carry and usage

[k0ua]

This is not what if, it happened in my home town during the time the eclipse was beginning. A man walks into a small bank with two ladies at work in there. The exact order not sure but this coward shot and killed the two ladies and robbed the bank. Took the keys and car of one of the ladies he murdered. The law thinks they know who it is and if correct he was paroled on July 31st, 2017. On August 14th he robbed a bank in North Carolina. On August 21st he robbed and murdered two incident ladies, in SC. Had I been there and armed in the bank would I have done my best to protect the ladies and stopped the robber? I pray God would have given me the strength to for we are our brothers keeper. I believe each of you regardless of what you have posted would here would have wanted to protect them also. You would have used any tool you had.

So now there is a 9 and I think 14 year old children who will never have another hug or kiss from their mother. Another lady who will never hug or kiss her grands again either. If your heart is not touched by this and have no care for others I pray God will touch your heart, it is in sad condition. If it were your loved one in danger would you care who helped them? Not me. I would be thankful for and to who ever could and did help.

Without a doubt there are rabid dogs that walk on two legs. You may never run across one, or like those two unfortunate ladies you may deal with one today. The standing order for dealing with armed robbers is to always give them exactly what they want, and never confront them in any way. Some times what they want is to kill you. How many employees of chain stores have been fired after stopping armed robbers with their own carried firearms. Several for sure, because they violated the stores policy to always acquiesce to armed robbers.

 

[RandyT]

I think I would rather be fired than dead. And just because you give the robber everything he wants, doesn't guarantee that he or she may not still shoot you. If one of those ladies had been carrying that day. One or both may still be alive. The mindset of somebody that carries on a regular bases is something that can be explained over and over again, but you cannot make somebody else understand it. Talk to a cop sometime and try to understand the mindset, and then you will have a better understanding of the mindset of people that carry everyday. Because in some ways the though process is similar, and don't think we are trying to be wannabe cops, We use a similar mindset to try to avoid the situations that cops deal with on a regular bases.

In my case I run a small business in a rural area and handle large sums of cash, with a law enforcement response time of 30-45 minutes, I am my own protection From the time you dial 911 the average response time is 8-14 minutes in most areas, Now think about what can happen in those 8-14 minutes while waiting for somebody to show up that has no obligation to protect you.

 

[k0ua]

I think I would rather be fired than dead. And just because you give the robber everything he wants, doesn't guarantee that he or she may not still shoot you. If one of those ladies had been carrying that day. One or both may still be alive. The mindset of somebody that carries on a regular bases is something that can be explained over and over again, but you cannot make somebody else understand it. Talk to a cop sometime and try to understand the mindset, and then you will have a better understanding of the mindset of people that carry everyday. Because in some ways the though process is similar, and don't think we are trying to be wannabe cops, We use a similar mindset to try to avoid the situations that cops deal with on a regular bases.

In my case I run a small business in a rural area and handle large sums of cash, with a law enforcement response time of 30-45 minutes, I am my own protection From the time you dial 911 the average response time is 8-14 minutes in most areas, Now think about what can happen in those 8-14 minutes while waiting for somebody to show up that has no obligation to protect you.

Very well said. :thumbsup:

 

[HarryVanderpool]

Every single man in prison that shot some one was in the right.
Their incarceration is unjust. Every single one of them.

Does that sound sarcastic?
The fact is, many of them WERE in the right.
Maybe most of them.

But shooting someone and prevailing in a court of law are two very different things.

I have guns coming out of my ears. Some for protection.

But I get REAL TIRED of listening to gun fondlers talk about the day that the SHTF and they start mowing people down on their property.
You know what is MOST likely to happen after a short period of cival unrest?
Things go back to a semblance of normality.

BUT now you have to explain the 24 dead bodies surrounding your region with bullets identified from your gun.

It's not so simple as SHTF and start shooting.
Welcome to life in prison; or worse!!

 

[ch1ch2]

Every single man in prison that shot some one was in the right.
Their incarceration is unjust. Every single one of them.

Does that sound sarcastic?
The fact is, many of them WERE in the right.
Maybe most of them.

But shooting someone and prevailing in a court of law are two very different things.

I have guns coming out of my ears. Some for protection.

But I get REAL TIRED of listening to gun fondlers talk about the day that the SHTF and they start mowing people down on their property.
You know what is MOST likely to happen after a short period of cival unrest?
Things go back to a semblance of normality.

BUT now you have to explain the 24 dead bodies surrounding your region with bullets identified from your gun.

It's not so simple as SHTF and start shooting.
Welcome to life in prison; or worse!!

While that may be true, some how I missed your point.
I did not read anyone about " I get REAL TIRED of listening to gun fondlers talk about the day that the SHTF and they start mowing people down on their property."

 

[k0ua]

Every single man in prison that shot some one was in the right.
Their incarceration is unjust. Every single one of them.

Does that sound sarcastic?
The fact is, many of them WERE in the right.
Maybe most of them.

But shooting someone and prevailing in a court of law are two very different things.

I have guns coming out of my ears. Some for protection.

But I get REAL TIRED of listening to gun fondlers talk about the day that the SHTF and they start mowing people down on their property.
You know what is MOST likely to happen after a short period of cival unrest?
Things go back to a semblance of normality.

BUT now you have to explain the 24 dead bodies surrounding your region with bullets identified from your gun.

It's not so simple as SHTF and start shooting.
Welcome to life in prison; or worse!!

Count me in the I don't understand your point column. Where did your rant come from? From you fertile mind?

 

[kthompson]

The man who robbed the bank and killed the two ladies who did not resist was captured today. He is 3 time felon, paroled on July 31st this year, August 14th robbed a bank in North Carolina and August 21st robbed bank here and killed the two ladies.

Have a great friend who is an attorney and today over lunch asked him why would a robber killed the ladies as he did when no resisting by them. He replied he does not think he did anything wrong. Hard to comprehend that but have to admit know it is probably true. No doubt if you ask him when he is back in prison he will tell you how he is innocent and it was justified.

I have reach age enough and experienced enough to realize it is not possible to discuss with those with great prejudices and hatred that makes no sense. Sad they are. Never at peace. We sure have an abundance of them today.

 

[Thall303]

"I have reach age enough and experienced enough to realize it is not possible to discuss with those with great prejudices and hatred that makes no sense. Sad they are. Never at peace. We sure have an abundance of them today."

Very well said.

Once I figured that out, I no longer try to deal with them!

 

[Dftodd]

Wife and I both have cc permits. Class was very educational. I don't happen to carry all the time. Only when I'm traveling or going to a questionable area. Wife carries since she works in an area that has had issues in the past. She also has a military grade taser on her as well

A little old lady joined our cc class at the last minute. The day before there was a jail break in town. Jail happens to be right behind my work. We can see the inmate rec yard from the wash Bay. Apparently the crook snuck out of that pen, ran across the field behind our shop, hopped the fence at the railroad tracks. Stole a truck from the uhaul place. Place was also a mechanics shop, and the guy grabbed a truck that was getting dropped off for repairs.

Guy buried the truck 500 feet down the road, blew the motor in the truck. Then baled and tried car jacking this old lady. She ran him over with her volkswagen beetle But needless to say that freaked her out pretty good.

 

[HarryVanderpool]

Guy buried the truck 500 feet down the road, blew the motor in the truck. Then baled and tried car jacking this old lady. She ran him over with her volkswagen beetle But needless to say that freaked her out pretty good.

Great little story!
What was the outcome?
Do you have newspaper articles that you can link to this?
She ran over a person.
That means that, AT LEAST, involuntary manslaughter charges (if he was killed) were in effect.
Did she win in court? She should have.
But these days.....

 

[Dftodd]

Great little story!
What was the outcome?
Do you have newspaper articles that you can link to this?
She ran over a person.
That means that, AT LEAST, involuntary manslaughter charges (if he was killed) were in effect.
Did she win in court? She should have.
But these days.....

Couldn't find the story in the local paper. First I heard of it was the same day it happened when getting lunch next door to where it happened. The gal waiting on me told me about the dude steeling the truck, and the old lady smoming him with her car. Then of course the next day in my cc class.

The old lady wasn't charged with anything. Guy was a ****** predator being held over for extradition back to missouri when he escaped. As far as the police were concerned, she was justified in her actions. She knocked him on his butt and he got pinned under the bumper of the car. Once the cops got there guns on him, she backed up and they took him into custody and transferred him to the hospital for treatment of minor injuries.

She was pretty upset about putting him into the hospital. But it could have been really ugly if he got into her car and got her as a hostage.

 

[big bubba]

interesting discussion. since it has wandered a bit, a quick question. your thoughts on ease of availability of assault weapons. not in the conventional background check means, but ease of availability in trade shows, etc. to just about anyone w/o a check.

are existing regs on that subject still too stringent, about right, or is more regulation needed in that particular subject while upholding the 2nd amendment. no opinion expressed on this side, just a question. best regards.

 

[aczlan]

interesting discussion. since it has wandered a bit, a quick question. your thoughts on ease of availability of assault weapons. not in the conventional background check means, but ease of availability in trade shows, etc. to just about anyone w/o a check.

Do you mean an actual full automatic assault weapon (such as the M16)?
Or do you mean a AR-15 or a similar semi-automatic weapon which looks like an assault weapon but is functionally like any other semi-automatic weapon?
If you're talking about a fully automatic assault rifle, those are not available to the general public except a few which were in private hands previous to 1970 something (if I remember the date correctly).
If you're talking about something like an AR-15 other than the looks (and the ease of adding a scope, a laser sight or something like that), there is no real difference between that and a semi-automatic hunting rifle.

Aaron Z

 

[big bubba]

thanks for asking. really don't know a lot about the difference. guess my question would pertain to those semi automatic weapons that are currently legally sold, not the black market fully automatic, etc.

btw not asking whether they should be sold in general, just to individuals w/o check, etc in trade shows & the like.

& should individuals on a "watch list" in this country, foreign or us citizens, be allowed to purchase such weapons even with the conventional back ground check. please no heated political discussion, just your thoughts on the existing regs in that regard thx

 

[k0ua]

Do you mean an actual full automatic assault weapon (such as the M16)?
Or do you mean a AR-15 or a similar semi-automatic weapon which looks like an assault weapon but is functionally like any other semi-automatic weapon?
If you're talking about a fully automatic assault rifle, those are not available to the general public except a few which were in private hands previous to 1970 something (if I remember the date correctly).
If you're talking about something like an AR-15 other than the looks (and the ease of adding a scope, a laser sight or something like that), there is no real difference between that and a semi-automatic hunting rifle.

Aaron Z

May 19th 1986 is the date you referenced. With passage of the FOPA.

 

[topbuilder]

interesting discussion. since it has wandered a bit, a quick question. your thoughts on ease of availability of assault weapons. not in the conventional background check means, but ease of availability in trade shows, etc. to just about anyone w/o a check.

are existing regs on that subject still too stringent, about right, or is more regulation needed in that particular subject while upholding the 2nd amendment. no opinion expressed on this side, just a question. best regards.

Complete fiction. No opinion expressed, just the facts.

 

[k0ua]

thanks for asking. really don't know a lot about the difference. guess my question would pertain to those semi automatic weapons that are currently legally sold, not the black market fully automatic, etc.

btw not asking whether they should be sold in general, just to individuals w/o check, etc in trade shows & tha like. thx

Firearms of any kind can be sold from an individuals collection without performing a NICS check in many states including yours.. Ironically an individual does not have access to the NICS. Only licensed firearms dealers have access to NICS. The venue of the sale makes no difference. All licensed dealers must perform the NICS check no matter where they are. Whether they are in their normal place of business or at a gun show, or in a back alley. Only an individual NOT IN THE BUSINESS of dealing in firearms may sell a firearm from their personal collection without a NICS check. They are also prohibited from making the transfer if they know that the person they would make the transfer to is a prohibited person.

I hope this helped clear this up some. As for "assault weapons". There are very few of them in circulation as Aaron pointed out. An actual Assault Rifle is a class of rifle that is select fire, and fires an intermediate power cartridge. An actual AR15 does not qualify as it is not select fire. It is a simple semi automatic rifle like many others. The fact that most of them are black in color has no bearing on the lethality of the rifle. The media and anti-gun forces have bastardized the term Assault Rifle to include any black "scary" firearm, rifle pistol or carbine. The term "scary" is whatever frightens them at the moment, which is most firearms. Since you asked about what we think about firearm laws, I will pontificate.

I think it is fine that individuals can sell firearms from their private collections without going thru a dealer. I think that Short barreled rifles and shotguns should be removed from the 1934 NFA. and should be sold openly as any other firearm without the $200 transfer tax and the 9 month waiting period and the paperwork. There is just no logical reason to prohibits these firearms. I also think that suppressors should be openly sold in the same manner as firearms without the $200 transfer tax and the paperwork and the 9 month waiting period. That is what I think.

 

[k0ua]

By the way, if you want to know who a "prohibited person" is, here you go:


Clarification of prohibited persons

The older Gun Control Act of 1968 prohibits firearms ownership in the U.S. by certain categories of individuals thought to pose a threat to public safety. However, this list differed between the House and the Senate versions of the bill, and led to confusion. The list was later augmented, modified, and clarified in the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986. The 1986 list is:

Anyone who has been convicted in any court of a felony punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year, excluding those crimes punishable by imprisonment related to the regulation of business practices, whose full civil rights have not been restored by the State in which the firearms disability was first imposed.[15][16]
Anyone who is a fugitive from justice.
Anyone who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substances.
Anyone who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been involuntarily committed to a mental institution.
Any alien illegally or unlawfully in the United States or an alien admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa. The exception is if the nonimmigrant is in possession of a valid hunting license issued by a US state and/or has been granted a waiver from the Attorney General.
Anyone who has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions.
Anyone who, having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his or her citizenship.
Anyone that is subject to a court order that restrains the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such intimate partner. (Added in 1996, with the Lautenberg Amendment.)
Anyone who has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence. (Added in 1996, with the Lautenberg Amendment)[17]
A person who is under indictment or information for a crime (misdemeanor) punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding two years cannot lawfully receive a firearm. Such person may continue to lawfully possess firearms obtained prior to the indictment or information, and if cleared or acquitted can receive firearms without restriction.
These provisions are stated in the form of questions on Federal Form 4473.

In 2001, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (consisting of Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi) ruled that the Lautenberg Amendment, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8)(C)(ii), relating to a firearm ban with respect to persons under a court order in connection with domestic violence, did not violate the Second Amendment and did not violate the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment as applied to the defendant, in United States v. Emerson.[18]

 

[Welshman]

thanks for asking. really don't know a lot about the difference. guess my question would pertain to those semi automatic weapons that are currently legally sold, not the black market fully automatic, etc.

btw not asking whether they should be sold in general, just to individuals w/o check, etc in trade shows & the like.

& should individuals on a "watch list" in this country, foreign or us citizens, be allowed to purchase such weapons even with the conventional back ground check. please no heated political discussion, just your thoughts on the existing regs in that regard thx

As usual, James has summed this up rather well, and I completely agree with him.

The problem with a "watch list" exclusion is that an individuals name can be placed on it without knowing it, and it can be in error. If I remember correctly, years back Sen. Ted Kennedy's name was placed on one, and he was outraged when he found out. He had it removed, of course, but I'm not so sure that the rest of us would be able to do so as easily.

 

[CincyFlyer]

thanks for asking. really don't know a lot about the difference. guess my question would pertain to those semi automatic weapons that are currently legally sold, not the black market fully automatic, etc.

btw not asking whether they should be sold in general, just to individuals w/o check, etc in trade shows & the like.

& should individuals on a "watch list" in this country, foreign or us citizens, be allowed to purchase such weapons even with the conventional back ground check. please no heated political discussion, just your thoughts on the existing regs in that regard thx

In most states, and therefore most gun shows, you still need a background check. You always do if buying from a dealer, show or not. Individual sales depends on state. Personally, no background checks is fine with me. It's the behavior of the person with the gun, not mere possession, that is the crime.