n/m dup post
All who advocate for any sort of firearms control are secretly advocating a ban on all weapons. Didn’t you get the memo?
:smack: Damn, that liberal conspiracy email went right to my junk folder. Should have checked there first.
Veterans do have excellent training in firearms. They know how to handle them safely. The combat vets fought for this country and helped preserve our freedoms. We’d all be goose stepping and saying heil Hitler if it weren’t for the WWII vets. If anyone has the right to own and enjoy guns it’s our vets.
They of course have to use them safely at gun ranges just like any other citizen. But, I have no problem with them firing off AR-15’s as a hobby. I prefer pistol shooting, but different strokes for different folks.
I don’t understand how registering guns is taking away a right. It’s a weapon. It’s good to know where they are. No, we’re not going to know where they all are, but that’s no reason not to at least ATTEMPT to keep a count. Owning a gun yet refusing to register, what is that? That is neither accountability, nor responsibility. It’s cowardice.
Once again, you are ignoring the secret agenda he hinted at in his letter where he said that she wasn’t going to take his guns away from him.
A lot of knee-jerking comes around when nutbars shoot a place up, but I’m not sure how much realistic regulation could prevent that. However, there is still a lot which could be done to make gun ownership more responsible.
From what I understand, the federal government is prohibited from computerizing gun transactions. Supposedly, gun owners support this so that the government cannot easily confiscate their guns. When a gun is used in a crime, the feds have to research through paper files to trace the serial number of a gun. I think that should be changed.
Really, it’s the whole mentality that gun owners are going to protect us from the evil government who is going to march on its own citizens. Think of the Waco disaster. Rather than just let the agents exercise their search warrant, the nutbars decide they are under attack. This marine has that same mentality. He’s going to hold onto all the bullet-firing objects he wants, even if it’s illegal to do so. That does not make gun owners look like responsible citizens.
Texas. We actually write the name of the county tax collector on our check when sending in vehicle registration (e.g. Pay to the order of — Carol Jones).
This really isn’t worth responding to. But maybe somebody should point out to this Marine that when he fought for his country, proudly carrying an assault rifle,…he was overseas.
If he really feels the need to keep shooting assault rifles with high capacity magazines, he can always re-enlist, go overseas, and find somebody to shoot at.
At home, he should be allowed to keep one handgun for self defence, with one box of ammo.
He’ll still be an American.
There are lots of brave veterans whom I greatly admire.
There’s also Timothy McVeigh and his Bronze Star.
And I, a perfectly responsible user of words, shouldn’t be limited in where and when I say them just because a few dumbasses shout “fire!” in a crowded theatre. But whaddayagonnado?
I don’t know about you but I’m going to stand across the street from a crowded theater and shout fire. That’ll teach those loony lefties.
That’s a perfect way to highlight the hypocrisy of Dianne Feinstein having been to a theater… on multiple occasions!
Like by pointing them at people and squeezing the trigger? Correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t the government spend billions of dollars every year training these otherwise ordinary U.S. citizens in the use of firearms mainly for the purpose of effiiciently killing people?
…there are rational and intelligent Marines, how come we never hear from them, huh?
With all due respect to vets, being a veteran doesn’t earn you a single “right” that isn’t already afforded to every citizen equally.
That is delusional. Dianne Feinstein is not “far left” even by the standards of America’s grossly distorted political spectrum. Even just in terms of the senatorial delegation from the union’s most populous state, she is well to the right.
¬¬¬¬¬
So, some idiot gum worshipers are marines. So what? I am not surprised, that the armed forces harbor some idiots who love violence (or the idea of it) and who need a gun to make them feel powerful. It is a good thing the armed forces exist to provide them with a legitimate way to sublimate their neuroses, which otherwise might become quite dangerous. On the other hand, I have little doubt that one could also find a plenty of marines who are not like that at all, and who are in favor of strict gun control.
I have an important (though tangential) question here. Is the thing marines say really, “Hoo-rah”? I’ve been hearing it as boorah all this time.
Having to obey gun control laws is no more a punishment (for veterans, or anybody) than having to obey traffic laws (or, come to that, laws against theft) is punishment for good (or even bad) drivers.
The first two sentences here bear no logical relation whatsoever to the second two.
All “assault weapons” are by definition not assault rifles.
FWIW, I have heard that Feinstein no longer maintains her CCW.
But really, when people point out why they thing she is hypocrite, it’s usually not in reference to banning “assault weapons.” It’s the fact that she had a CCW (at one time?), and yet supports California’s rather strict May-Issue CCW laws. That means that the local LEO may give you one if s/he thinks you deserve it, but someone like a Senator would pretty much have an automatic rubber stamp while John Doe has no chance in hell of being approved.
Well, anyone with a CCW has to show cause to need one, not just want one. I’m female; that’s an automatic rubber-stamp, right? Say I’m afraid for my safety, that I’ve been attacked before? Who can legally argue with that? My dad has one; as a travelling merchant, he carries money with him. It’s not enough to kill anyone over, but apparantly that doesn’t matter, as it was deemed a plausible reason.
I’d be interested in people who’ve been turned down for a CCW for reasons other than ‘questionable moral/mental health’.