Discussion in 'Cast & Blast' started by Tool Fly, Aug 18, 2013.
Roper - 2016
You certainly can buy guns off the internet or otherwise through private parties, without going through an FFL.
Certainly comes across as angry and dismissive of our Canadian brothers.
Well, that's the downfall of written communication, if the conversation was in person you could see my face and hear my voice inflections. Dismissive? No, I just feel one society has no business telling another how to "evolve".
I'll tell you what, since this is still a written format and you seem to have your opinion about my communication, how's this? Adios, via con Dios...
Yes, you can buy from a private party in Washington (and unless you're talking about somebody advertising his firearm for private sale on an internet site, you can't buy what amounts to a mail-order gun off the internet, and haven't since about 1968-go to Guns.com or gunbroker,and give it a try). However, if you do, and have any reason to suspect that the party you sell it to would not pass the NICS check, you're liable for both civil and criminal charges. It's in the RCW. It behooves you to know who you sell it to.
Sorry to take so long to respond-too much going on here! No, I'm saying that there are decent people who live in those areas among the gang-bangers and other scum. But especially in CA, unfortunately, they have to go through way too much red tape in order to be able to protect themselves. The government is too concerned about the scum, and doesn't care one whit about the good people. I'm never in "Jesse James mode", with my hand on a 6-gun (I do have them, btw, in .45LC), but like a filled up fire extinguisher, my weapons are ready to hand if need be. When I was saddled with living in California I was forced to use my firearms 5 separate times in order to defend life and property. And I lived in a decent part of Sacramento, too! One thing became clear to me when I moved: where you can carry, you really don't need to, but where you need to, you can't.
In an independent research paper titled “Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide?,” first published in Harvard’s Journal of Public Law and Policy, Don B. Kates, a criminologist and constitutional lawyer, and Gary Mauser, Ph.D., a Canadian criminologist and professor at Simon Fraser University, examined the correlation between gun laws and death rates. It would seem that banning them is the wrong way to go. For certain, it doesn't work.
Of course the issue of "gun violence" is easily dealt with-just hang the bastards, like they used to do back in Jesse James' day. Or shoot them, which is what happened to him. Sic semper Tyrannis.
I agree that banning them does not work but there is some serious shit happening these days and hopefully there is an answer to all of it. It drives me nuts when our courts go so easy on crime of any sort. In our system the bad guy has more rights than victims and milk it for all it's worth. That is why I am in favour of change so potential victims can at least defend themselves. But as I have said what type of change and would there be enough support for change even if they are only baby steps.
Well said, Gofish 101! My observation is, where you can carry, you don't need to, and where you can't, you really need to! Strive to make the first shot go right betwixt the headlights, then you won't need to expend the second part of a double-tap.
The reason there can be no resolution of this subject in the U.S. is because emotions and rational analysis do not mix. Promoters of gun restrictions will argue that their "gun free zones" and other firearm restrictions are rational policies that make places safer. Unfortunately, that is an emotional perception of what the holder wants it to be. Rational analysis discovers that "gun free zones" like schools or shopping malls, where many mass shooting incidents occur, are in fact the most vulnerable places simply because they are perceived as "gun free" by gun carrying criminals. The criminals, being criminals, are never going to comply with any firearm restriction regulations, no matter how well intended. And because there are already between 250 and 300 million firearms in circulation in the U.S., the cat of "gun control" is already out of the bag.
Any government action to register all guns or confiscate handguns in the U.S. would simply do the idiotic: disarm law-abiding citizens, there very people you need not fear. Such laws would not disarm criminals for the very reason that criminals are not impressed by, nor do they obey, laws. For reasons unexplainable, the people who are emotionally attached to the notion that gun control could actually result in less crime in the U.S. suffer an emotionally linked delusion that never withstands rational analysis. However, I began this post saying that emotions and rational analysis do not mix. Hopefully I've made my point.
Sg, a peacenik pacifist if every there was one.
Refer to www.opencarry.org to check your state's laws.
Washington is reportedly OC, but not without some restrictions, etc.
I'd like to think that some of us Canadians haven't forgotten and would have your 6....
what i was trying to post is the following....
"This year will go down in history. For the first time,
a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets
will be safer, our police more efficient,and the world
will follow our lead into the future."
Adolph Hitler, 1935
Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it...our nation of sheeple are heading towards a cliff more dangerous that a fiscal one.
Just makes it a target-rich environment for people like me, if the proverbial shit ever hit the fan. Once again, however, it's a good thing to keep reminding folks that the real reason we have the 2nd Amendment is to allow the citizens to overthrow a tyrannical, out-of-control government. For those who think this couldn't happen, remember that George Washington didn't use his first amendment rights to foil the British, he shot them.
Ladies and Gentlemen... I give you The Land of Oz.
Alex, George Washington was still a British Colonist. He did not yet have first amendment rights. He was fighting for a better way of life. We are fighting to retain the same. The first bill of rights was comprised of ten amendments to the Constitution, but didn't arrive until 1791 during Washington's presidency.