I’m wondering how the British are going to eat their Beef Wellington after they eventually work their way around to banning all knives in as well as outside of their homes? Then of course they will have to start banning all those dangerous pointy forks. Though it wouldn’t be too hard for a criminal to put a sharp edge on a spoon. Guess they will just have to settle for eating finger foods across the pond.
3 Likes
While I agree, in practice there is no such thing as 100%, zero failures, in anything. That’s just not realistic. Having said that, I don’t want ANY additional “safeties” that may prevent the use of my weapon by someone in my family should the need arise. Something tied to just one person is a BAD idea. Something that allows saving multiple bio profiles partly defeats its purported purpose.
4 Likes
In my opinion, Elon spent $136 million on the election to prevent Chinese EVs from entering and competing in the US market, to preserve his lock on the EV charging market, and to preserve US spending on his space efforts. But, maybe he will turn out to reduce federal spending, which drives inflation.
Here’s my “wish list” of gun and non-gun related things to streamline the federal government and reduce federal spending:
-
Eliminate tariffs on imports. All imports, to include firearms and firearms parts (and EVs, which Elon will never suggest). Any tariff revenues for tariffs not eliminated should be distributed annually to the American public, not retained and squandered by the federal bureaucracy.
-
Eliminate restrictions on firearm imports and exports.
-
Destroy all 4473 records and FFL records held by the federal government. What legitimate purpose does preserving these records accomplish other than spending tax dollars to keep them for the day when firearms are banned and government needs/wants to track them down?
-
Eliminate agencies for which there is not BOTH (1) an explicit Congressional authorization for that agency/program and. (2) a Congressional appropriation of money to that agency. There are scores of federal agencies that have an appropriation of funds, but no authorization, 'cause Congress critters do not want to face the political blow-back of going on record of voting for or against an agency/program.
-
Eliminate the notion of a “prohibited person” for firearms purchase and possession unless specific funds and authorization are made to enforce restrictions on such individuals.
-
Eliminate the rulemaking authority of the ATF with respect to making firearms law and return it to Congress.
5 Likes
It also applied to burning wood pallets in 55 gallon drums on street corners to keep warm.
3 Likes
Chopsticks
Oh wait there are pencil sharpeners that are legal
Modeled after my survival rules: (1 through 3)
1- Survival overrides all other 
.
2- When in doubt refer to rule #1.
3– All else is .
2a Laws:
The Second Amendment is the law of the land.
When in doubt refer to the law of the land
See above ⬆️
4 Likes
Hard pass.
You have to think like a Pro Gun Control person to understand the why of it being a hard pass.
Who sets the standard for the required “Training”
How often is the required “training” offered?
Who trains the required “trainers”?
10 seconds of critical thought and I bet any “Pro Gun Control” Legislator can/could find a dozen or more ways to disenfranchise law abiding citizens. Just by manipulating the “required” sections of the law.
I get it, we are all “pro training”. But you have to look at any “requirement” for the “unintended consequences”.
The “Constitution” says what it says. There is no other interpretation or rewriting necessary.
A well regulated Militia, being “necessary” to the security of a “free” State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall “not” be infringed.
No permission slips needed to own a gun, no “prohibited persons”, no “Mother, May I’s” to own a certain class of firearms, or certain types of accessories.
“Shall Not Be Infringed”. Because as soon as we accept some “small” infringements, there are going to be efforts to push the envelope just a little bit further. All in the name of “Safety” and the “Greater Good”.
I am willing to give up elements of safety in order to secure my greatest chance at “Essential Liberties”.
Look at what has happened, historically, when the NFA was passed in 1934, it’s intent was to be a tool to help law enforcement against gang violence. It’s now used to suppress our ability to defy a “Tyrannical Government”, with the assistance and full throated cooperation of State and Federal Law Enforcement.
Unintended Consequences…
Jesus Wept.
5 Likes
There must be at least one. A book was written about it.
3 Likes
Even “imminent threat” is no guarantee you won’t go to jail.
4 Likes
This!
See the mess that is CA as a result of SB2
5 Likes
That is a post for another topic.
Larry 130, from one marine to another well said. And don’t forget the buy more ammo may need it. BETTER TO HAVE AND NOT NEED THEN TO NEED AND NOT HAVE.
2 Likes
NO, let’s add to Brad’s “Propose Firearm Laws”. If one (law abiding citizen) stops an imminent threat in self defense, of bodily harm, or death of self or others, the individual, on scene, shall NOT be ARRESTED, nor QUESTIONED, nor be taken to JAIL, once testimonial has been heard by Police of the individual stopping the imminent threat, testimonial given by witnesses (when applicable) on scene, and NO CHARGES be filed, no COURT. Send the individual on their merry way, call the coroner to hall the carcass criminal threat away.
4 Likes
That sounds more like a right than a law to me. On that note, it would be a good thing. We are innocent until proven guilty. I think it falls into the category of knowing the difference between killing and murder. Which would be a good title for a different topic.
5 Likes
Well, it’s something to add to Brad’s “Propose Firearm Laws” 
(not mine) 
whether it’s a right or it’s a law. A bias/prejudice DA/Lawyer/Judge would gladly defend a threatening CRIMINAL (criminal’s family 
saying, "he/she was a good boy/girl 
with a VIOLENT CRIMINAL HISTORY A MILE (or more) LONG!) than to hear your side, and THROW YOUR @$$ IN JAIL “CASE CLOSED”. 
“We are innocent until proven guilty” NOT IN TODAY’S LAW SYSTEM! You can only hope 
you hire a really, really, REALLY GOOD LAWYER TO DEFEND the case. 
Guilty til proven Innocent 
3 Likes
Most of the “officials” out there can’t yet wrap their heads around “shall not be infringed.” I fear they would see a law like that as a challenge, not a restriction.
5 Likes
Yep, anything and everything that a $$$ 
$$$ blood thirsty lawyer/officials see as a challenge will INFRINGE, whether there’s restriction or not, to gain their goals $$$
2 Likes
That would suck. Do you know anybody it happened to? I have heard (I don’t remember where) if one is involved in a shooting expect to be arrested until they figure out what happened.
2 Likes
This thread died on the vine. I thought we’d get (a lot) more out of it. 
3 Likes
I guess we’re just not fans of firearms laws 
4 Likes