Only 1 shooting this week so far

You are wrong, GW. If someone is dangerous, keep them in prison. If you let them out, let them be as free as anyone else.

Well, I'd agree with you except for one little thing. Recidivism rate. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recidivism#Recidivism_rates

As reported on BBC Radio 4 on 2 September 2005, the recidivism rates for released prisoners in the United States of America is 60% compared with 50% in the United Kingdom. The report attributed the lower recidivism rate in the UK to a focus on rehabilitation and education of prisoners compared with the US focus on punishment, deterrence and keeping potentially dangerous individuals away from society.

The United States Department of Justice tracked the rearrest, re-conviction, and re-incarceration of former inmates for 3 years after their release from prisons in 15 states in 1994.[16] Key findings include:

Released prisoners with the highest rearrest rates were robbers (70.2%), burglars (74.0%), larcenists (74.6%), motor vehicle thieves (78.8%), those in prison for possessing or selling stolen property (77.4%), and those in prison for possessing, using, or selling illegal weapons (70.2%).
Within 3 years, 2.5% of released rapists were arrested for another rape, and 1.2% of those who had served time for homicide were arrested for homicide. These are the lowest rates of re-arrest for the same category of crime.
The 272,111 offenders discharged in 1994 had accumulated 4.1 million arrest charges before their most recent imprisonment and another 744,000 charges within 3 years of release.

Rather high rates for possible re-offense. Which is why I favor a 3 to 5 year suspense period after release prior to being able to apply to get their gun rights back.

Again, I just cant endorse your desire to let a felon who is 70% likely to re-offend have access to a weapon just like any other law abiding citizen. Doesnt seem too smart to me. But i'm sure since your an attorney, allowing that is just more revenue for you, right? :lol:

It is quite interesting how so many who claim the 2nd Amendment gives them the inherent right to own assault weapons and extended capacity magazines for the inevitable upcoming riots frequently have no problem at all depriving ex-cons and many minorities from similarly bearing arms. This is despite them frequently having a far greater need to protect their own families from harm due to far worse police protection.

Form, I know you've probably mentioned it before, but I cant recall. Do you own firearms? And if so, how many and what kind?
 
When you check into prison, you should be able to turn your weapons in to the prison authorities for safekeeping. Upon release, they are returned to you. Perhaps a bit too libertarian for many of you.

You authoritarian slime! They should be allowed to keep their guns while they are in prison. You aren't a libertarian.

:crazyeye:

Spoiler :
No, I'm not being serious, not on this one.


It is quite interesting how so many who claim the 2nd Amendment gives them the inherent right to own assault weapons and extended capacity magazines for the inevitable upcoming riots frequently have no problem at all depriving ex-cons and many minorities from similarly bearing arms. This is despite them frequently having a far greater need to protect their own families from harm due to far worse police protection.

Since when did I support not letting minorities own weapons?

Truth be told, I personally wouldn't complain all that much if ex-cons could have weapons. I really think the game is up with the whole trading liberty for security th
 
Since when did I support not letting minorities own weapons?
Since when did I claim you did?

But the truth of the matter is that the NRA and many other gun proponents for whites have been strong advocates of gun control, in the past, especially when it comes to blacks. Even Martin Luther King was denied a concealed carry permit despite his house being bombed:

The Secret History of Guns

The Ku Klux Klan, Ronald Reagan, and, for most of its history, the NRA all worked to control guns. The Founding Fathers? They required gun ownership—and regulated it. And no group has more fiercely advocated the right to bear loaded weapons in public than the Black Panthers—the true pioneers of the modern pro-gun movement. In the battle over gun rights in America, both sides have distorted history and the law, and there’s no resolution in sight.

Republicans in California eagerly supported increased gun control. Governor Reagan told reporters that afternoon that he saw “no reason why on the street today a citizen should be carrying loaded weapons.” He called guns a “ridiculous way to solve problems that have to be solved among people of good will.” In a later press conference, Reagan said he didn’t “know of any sportsman who leaves his home with a gun to go out into the field to hunt or for target shooting who carries that gun loaded.” The Mulford Act, he said, “would work no hardship on the honest citizen.”

The fear inspired by black people with guns also led the United States Congress to consider new gun restrictions, after the summer of 1967 brought what the historian Harvard Sitkoff called the “most intense and destructive wave of racial violence the nation had ever witnessed.” Devastating riots engulfed Detroit and Newark. Police and National Guardsmen who tried to help restore order were greeted with sniper fire.

A 1968 federal report blamed the unrest at least partly on the easy availability of guns. Because rioters used guns to keep law enforcement at bay, the report’s authors asserted that a recent spike in firearms sales and permit applications was “directly related to the actuality and prospect of civil disorders.” They drew “the firm conclusion that effective firearms controls are an essential contribution to domestic peace and tranquility.”

Political will in Congress reached the critical point around this time. In April of 1968, James Earl Ray, a virulent racist, used a Remington Gamemaster deer rifle to kill Martin Luther King Jr. in Memphis, Tennessee. King’s assassination—and the sniper fire faced by police trying to quell the resulting riots—gave gun-control advocates a vivid argument. Two months later, a man wielding a .22-caliber Iver Johnson Cadet revolver shot Robert F. Kennedy in Los Angeles. The very next day, Congress passed the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, the first federal gun-control law in 30 years. Months later, the Gun Control Act of 1968 amended and enlarged it.

Together, these laws greatly expanded the federal licensing system for gun dealers and clarified which people—including anyone previously convicted of a felony, the mentally ill, illegal-drug users, and minors—were not allowed to own firearms. More controversially, the laws restricted importation of “Saturday Night Specials”—the small, cheap, poor-quality handguns so named by Detroit police for their association with urban crime, which spiked on weekends. Because these inexpensive pistols were popular in minority communities, one critic said the new federal gun legislation “was passed not to control guns but to control blacks.”

INDISPUTABLY, FOR MUCH of American history, gun-control measures, like many other laws, were used to oppress African Americans. The South had long prohibited blacks, both slave and free, from owning guns. In the North, however, at the end of the Civil War, the Union army allowed soldiers of any color to take home their rifles. Even blacks who hadn’t served could buy guns in the North, amid the glut of firearms produced for the war. President Lincoln had promised a “new birth of freedom,” but many blacks knew that white Southerners were not going to go along easily with such a vision. As one freedman in Louisiana recalled, “I would say to every colored soldier, ‘Bring your gun home.’”

After losing the Civil War, Southern states quickly adopted the Black Codes, laws designed to reestablish white supremacy by dictating what the freedmen could and couldn’t do. One common provision barred blacks from possessing firearms. To enforce the gun ban, white men riding in posses began terrorizing black communities. In January 1866, Harper’s Weekly reported that in Mississippi, such groups had “seized every gun and pistol found in the hands of the (so called) freedmen” in parts of the state. The most infamous of these disarmament posses, of course, was the Ku Klux Klan.

IN RESPONSE TO the Black Codes and the mounting atrocities against blacks in the former Confederacy, the North sought to reaffirm the freedmen’s constitutional rights, including their right to possess guns. General Daniel E. Sickles, the commanding Union officer enforcing Reconstruction in South Carolina, ordered in January 1866 that “the constitutional rights of all loyal and well-disposed inhabitants to bear arms will not be infringed.” When South Carolinians ignored Sickles’s order and others like it, Congress passed the Freedmen’s Bureau Act of July 1866, which assured ex-slaves the “full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings concerning personal liberty … including the constitutional right to bear arms.”

That same year, Congress passed the nation’s first Civil Rights Act, which defined the freedmen as United States citizens and made it a federal offense to deprive them of their rights on the basis of race. Senator James Nye, a supporter of both laws, told his colleagues that the freedmen now had an “equal right to protection, and to keep and bear arms for self-defense.” President Andrew Johnson vetoed both laws. Congress overrode the vetoes and eventually made Johnson the first president to be impeached.

The Fourteenth Amendment illustrates a common dynamic in America’s gun culture: extremism stirs a strong reaction. The aggressive Southern effort to disarm the freedmen prompted a constitutional amendment to better protect their rights. A hundred years later, the Black Panthers’ brazen insistence on the right to bear arms led whites, including conservative Republicans, to support new gun control. Then the pendulum swung back. The gun-control laws of the late 1960s, designed to restrict the use of guns by urban black leftist radicals, fueled the rise of the present-day gun-rights movement—one that, in an ironic reversal, is predominantly white, rural, and politically conservative.

TODAY, THE NRA is the unquestioned leader in the fight against gun control. Yet the organization didn’t always oppose gun regulation. Founded in 1871 by George Wingate and William Church—the latter a former reporter for a newspaper now known for hostility to gun rights, The New York Times—the group first set out to improve American soldiers’ marksmanship. Wingate and Church had fought for the North in the Civil War and been shocked by the poor shooting skills of city-bred Union soldiers.

In the 1920s and ’30s, the NRA was at the forefront of legislative efforts to enact gun control. The organization’s president at the time was Karl T. Frederick, a Princeton- and Harvard-educated lawyer known as “the best shot in America”—a title he earned by winning three gold medals in pistol-shooting at the 1920 Summer Olympic Games. As a special consultant to the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, Frederick helped draft the Uniform Firearms Act, a model of state-level gun-control legislation. (Since the turn of the century, lawyers and public officials had increasingly sought to standardize the patchwork of state laws. The new measure imposed more order—and, in most cases, far more restrictions.)

Frederick’s model law had three basic elements. The first required that no one carry a concealed handgun in public without a permit from the local police. A permit would be granted only to a “suitable” person with a “proper reason for carrying” a firearm. Second, the law required gun dealers to report to law enforcement every sale of a handgun, in essence creating a registry of small arms. Finally, the law imposed a two-day waiting period on handgun sales.

The NRA today condemns every one of these provisions as a burdensome and ineffective infringement on the right to bear arms. Frederick, however, said in 1934 that he did “not believe in the general promiscuous toting of guns. I think it should be sharply restricted and only under licenses.” The NRA’s executive vice president at the time, Milton A. Reckord, told a congressional committee that his organization was “absolutely favorable to reasonable legislation.” According to Frederick, the NRA “sponsored” the Uniform Firearms Act and promoted it nationwide. Highlighting the political strength of the NRA even back then, a 1932 Virginia Law Review article reported that laws requiring a license to carry a concealed weapon were already “in effect in practically every jurisdiction.”

When Congress was considering the first significant federal gun law of the 20th century—the National Firearms Act of 1934, which imposed a steep tax and registration requirements on “gangster guns” like machine guns and sawed-off shotguns—the NRA endorsed the law. Karl Frederick and the NRA did not blindly support gun control; indeed, they successfully pushed to have similar prohibitive taxes on handguns stripped from the final bill, arguing that people needed such weapons to protect their homes. Yet the organization stood firmly behind what Frederick called “reasonable, sensible, and fair legislation.”

One thing conspicuously missing from Frederick’s comments about gun control was the Second Amendment. When asked during his testimony on the National Firearms Act whether the proposed law violated “any constitutional provision,” he responded, “I have not given it any study from that point of view.” In other words, the president of the NRA hadn’t even considered whether the most far-reaching federal gun-control legislation in history conflicted with the Second Amendment. Preserving the ability of law-abiding people to have guns, Frederick would write elsewhere, “lies in an enlightened public sentiment and in intelligent legislative action. It is not to be found in the Constitution.”

In the 1960s, the NRA once again supported the push for new federal gun laws. After the assassination of President John F. Kennedy in 1963 by Lee Harvey Oswald, who had bought his gun through a mail-order ad in the NRA’s American Rifleman magazine, Franklin Orth, then the NRA’s executive vice president, testified in favor of banning mail-order rifle sales. “We do not think that any sane American, who calls himself an American, can object to placing into this bill the instrument which killed the president of the United States.” Orth and the NRA didn’t favor stricter proposals, like national gun registration, but when the final version of the Gun Control Act was adopted in 1968, Orth stood behind the legislation. While certain features of the law, he said, “appear unduly restrictive and unjustified in their application to law-abiding citizens, the measure as a whole appears to be one that the sportsmen of America can live with.”

Rich’s plan sparked outrage among the new breed of staunch, hard-line gun-rights advocates. The dissidents were led by a bald, blue-eyed bulldog of a man named Harlon Carter, who ran the NRA’s recently formed lobbying arm, the Institute for Legislative Action. In May 1977, Carter and his allies staged a coup at the annual membership meeting. Elected the new executive vice president, Carter would transform the NRA into a lobbying powerhouse committed to a more aggressive view of what the Second Amendment promises to citizens.

The new NRA was not only responding to the wave of gun-control laws enacted to disarm black radicals; it also shared some of the Panthers’ views about firearms. Both groups valued guns primarily as a means of self-defense. Both thought people had a right to carry guns in public places, where a person was easily victimized, and not just in the privacy of the home. They also shared a profound mistrust of law enforcement. (For years, the NRA has demonized government agents, like those in the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, the federal agency that enforces gun laws, as “jack-booted government thugs.” Wayne LaPierre, the current executive vice president, warned members in 1995 that anyone who wears a badge has “the government’s go-ahead to harass, intimidate, even murder law-abiding citizens.”) For both the Panthers in 1967 and the new NRA after 1977, law-enforcement officers were too often representatives of an uncaring government bent on disarming ordinary citizens.

The lower courts consistently point to one paragraph in particular from the Heller decision. Nothing in the opinion, Scalia wrote, should

be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

This paragraph from the pen of Justice Scalia, the foremost proponent of constitutional originalism, was astounding. True, the Founders imposed gun control, but they had no laws resembling Scalia’s list of Second Amendment exceptions. They had no laws banning guns in sensitive places, or laws prohibiting the mentally ill from possessing guns, or laws requiring commercial gun dealers to be licensed. Such restrictions are products of the 20th century. Justice Scalia, in other words, embraced a living Constitution. In this, Heller is a fine reflection of the ironies and contradictions—and the selective use of the past—that run throughout America’s long history with guns.
"Ironies and contradictions" or blatant hypocrisy?

‘IT’S MY GUN’: MINN. MAN BEATEN, ARRESTED FOR REPORTEDLY CARRYING HANDGUN… DESPITE HAVING CONCEALED CARRY PERMIT



A Minneapolis man says he suffered a concussion after receiving a beating from five police officers who attacked him after they noticed he was carrying a gun in his waist band, WCCO-TV in Minnesota reports.

The problem is, Zachary King has a concealed carry permit to lawfully carry the firearm. He argues police still attacked him anyway as he was leaving a local nightclub on Father’s Day night even after he told them he was carrying the permit.

“’I have my conceal and carry, and it’s my gun.’ And soon as I said that he grabbed me by my neck, slammed me against the wall, snatched my gun out the holster, started waving it in the air saying ‘gun, gun, gun,’” King said.

King also told WCCO he said nothing disrespectful to the officers and made no sudden movements that could have warranted the reaction from police.

“Then four other officers just came and slammed me on my face, one of the officers had me by my head just banging it on the sidewalk,” he said.

The permit was eventually discovered but King was reportedly taken to jail anyway.

MINN. MAN BEATEN, ARRESTED FOR CARRYING LEGAL GUN GIVES NEW DETAILS TO THE BLAZE (FEARED DEATH AND WASN’T DRINKING)

After leaving a local nightclub, King said he was walking down a Minneapolis street heading towards his truck at around 2:45 a.m. when he observed some police officers in front of him, which he says “wasn’t a problem” because he was doing nothing wrong.

Before making it to his vehicle, though, one of the officers stopped him and asked, “Hey, what’s that bulge under your shirt?”

King said he put his hands in the air and informed the officer that he was in possession of a handgun and a legal concealed carry permit. His permit does not expire until 2017, he said.

“He did not ask first to see my permit, he did not ask to see my ID,” King explained. “He just grabbed me by the neck and slammed me against the wall and snatched my gun from its holster, screaming ‘gun! gun! gun!’”

Four additional cops reacted to the commotion and began beating King and slamming his face on the ground, he said.

“I did not resist. I was telling them I wasn’t resisting,” he added. “I was asking, ‘Why are you guys doing this? I have a conceal and carry,’ but they just kept asking ‘Where?,’ still beating me.”

Eventually, one of the police officers went for his wallet and discovered the permit. The beating ceased shortly after, King explained.

When they pulled him from the ground, the pavement was soaked in his blood, he said. Though police wanted to take him straight to jail, he explained, a paramedic confirmed he was in need of medical attention.

“I felt nauseous, dizzy and faint,” King told The Blaze. “I was scared to go to sleep because I thought I wasn’t going to wake up. I thought I was going to die.”

Didn’t drink “one lick”

According to King, the reason he was at a local night club was to see a performance where his friend was working as a show promoter. His wife had suggested he “go have some fun” on Father’s Day, an already somber day considering King and his wife lost their 7-year-old son five years ago after their pit bull mauled the boy. (King was acquitted of manslaughter charges in that case in 2008.)

King says he had not been drinking any alcohol the night he was beaten and arrested and claims he took two separate breathalyzer tests, one administered by the police and another at the hospital. Both readings turned up zero traces of alcohol, he says, although that has not been verified by officials.

“I did not drink one lick at all … . I know I’m not supposed to when I have my gun,” King told The Blaze. “I wanted them to give me a breathalyzer because I knew I hadn’t been drinking anything and they have to try to find a reason for why they beat and arrested me.”

Michael Padden, King’s lawyer, told The Blaze on Tuesday he is trying to get the breathalyzer results released in order to corroborate his client’s story. Padden said he would make the results available to The Blaze once they are confirmed.
 
More interesting details begin to emerge about Adam and his mother:

Stylists: Lanza Never Spoke, Made No Eye Contact

As a teenager, Adam Lanza would come in for a haircut about every six weeks without speaking or looking at anyone and always accompanied by his mother, said stylists at a salon in the town where Lanza gunned down 27 people last week, including his mother, before killing himself.

He stopped coming in a few years ago, and the employees at the salon thought he had moved away, said stylist Bob Skuba.

The comments from him and his colleagues were among the first describing how the Lanzas interacted with each other. Investigators have found no letters or diaries that could explain the attack, one of the deadliest mass shootings in U.S. history.

Cutting Adam Lanza's hair "was a very long half an hour. It was a very uncomfortable situation," stylist Diane Harty said. She said that she never heard his voice and that Nancy Lanza also hardly spoke.

Another stylist, Jessica Phillips, echoed their descriptions of the Lanzas and added that Nancy Lanza would give her son directions about what to do and where to go.

Adam would move only "when his mother told him to," Skuba said.

"I would say, 'Adam, come on.' He wouldn't move," Skuba said. "And his mother would have to say, 'Adam, come on, he's ready.' It was like I was invisible." He said Adam also wouldn't move from his chair after his hair was cut until his mother told him to.

If a stylist would ask Adam a question, Skuba said, his mother would answer.

"He would just be looking down at the tiles ... the whole time," Skuba said.

Former classmates have previously described Adam Lanza as intelligent but remote, and former high school adviser described him as anxious and shy. Several people who knew his mother have described her as a devoted parent.

Divorce paperwork released this week showed that Nancy Lanza had the authority to make all decisions regarding Adam's upbringing. The divorce was finalized in September 2009, when Adam Lanza was 17.
According to the video, a former babysitter who used to watch him when he was younger was told by his mother to never leave him alone. To not even go to the bathroom while he was babysitting him.

Yet his mother took him to the range to learn how to shoot and apparently didn't bother to even lock up the firearms.
 
Interesting repeat question. Surely you'll get an answer this time.
 
Interesting repeat question. Surely you'll get an answer this time.
"Surely" I have answered it numerous times already. "Surely" it isn't even relevant, as Jeelen just pointed out.

But no, i don't own any assault weapons. And I don't see a need to do so because I'm not expecting to be assaulted by an overly large number of people in the near future. I don't even know anybody who does own one. AFAIK, nobody has even admitted to doing so in this forum.
 
Oh. I'm sorry. Your answer has certainly escaped me.

To be honest I have no particular interest in whether you own weapons or not. I was just amused by MobBoss's repeat question and your repeat ignoring of it.

Carry on. Don't mind me. I'm just a casual observer.
 
I have found that responding to too many of his questions leads others to complain about it, so I am trying to do so far less than I did in the past.

Getting back to the topic of the thread instead of the all-too-typical discussion of me in its place, Bushmaster is coming under fire for the way they marketed their assault weapon:

Newtown Shooting: Investment Firm Drops Stake in Bushmaster Group

A major investment firm said today it is dropping its stake in the group of companies that includes the manufacturer of the assault-style rifle that officials said was used in last week's rampage at a Connecticut elementary school.

Calling the shooting a "watershed event" in the national debate on gun control, Cerberus Capital, a New York-based firm that manages over $20 billion, said in a statement Tuesday it planned to sell off its investment in the Freedom Group. Freedom Group bills itself as a "family" of more than a dozen firearm companies including Bushmaster Firearms. Officials said it was a Bushmaster assault-style rifle, the civilian version of the military's M-16, that 20-year-old Adam Lanza used in a majority of the rampage that took the lives of 20 children and six adults at Sandy Hook Elementary School Friday morning.

"It is not our role to take positions, or attempt to shape or influence the gun control policy debate. That is the job of our federal and state legislators," Cerberus said today. "There are, however, actions that we as a firm can take. Accordingly, we have determined to immediately engage in a formal process to sell our investment in Freedom Group... Our thoughts and prayers are with the families and communities impacted by this tragic event."

Bushmaster has not responded to an emailed request for comment from ABC News and has not addressed the deadly incident on its website as of this report.

Cerberus' move comes as investigators said they will be going back to the beginning -- back to the day Adam Lanza was born and the day the Bushmaster was manufactured -- in an attempt to figure out what may have caused the troubled young man to so easily get his hands on such a deadly weapon.

Officials said the rifle was purchased legally by Lanza's mother, Nancy, in 2010, well after family friends said Lanza's behavioral issues were clear. The same year Bushmaster ran an advertising campaign extolling its customers to buy their assault-style weapons to prove they're a "Man's Man" in a "world of depleting testosterone."

A source close to Adam Lanza's father, Peter, told ABC News late Monday that 2010 was also the year that Peter last saw his son. Before that, he had visited the boy just about every weekend.

Richard Novia, the advisor for the tech club at Newtown High of which Adam was a member until he left the school two years ago, said that Lanza could not feel pain and if he cut or hurt himself, "he would not know it."

Ryan Kraft, a former baby-sitter of Lanza's, said Nancy Lanza told him never to leave her son alone, "never even to go to the bathroom or turn [my] back on him at any time."

Police have not said exactly what model of AR-15-type semi-automatic rifle Lanza used -- and Bushmaster offers more than a dozen different types, not to mention a host of modifications that can be made to the guns -- but generally the weapons can take a high-capacity 30-round magazine and have an effective firing rate of 45 shots per minute, according to a Bushmaster manual posted online.

A February report by Guns and Ammo magazine noted a growing demand in recent years for AR-15-type rifles – and specifically those loaded with .223 caliber bullets as Lanza's was – for use in home defense. The .223 caliber load is popular, the article says, because it has better fragmentation upon impact, meaning it will deal a lot of damage with less chance of accidentally continuing through the target and endangering whoever's in the background.

"This thing is just a killing machine," Josh Horwitz, Executive Director of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, told ABC News Monday. "It's designed, like I said it was designed... very similar to the weapon that's used in the battlefield."

Bushmaster Rifle Ad Reminds Us To Ask More About Masculinity And Gun Violence (PHOTO)





..visitors of bushmaster.com will have to prove they're a man by answering a series of manhood questions. Upon successful completion, they will be issued a temporary Man Card to proudly display to friends and family. The Man Card is valid for one year.

Visitors can also call into question or even revoke the Man Card of friends they feel have betrayed their manhood. The man in question will then have to defend himself, and their Man Card, by answering a series of questions geared towards proving indeed, they are worthy of retaining their card.

Which prompted someone to create this parody:

 
Guns are for physically unfit cowards. Men prefer to fight with swords, so they can see each others' eyes!

In all seriousness, though, that's a pretty pathetic ad campaign. Owning an assault rifle isn't inherently manly; it's not necessary or even useful in a society that isn't in a war zone. Many say they buy it for home defense, but defense against whom? Or what? Rifles like that are only needed if you're expecting zombies. Or a squad of determined and armed men. Like the police.
 
@Form- Well, I don't really care that Reagan supported gun control, its still wrong. And I'm not really a Reagan fan either, although I suppose he was better than the Presidents we've had since.

If it was the "Left" who supported gun rights back then, they were right, and if its the right now, they are right. The "Right" does not support the right to use drugs, I disagree with them in spite of being on the economic right.

And the only reason I don't support Martin Luther King Jr. getting a concealed carry permit is because I don't think anyone should have to get a concealed carry permit. Needing a permit to exercise your rights is a trampling on the US constitution. I support everyone's right to own guns.
 
If we had good men like Reagan running the Federal government we would have less reason to need arms.
 
If we had good men like Reagan running the Federal government we would have less reason to need arms.

Its kind of annoying that he laced conservative arguments in libertarian rhetoric. I mean, according to Reagan's words, machine guns and crack should both be legal, but he would never have seriously dreamed of legalizing either. I sometimes say "As Reagan said, even though he didn't believe it, government goes too far when it protects you from yourself".

I don't know a ton about Reagan's Presidency. What I do know that was bad: Grenada invasion, Iran-Contra affair, tripled the deficit (Partially the fault of the liberals for refusing to cut spending), FDR was his hero.

Good: Cut taxes and didn't drop drones on US citizens.

I'd take Reagan over Obama, or Bush, or pretty much any of the mainstream Republican candidates. But compared to even Gary Johnson or Rand Paul, let alone Ron Paul, Reagan was woefully lacking. For me as a libertarian anyway.

Regarding assault weapon ownership, this thread is making me want to rush to get one as soon as I legally can. Is that 18 or 21?
 
Mob... do you have a relevant question? If so, could you possibly ask one?

Uh...heed your own advice pal.

Its perfectly relevant....to me. And fwiw, I'm sure a few others might be curious also. If its not to you....well, then you know what you can do.

So, Form....whats the harm in coming clean on how many weapons you own.....if any? Why should that question scare you?
 
Regarding assault weapon ownership, this thread is making me want to rush to get one as soon as I legally can. Is that 18 or 21?

For all that is holy and good, I pray to God that you never "rush" to do anything with a damned firearm.

They're created to kill. They do it very well both through intent and accident. Before you even consider buying one, be it at age 18(like me) or age 21 you need to figure some very basic things out first. What are you going to do with your gun? Where are you going practice shooting it? Who is going to teach you how to use it? These things need to happen. Do you have any desire to sport with it, or are you merely looking at weapons that only have anti-human applications? If you have never shot anything, please please do not get a handgun. Learn how to shoot something else first, like a training .22 rifle at a range. You might find you dislike the experience, and you are somewhat less likely to punch a hole in either your or somebody elses chest through ignorance with one of those. Only then start considering looking at price ranges, model types, storage methods, and how you are going to keep the darn thing safe.
 

I must say that's a fine looking penis gun, there. I'm quite envious.

But to be honest, this is more my style:



With one of these you can keep at it all weekend. And no need to reload every few minutes. (Warning: can be noisy and annoy the neighbours.)
 
Top Bottom