Oh I’d say my last one was $1300 before I installed an optic :)

No human lives have been lost by my guns sir.

* Last updated by: Nastynotch on 10/30/2018 @ 12:53 PM *

What possible reason is there for a civilian to own a military grade weapon?

We don't and cant own military grade weapons. I'd sure like a 25mm antiaircraft twin gun but damn I cant, its highly illegal. Same for real AK47 or M16/M4 - only the LA MS13 drug gangs have those.

An I though Yanni was well read and somewhat factual. What I can and do own is the basic semi-auto rifles.

Surprised you didn't rant on the standard canard of "high-Power" rifle too. The AR15 cartridge is either .223 Rem or 5.56mm NATO and is actually almost the lowest power rifle cartridge currently available. GRNs hunting rifle is 10x more powerful than a .223.

With your logic I say "what right do you have to own a Moto GP motorcycle" that's just as legal and controlled as my AR?

Crude, that’s actually not true. There are plenty of class 3 weapons manufactured before 1986 that are tradable with the $200 tax stamp. They are very expensive though. I have several friends that own a few legally.

G'Day Crude.

Come on mate. You know exactly what I was and wasn't referring to.
Shotguns, rifles, machine guns, firearm mufflers and silencers are regulated by the National Firearms Act of 1934. The purchase of semi-automatic weapons is legal in most states, as are automatic weapons made before 1986.

An I though Yanni was well read and somewhat factual.

And to bring up a 25mm anti-aircraft twin gun in this argument is foolish.

With your logic I say "what right do you have to own a Moto GP motorcycle" that's just as legal and controlled as my AR?

My last note on the topic.
I fucking love the USA.
I have been there many times and think it is an incredible place.
I love the people (heck, I even like most of you blokes).
I love the pride the American people have in their country.
It is not perfect but about as free, fair, and democratic as you are going to get.

And yet I would never live there.
Why?
The prevalence of legal firearms in society and the potential associated results that come from it.

Just wouldn't want my family around that.

* Last updated by: yannih on 10/30/2018 @ 1:11 PM *

Nasty - you are of course correct. With heavy USG screening "some" people who pass the screening can own them.

Unfortunately not here in the Socialist paradise of CA.

There are a million ways to kill. I fear someone’s ugly heart before I fear an object. That object only becomes dangerous in the hands of an evil person. As has been done in the past, an evil person behind the wheel of a vehicle can be just as deadly.

My point here is evil will find a way if you remove guns as an option.

When we are born, other than obvious age limits (by the way, the 2nd Amendment doesn't specify an age limit), we can all pass a background check. As time goes on, we build a history, some of it good, maybe some of it bad. For some, sooner or later, they become violent criminals, and maybe others become mentally challenged. And, although those that will commit violent crimes and become mentally lost, will shows signs, it is pretty difficult for society as a whole to determine when a person is going to go off the end and hurt other people. Sometimes, there are no signs, people just snap!

Just because a person passes a background check today and picks up a legally owned full auto rifle tomorrow, doesn't insure they will not use that rifle to harm others later on. It also doesn't mean that someone who may be a restricted owner cannot get a legally owned full auto rifle from someone else who is. Some restrictive laws, I'm sure, have prevented some crimes. I'm also sure some restrictive laws have prevented lawful citizens the ability to obtain legal firearms to protect themselves before they were brutally murdered.

The US Constitution makes it clear the right of the people to have firearms. It doesn't provide that right to education or healthcare. Yet those who want all to have a right to provided healthcare and education, that they insist I pay for, are not so keen on providing firearms to everyone......seems odd to me!!

"not designed for the one and only sole specific purpose to kill".Just because it LOOKS like a military assault weapon doesn't mean it IS.ALL guns are designed to kill.What'd be the point if ya couldn't shoot the deer and have it go down?Just like the ninja can be ridden on the street nicely,and tracked as well,but not quite as capable in that venue.There's really no difference.Just taking the item for what it is.Looking at it that way.And I would say...America is as safe as any developed country.There's nothing to be afraid of here that isn't all over the world.Even New Zealand.We just have MORE of everything.I never worry about violence.Course I live in Montana...so it's pretty cool here...everyone owns guns lol.Perhaps that's WHY it's cool???People KNOW people are armed.

" Some restrictive laws, I'm sure, have prevented some crimes. I'm also sure some restrictive laws have prevented lawful citizens the ability to obtain legal firearms to protect themselves before they were brutally murdered."...just last night I was thinking exactly this topic.After reading some of these comments.And there's LOTS of people who can't legally get a gun that have one,or more.I think that's okay.Long as they're good people.Guns are a HUGE deterrent.Very important in today's world.Though they may not seem like they are.Lots of folks escaping violent outcomes because they're armed.You just won't read about that in the mainstream news.Not much anyway.

* Last updated by: Grn14 on 10/30/2018 @ 3:36 PM *

"Guns are a HUGE deterrent.Very important in today's world.Though they may not seem like they are.Lots of folks escaping violent outcomes because they're armed.You just won't read about that in the mainstream news.Not much anyway."

The main stream media just hates the idea and mostly refuses to air any news about a 'Good Guy with a Gun', unless that Good Guy happens to be an off-duty police officer. They actually, it appears to me, hate to air the news, rather they give opinions. So, the thousands of times good people defend themselves with weapons, against a bad person whether with a weapon or not, never gets reported to the silly masses. To hear about these cases, people need to seek out alternative news sources, mostly those on the internet that actually report the news!

Come on lads.
Even I know you can do way better than those 2 extremely poor analogies on the subject...

But they're exactly right: where do you draw the line? Who draws that line? Someone who lives like you or someone who just knows what's best for you?

Over here my gun safes contents enforce my position that I know what's best for me.

Yanni

Thats great we want your tourist $$ but not your fucking liberal socialist lifestyle. The 2 kiwi's I go shooting with have converted and aren't afraid of guns like you are.

you're just the run of the mill tosser after all

* Last updated by: cruderudy on 10/30/2018 @ 4:15 PM *

Ah Crude, cause I don't agree with you on something the insults start and I'm the tosser.
What a shame you had to get personal.
Thought you were a decent bloke but I've been wrong before and I'll be wrong again...

* Last updated by: yannih on 10/30/2018 @ 4:42 PM *

dont take it personal yanni, you liberals will never get it and thats fine by me

After the right to free speech the right to keep and bare arms is fundamental to the development of this country. Liberals hate it because they are scared in general and know they can never control the country while we have the capability to defend our self against their plans for a tyrannical govt out of control

So now I’m a Liberal because I don’t agree with guns.
One opinion.
One point.
One belief.
Yep. That’s me.
Mr Liberal.
And I’m scared.
I want to control the country.

You know Crude, thankyou for teaching me so much about myself.
I’m mean too bad you are wrong on almost every point but if guessed generalisations are your thing knock yourself out son.

I don’t agree with you.
That’s all mate.
It happens.
It’s life.
It’s not the end of the world.
Personal attacks and talking rubbish doesn’t contribute anything positive on the subject.

* Last updated by: yannih on 10/30/2018 @ 5:44 PM *

So Hub; just to confirm, you believe anyone should be able to own any gun no matter what their mental health is or violent background?

Nasty, that is correct. I've been reading a little case law, and one thing I came across is that you can't arrest someone that thinks of harm. They have to make the attempt and follow thru. I'm sure the chemically deranged, or the career criminal, they still have their rights. Their right should not be infringed just because they own a gun. A cc might not want to kill with a gun, even though they use it to commit crimes. Same as the bank robber, you gonna ban cars as the getaway tool? They both were used, but no harm to anyone, meaning, the car sped off, no accidents, the gun was never fired.

Bottom line, the crime was for money, not murder, not hit and run. Man has been stealing since... So the gun/car is not the focus. It's just a tool of the trade. I'm all for 3-strikes, and 440v right after the jury finds the cc guilty. No food/med needs/toilet flushes/guards/prisons kind of, I wish... kind of stance. Some people are better off dead, so pick a dictator/tyrant/co-worker/who'die miss?

We are talking musket balls, 600,000 lives lost in the civil war. On shot you're dead. What's the difference 30 more are right behind. It only takes one, so who cares the firepower. It's all about the right to defend oneself. Whatever size the tool; works for me. "No law shall abridge" as long as this flag flies. We the people remember, not pullowsee how she wants to make laws against US?

It's an old cliche, but Sam Colt had it right. It's not only the equalizer, but it's also a peacemaker. No matter what part of the world you reside, there is the possibility there will be those who wish to take what is not theirs, from those that have earned it even if sometimes that means causing great bodily harm and even death. Sometimes their are people who wish us harm just because. And, at the moment they attempt their dastardly deed, the 'because' doesn't make any difference. When your opponent is bigger or stronger or they have you out numbered, it just might be handy to have something to equalize the odds, because the big bad armed police are not going to be there to protect us.

We are a country where driving is a privilege and with that privilege we are OK with killing far more with cars than guns. We are a country that kills far more children before their first breath, than die by guns. We are a country that likes to point at the gun, the car, the scalpel, and ignore the person who used them to kill others, so we can create laws to control those who have never harmed anyone with either!

https://wearechange.org/u-s-supreme-court-says-no-license-necessary-to-drive-automobile-on-public-highwaysstreets/

We are a country where driving is a privilege

Like I said, I've been reading up on case law. Driving is a privilege; only if you are a business for hire. Cabs, buses freight liners, commerce, etc. Traveling is a right. No one can impede your movement.

Not one state can trump that right.

Or they're constitutionally fucked!

Hub I'm glad you are studying case law, for many years I did the same, and have given it up in my later years. It gave me a headache and kept me up at night when I finally understood how it has twisted and inflicted our daily lives. Regardless of your understanding and the legal printed word, for me, if I need a license or a permit to do something, that something them becomes a privilege that without the document becomes a restriction and therefore not a right.

In it's whole it becomes a fine line of definitions similar to an age, by law, which separates a boy from a man, or that which defines and restricts ownership of land despite having a clear deed of ownership.

But for the sake of a fine line argument, I will give way to your correction. Nonetheless, our society as a whole endorses (or, does not condemn by actions) killing thousands by those employing the miss use of automobiles, and uses the development of safety features to justify the convenience of travel for which they will not give up.

Regardless of right or wrong, both firearms and transportation has developed through the years, yet despite the so called carnage of the gun in the wrong hands, automobiles in the wrong hands have been involved in the killing of far more. Most adults use a car far more than they use a gun, and most do it safely. Unlike bad people with a gun who inflict pain on others, it is people with good intentions and bad actions with an automobile who cause far more deaths, injuries and pain to other innocent persons, most of which ironically were employing the same means of transportation when they were attacked. Do we blame the cars or those who mis-drive them?

Still, it comes down to leaving the Constitution alone. Donny can't mess with the 14th or there goes the 2nd amendment.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nr0_jj13PEI

This is the kind of shit that made me pause these kinds of videos, look up 242, then find 241. Another case law begins to snowball reading other case laws mentioned in the brief. This sparked my interest in the stuff. It's only been a couple of months doing this heavy reading. The Leon Valley, Texas incident should be a dozy of a case. Let's see how corrupt this goes. I mean, if 'qualified immunity' is up for grabs, this looks like a bulls eye of a case, let alone what the city has to shell out. That sheriff didn't fuck up his immunity, he flat out gave it away. 'Any normal person, bla,bla,bla.' You get my drift, right? And 241 looks like a conspiracy to me?

A lunch conversation brought up Rodney King and I couldn't believe the police brutality on a human, but this person didn't care. The excuse was that he was a criminal and deserved it? I said his rights were violated, but that went in one ear and out the other. Some people just don't get it.

Here is how you take a stance knowing the Constitution and federal laws. Entertaining at the same time.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_vIEEg4cNlA

Mad, I jacked your thread... but in a good way sorta speak.

"In addition to the First Amendment's protection of the broader right to film, the principles underlying the First Amendment support the particular right to film the police. “[T]here is practically universal agreement that a major purpose of [the First] Amendment was to protect the free discussion of governmental affairs.”43 To be sure, “[s]peech is an essential mechanism of democracy, for it is the means to hold officials accountable to the people. The right of citizens to inquire, to hear, to speak, and to use information to reach consensus is a precondition to enlightened self-government and a necessary means to protect it.”44 Filming the police contributes to the public's ability to hold the police accountable, ensure that police officers are not abusing their power, and make informed decisions about police policy. Filming the police also frequently helps officers; for example, a citizen's recording might corroborate a probable cause finding or might even exonerate an officer charged with wrongdoing. As one court explained:

Gathering information about government officials in a form that can readily be disseminated to others serves a cardinal First Amendment interest in protecting and promoting “the free discussion of governmental affairs.” Moreover, as the [Supreme] Court has noted, “[f]reedom of expression has particular significance with respect to government because ‘[i]t is here that the state has a special incentive to repress opposition and often wields a more effective power of suppression.’?” This is particularly true of law enforcement officials, who are granted substantial discretion that may be misused to deprive individuals of their liberties. Ensuring the public's right to gather information about their officials not only aids in the uncovering of abuses, but also may have a salutary effect on the functioning of government more generally.45"

Taken from:
https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-5th-circuit/1791881.html

Interesting shit.