bad from acquiring a gun...which it can't.Â* For example, street drugs are illegal yet kids somehow manage to get them.

The latest craze is refrigerant huffing and the do-gooder libs think they can stop it with locking service port caps. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yjl_I-f43yQ

And even if you did manage to somehow confiscate all guns on Earth,Â* there's still the problem of alternate methods of mass mayhem that you'll never control.


--
Get off my lawn!

On Friday, September 6, 2019 at 9:27:21 AM UTC-4, Grumpy Old White Guy wrote:
On 9/5/2019 7:54 PM, trader_4 wrote:
Would denying a permit to Cruz, the Parkland, FL shooter who had 21 police
visits to his house for trouble, where the cops knew he was being treated
for mental illness, be a "hunch"?


You're assuming a permit can stop a do-bad from acquiring a gun...which it can't.Â* For example, street drugs are illegal yet kids somehow manage to get them.


Yet we don't have laws where people can just walk into a pharmacy and
buy meth, funny thing, that. When we put up fences around pools to keep
kids from dying, do we just say, 'but if the kid wants to go play in the
water, there are also ponds around'? Just like with pools, we can't
prevent ALL fatal incidents, but that does not mean that we should not
prevent those that we can. We don't really know how determined any of these
shooters was, to what lengths they would go to get a gun. And if they
got a gun illegally, would it be the AR-15 with a high capacity mag,
or would they have to settle for revolver because that's all they could
steal? Going about it ILLEGALLY, there is also the chance that they would
get caught, they would be asking around for who sells guns illegally
and someone might call the cops. Very different than walking into Dick's
Sporting Goods and buying whatever you want, with no permit.








The latest craze is refrigerant huffing and the do-gooder libs think they can stop it with locking service port caps. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yjl_I-f43yQ

And even if you did manage to somehow confiscate all guns on Earth,Â* there's still the problem of alternate methods of mass mayhem that you'll never control.



When we have 40,000 deaths a year, mass shootings once a month,
from any of those alternate means, let us know and we'll look at
what additional steps we need to take there.

Grumpy Old White Guy writes:
On 9/5/2019 3:37 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
writes:
On Thu, 5 Sep 2019 10:01:20 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:
There are lots of things they could do on the cheap to make schools
safer
Starting with banning possetion of weapons of war. I don't have a problem
with personal posssion of a revolver or bolt-action rifle. Hunting
weapons.

When the amendment was written, "arms" consisted of swords, long knives,
pole-arms and the occasional muzzle loader.

Today, "arms" includes the Mk 84 2000#er, powered miniguns, and nuclear devices.

So, a reasonable person would conclude that the amendment doesn't require
the government to allow one to possess a Mk84 or a B-43; therefore the
question is where one draws the line. I draw it before any military
sidearm or longarm, myself. There is _zero_ need for such a thing in the
hands of an untrained civilian. Period.



Are you sure about that?Â* Have you been paying attention to the whack-jobs that been infiltrating our government?Â* They're certainly not people our founding fathers would approve of.


You mean Mr Trump, of course.

Make no mistake, I prefer a peaceful existence in a polite society but this new crowd of nutjob democrats scares the bejeebers out of me.


The tea partiers seem to be far nuttier than anyone on the other side of the
isle.

See, your opinions are not universal, just yours.

rbowman writes:
On 09/05/2019 01:37 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
So, a reasonable person would conclude that the amendment doesn't require
the government to allow one to possess a Mk84 or a B-43; therefore the
question is where one draws the line. I draw it before any military
sidearm or longarm, myself. There is _zero_ need for such a thing in the
hands of an untrained civilian. Period.

How about trained civilians? Can I have a M-14?

Why? So you can kill your fellow citizens? Or get a rush
when you rock-n-roll a full bananna clip? A simple revolver is
sufficient for self-protection (although most of you seem to believe
that the westerns you watched back in the 50's were historical
instead of fictional).

And the idea that the amendment was there to provide citizens
a recourse against the government doesn't make sense; particularly
in an era when the country has a standing armed force (and a large,
well-armed one, to boot). _Red Dawn_ was a movie, not reality.

The amendment was there to ensure that the country could raise a
militia if required. A standing army makes that obsolete.

In article ,
says...

Not all states issue firearm ownership permits.




North Carolina does not have ownership permits.

It does require you to get a premit from the sheriff's office to buy a
handgun. That permit also eliminiates the need for a a back gound check
or waiting period for a rifle or shotgun. If you have a concealed carry
permit you do not have to have a permit to buy a gun. Just walk in a
store show that permit and drivers license and fill out the required
forms. Then walk out with the gun.







---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

On Friday, September 6, 2019 at 10:08:32 AM UTC-4, Scott Lurndal wrote:
rbowman writes:
On 09/05/2019 01:37 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
So, a reasonable person would conclude that the amendment doesn't require
the government to allow one to possess a Mk84 or a B-43; therefore the
question is where one draws the line. I draw it before any military
sidearm or longarm, myself. There is _zero_ need for such a thing in the
hands of an untrained civilian. Period.

How about trained civilians? Can I have a M-14?

Why? So you can kill your fellow citizens? Or get a rush
when you rock-n-roll a full bananna clip? A simple revolver is
sufficient for self-protection (although most of you seem to believe
that the westerns you watched back in the 50's were historical
instead of fictional).

And the idea that the amendment was there to provide citizens
a recourse against the government doesn't make sense; particularly
in an era when the country has a standing armed force (and a large,
well-armed one, to boot). _Red Dawn_ was a movie, not reality.

You must be joking. The founders had just used arms to overthrow their
British govt and you don't think it makes sense that they saw the need
for citizens to be armed against another oppressive govt someday?
And the militia of the era was just abled bodied civilians, using their
own guns, that banded together. The SC has ruled that the right to
own firearms provided by the Second Amendment extends to individuals.






The amendment was there to ensure that the country could raise a
militia if required. A standing army makes that obsolete.

Clearly not the intent, when those that wrote it had just overthrown
a standing army of a tyrannical govt and when they had seen the tyranny
imposed by other govts throughout history. They weren't stupid and
realized it could happen here. Which is why the Second Amendment was
included, just like the other protections to keep us free. Funny how
the libs want to twist the Constitution to any extreme to protect the
rights of some accused criminal when there is overwhelming evidence
that they committed the crime, but want to **** all over the Second
Amendment, which applies to law abiding citizens.

On Friday, September 6, 2019 at 10:46:35 AM UTC-4, Ralph Mowery wrote:
In article ,
says...

Not all states issue firearm ownership permits.




North Carolina does not have ownership permits.

It does require you to get a premit from the sheriff's office to buy a
handgun. That permit also eliminiates the need for a a back gound check
or waiting period for a rifle or shotgun.

It would not eliminate the need for the fed background check for the
purchase of a long gun, if it's purchased at an FFL.





If you have a concealed carry
permit you do not have to have a permit to buy a gun. Just walk in a
store show that permit and drivers license and fill out the required
forms. Then walk out with the gun.



And then there are the states like FL, where without any permit at all,
you can just walk in and
show just a driver's license and walk out with the gun, as long as you
pass the minimal and obviously inadequate fed check.



How's the hurricane down there? You inland or near the coast?