Joe Guy wrote:I don't think Meade was trying to be funny. Lawn darts aren't covered by the 2nd amendment. You have a right to own firearms but owning lawn darts is/was a privilege.
yrs,
rationalato
Ah, but they are! The full text of the second amendment is as follows:
"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."
Nowhere does it say 'firearms'.
If the arms I chose to bear were a war hammer, or a mace and chain, or a sword, or a battle-axe, or a longbow, or a pointy-ended throwing weapon like a spear or a javelin, it is my right to have them if I so desire. So by a very strict interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, the American public has a RIGHT to their lawn darts. -"BB"-
Yes, I suppose I could agree with you ... but then we'd both be wrong, wouldn't we?
I put a hole in my cousins hand with a lawn dart. But I never shot him with a rifle, pistol or arrow.
As others said, all the test did was show that the lady was not on the list of people with problems that coincide with any applicable laws.
As other have said, a real test would be to get a convicted felon to go in and try to buy an AR-15 or shotgun or long rifle. They (rifles) are all treated the same.
There is a peculiararity in the laws here in NY (maybe elsewhere). To get a hunting license, you have to take a hunters safety course. No safety course needed to buy a rifle. That should change.
Interesting story regarding what the inventor of the AR-15/M-16 thought it should be used for; go here to read the original article and to see some related videos: http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/fam ... ut-n593356
Family of AR-15 Inventor Eugene Stoner: He Didn't Intend It for Civilians
The AR-15 is the most talked about gun in America.
But the AR-15's creator died before the weapon became a popular hit and his family has never spoken out.
Until now.
"Our father, Eugene Stoner, designed the AR-15 and subsequent M-16 as a military weapon to give our soldiers an advantage over the AK-47," the Stoner family told NBC News late Wednesday. "He died long before any mass shootings occurred. But, we do think he would have been horrified and sickened as anyone, if not more by these events."
The inventor's surviving children and adult grandchildren spoke exclusively to NBC News by phone and email, commenting for the first time on their family's uneasy legacy. They requested individual anonymity in order to speak freely about such a sensitive topic. They also stopped short of policy prescriptions or legal opinions.
But their comments add unprecedented context to their father's creation, shedding new light on his intentions and adding firepower to the effort to ban weapons like the AR-15. The comments could also bolster a groundbreaking new lawsuit, which argues that the weapon is a tool of war — never intended for civilians.
Eugene Stoner would have agreed, his family said.
The ex-Marine and "avid sportsman, hunter and skeet shooter" never used his invention for sport. He also never kept it around the house for personal defense. In fact, he never even owned one.
And though he made millions from the design, his family said it was all from military sales.
"After many conversations with him, we feel his intent was that he designed it as a military rifle," his family said, explaining that Stoner was "focused on making the most efficient and superior rifle possible for the military."
He designed the original AR-15 in the late 1950s, working on it in his own garage and later as the chief designer for ArmaLite, a then small company in southern California. He made it light and powerful and he fashioned a new bullet for it — a .223 caliber round capable of piercing a metal helmet at 500 yards.
The Army loved it and renamed it the M16.
But after Stoner's death in 1997, at the age of 74, a semi-automatic version of the AR-15 became a civilian bestseller, too, spawning dozens of copy-cat weapons. The National Rifle Association has taken to calling it "America's rifle."
The bullets that tore through the Pulse nightclub in Orlando were Stoner's .223 rounds, fired from a AR-15 spin off made by Sig Sauer.
In all, an AR-15 style rifle has been used in at least 10 recent mass shootings — including at an elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut, a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado, and a work party in San Bernardino, California.
"What has happened, good or bad, since his patents have expired is a result of our free market system," Stoner's family said. "Currently, a more interesting question is 'Who now is benefiting from the manufacturing and sales of AR-15s, and for what uses?'"
That's the question for the rest of us.
(My emphasis.)
People who are wrong are just as sure they're right as people who are right. The only difference is, they're wrong.
— God@The Tweet of God
MajGenl.Meade wrote:Interesting. Of course, the purpose of gun law is not to prevent qualified persons from purchasing firearms. It should be to prevent unqualified persons from purchasing them. One hopes that an unqualified person would be turned down in seven minutes or less in Pennsylvania. I would prefer federal (or state if that's not possible) licensing and registration.
While Congress has been shamefully ineffective, (yes indeed) the rising public outcry over gun violence has compelled more and more state legislators to stand up to the gun lobby. Since the tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary, a remarkable 125 new smart gun laws have been enacted in 41 states, plus DC.
Evidently these folks think that there are more gun laws now than (say) (oh)... 3.5 years ago. But looking at their summaries in each state, it's not so much of a barn-burner success.
it is not possible to determine in seven minutes who is qualified and who is unqualified.
The suggestion is insane and stupid. Allowing people to walk out with a gun in 7 minutes is prima facie a way of providing guns for all with zero screening. Getting a drivers license takes more time and two tests.
The suggestion is insane and stupid. Allowing people to walk out with a gun in 7 minutes is prima facie a way of providing guns for all with zero screening. Getting a drivers license takes more time and two tests.
Yes, you missed the point that the lady had to produce the drivers license in order to qualify for the gun purchase, right? So getting an AR 15 takes seven minutes plus "more time and two tests".
"Insane and stupid" may well describe the law in Pennsyltucky which you believe is a law designed to provide guns for all with zero screening.
How droll.
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts
The suggestion is insane and stupid. Allowing people to walk out with a gun in 7 minutes is prima facie a way of providing guns for all with zero screening. Getting a drivers license takes more time and two tests.
Yes, you missed the point that the lady had to produce the drivers license in order to qualify for the gun purchase, right? So getting an AR 15 takes seven minutes plus "more time and two tests".
Yes; "more time" standing in line at the DMV and "two tests" — taken the first time you apply for a license (in the 45 years since I got my license I have never been tested again) and that have absolutely no bearing on whether or not you would be a safe and responsible gun owner. -"BB"-
Yes, I suppose I could agree with you ... but then we'd both be wrong, wouldn't we?
That 'whooshing' sound is the point passing your head, BB.
Someone said it takes less time to get an AR 15 than to get a driver's license. That brought out the old "people can get a weapon with less trouble than some people have registering to vote". [The purpose of that remark is to deny voter-ID regulation because some old buffers can't get a DL or state ID - it's so tough to totter to the Bureau].
The whole "less time than getting a DL" is specious, because this lady first had to get a driver's license in order to get an AR15. The time is cumulative, not comparative. Do you get it now?
The point had nothing whatsoever to do with whether a person would be a safe etc. gun owner.
There is the necessity to prove one's identity so that a background check can be made.
If you have an issue with whether or not a background check result can be validly obtained within seven minutes then take it up with someone who runs the program. (Of course it might be better to have fingerprints and a BCI/FBI check - one needs those to work in many kinds of tasks, including teaching and Sunday schools)
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts
Back to the issue of 'is there more or less regulation of firearm sales now than in 1963?'
In 1964, my first job after release from active military duty in the US Army was working in a hardware store in Eastern Jackson County Missouri. A major part of our business was sale of guns and fishing supplies. Most of the gun sales were resale of used guns brought in by individual customers. We had contacts with local hobby guns smiths who did modification of the metal work and wooden parts and some repair. Nearly every Winchester pump shotgun had the stock broken or cracked at the wrist. The most interesting sale was a new 20 ga shotgun purchased by a mother as a birthday present for her 16 year old son. Perfectly legal at the time. We did our own background check to be sure the check would not bounce. There was a week long 'waiting period' due to the time it took to get the exact combination of features she wanted from our wholesaler. Checking on her finances, we learned her only source of income was a stipend from a then current senator for Missouri and the son was probably fathered by the Senator who was married to someone else. Nobody in the store leaked this to any news outlet. We had to maintain detailed records for each individual firearm that came through the store, by federal law. No background check beyond reasonable proof of identity. I asked the owner about these records--how often were they checked? He told me they never had been checked by anybody.
1973. I am living in Perryville Maryland. I want to buy two pieces of wood to make rifle stocks, one in cherry, one in California walnut. I purchased them from a supplier in Minnesota and they were shipped to me via US Post office. At the same time, from the same source, I purchased two 'actions' which were the basic mechanism including the bolt, trigger system and removable magazine (which was designed to NOT extend below the bottom of the stock). They were made in England by BSA. One included a barrel and was chambered for .284 Winchester. This was all ordered by mail. I had to go to a federally registered gun dealer in Baltimore and pick up the gun parts in person after showing id including proof of residency in Maryland. That regulatory change in 1972 had big impact on sales--no more mail order sales and delivery. Much tighter controls on who could get a federal gun dealer or federal gun collector license. And the ATF had a budget to do real inspections of dealers.
That quick sale of the gun that started this thread included the purchaser filling out a federal form that says just submitting it, knowing that you are not eligible to buy the gun, is a federal felony. The gun dealer submits the information on a phone call. The actual processing of the call can take hours. Fifteen minutes is more typical. Depends on just how busy they are at the other end. The data includes information about mental illnesses, domestic violence convictions. This is a national data depository. Many states and localities just do not report these things to the feds. You can't blame this on a lack of gun regulation.
As the supremes recently refused to hear arguments against such, states are permitted to impose regulations on gun sales in addition to federal regs. New Jersey just 15 minutes from me here in Delaware, has very different requirements than Delaware. An out-of-state resident may or may not be able to purchase a gun in another state. That is another local variation. Carry, concealed or open, is very locally regulated. Don't try to carry that war hammer around in Newark Delaware. You can get arrested there just for carrying a slingshot in your hip pocket like Dennis the Menace. Not for weapons carry, but for disturbing the peace by potentially disturbing others.
Background checks are not a panacea. Please note all the FBI 'background checks' the Orlando Florida shooter went through AND PASSED as not a threat.
Background checks are not a panacea. Please note all the FBI 'background checks' the Orlando Florida shooter went through AND PASSED as not a threat.
true, but then there is no efficient or accurate way to predict that. How many cops, who went through significant training and evaluation in order to be able to carry a gun have snapped and killed others (sometimes many)?
