Who is going to the big gun show at the Dulles Expo Center this weekend? I'm looking forward to the show, but not looking forward to the high prices (thanks to Obama).

Glad you told me about this, the website I usually use didn't show any gun shows for Dulles http://www.gunshows-usa.com/virginia.htm. I might go, depends on what else I've got to do this weekend. Also, the prices are only higher on semi automatic look-a-likes of "assault rifles". Handguns and shotguns are going for their normal prices.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/09/2009 05:41PM by Lawman.

Im going, see if I can score a used hunting rifle or Semi auto shotgun, Beretta Teknys would be nice.


Just wondering, how is President Obama responsible for the higher assault rifles.

Did the President sign any executive orders making them more expensive.

Or is it because so many people are thinking the new "Man" is going to take their badly needed assault weapons away. That they are "panic" buying like a Northern Virginian in a snow storm.

Take a Stand Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Im going, see if I can score a used hunting rifle
> or Semi auto shotgun, Beretta Teknys would be
> nice.
>
>
> Just wondering, how is President Obama responsible
> for the higher assault rifles.
>
> Did the President sign any executive orders making
> them more expensive.
>
> Or is it because so many people are thinking the
> new "Man" is going to take their badly needed
> assault weapons away. That they are "panic" buying
> like a Northern Virginian in a snow storm.


Panic. I actually have a neighbor whom has buried a shotgun in his yard so when Obama's goons come he will still be holding.

Its Repubrolfingcoaster

Then, there are some of us who actually understand how things work, and don't buy into the NRA's bullshit. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad that there is an NRA, but I usually take everything they say with a grain of salt. Some people just can't think for themselves though, unfortunately.

Another thing that Obama has an effect on is ammunition. Ammo is selling like hotcakes. Every time I go to Wal-Mart they are sold out of .45s.

Every time? I just picked up one of those cubes of .45 auto rounds at Wal-mart in Manassas. They had a whole shelf full of them.

Nothing has been banned yet, and won't be for a while if it ever is. I wish I was a gun dealer these past couple of years though. Prices have gone up for the exact same item 300+ dollars since 2005. One rifle I got the week before the election now lists for almost 200 more at the same place I got it.

Oh and I won't be going anywhere near that show. The ones I went to a few years ago were packed enough.

Mofo (mli) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Nothing has been banned yet, and won't be for a
> while if it ever is. I wish I was a gun dealer
> these past couple of years though. Prices have
> gone up for the exact same item 300+ dollars since
> 2005. One rifle I got the week before the election
> now lists for almost 200 more at the same place I
> got it.
>
> Oh and I won't be going anywhere near that show.
> The ones I went to a few years ago were packed
> enough.

No kidding with the prices. I was in a local shop the other day, they have a Romanian WASR-10 (semi auto AK look-a-like) for $800. Those went for $400 tops, but usually $300 6 months ago! It's ridiculous. I can't tell if it's the dealers gouging people, or just the lack of supply being so low, and demand high.

Take a Stand Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Every time? I just picked up one of those cubes
> of .45 auto rounds at Wal-mart in Manassas. They
> had a whole shelf full of them.


EVERY time. They can't keep them in stock. They restock on Mondays, so you must have gotten there right as the shipment came in. I go to the Wal-Marts in Harrisonburg and in Fair lakes.

There is blood on the hands of every gun owner.

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There is blood on the hands of every gun owner.


Care to elaborate?

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There is blood on the hands of every gun owner.

Don't like people owning guns? Go live in the U.K., there you'll find just as many people as ignorant as you are.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 02/09/2009 10:31PM by Lawman.

Go on Friday if you want to get anything at the show... Semi-Autos and Hi-caps gonna go first. Rifle ammo will be gone quick too, .223 and 7.62x39 faster than the rest.

Be careful who you buy from. This show is famous for undercover ATF agents creating lists. One year they followed buyers back to their houses.

? Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Vince(1) Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > There is blood on the hands of every gun owner.
>
>
> Care to elaborate?

He's just trolling. Vince's Amerika doesn't include all of the Constitution and he is easily confused when people talk about things relating to pieces of the document HE doesn't approve of.

And conVince's America consists of failed policies, unpopularity and trolling for love in public restrooms and churches.

I'm starting to enjoy Vince's version of America a tad better.

Gun Owners are Paranoid and Easily Scared Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm starting to enjoy Vince's version of America a
> tad better.

And I'm thankful the "real" one still is governed by the Constitution, as much as some don't like it.

conVince Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ? Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Vince(1) Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > There is blood on the hands of every gun
> owner.
> >
> >
> > Care to elaborate?
>
> He's just trolling. Vince's Amerika doesn't
> include all of the Constitution and he is easily
> confused when people talk about things relating to
> pieces of the document HE doesn't approve of.


My reading of the constitution does not reveal any words saying individuals have the right to bear arms. The latest Supreme Court decision to the contrary is nothing more then judicial legislation. Hopefully laws protecting gun and ammuntion manufacturers from lawsuits will be lifted. After all why should this death industry have an exclusion from lawsuits? Either that or we need to start taxing ammunition..when ammo cost $50 a round maybe then you nuts will see the folly of your beleifs.

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> My reading of the constitution does not reveal any
> words saying individuals have the right to bear
> arms.

Mine does... "the People". That phrase is used a few other times in the Constitution... please point out the ones where the author's didn't mean the common citizenry. Failing that, please explain why in that ONE place "the People" means the army or some other definition and the rest means the common citizenry. Come on Vince, even you can't possibly argue that "the Militia" or the military are the only ones who should be able to vote.

conVince Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Vince(1) Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > My reading of the constitution does not reveal
> any
> > words saying individuals have the right to bear
> > arms.
>
> Mine does... "the People". That phrase is used a
> few other times in the Constitution... please
> point out the ones where the author's didn't mean
> the common citizenry. Failing that, please
> explain why in that ONE place "the People" means
> the army or some other definition and the rest
> means the common citizenry. Come on Vince, even
> you can't possibly argue that "the Militia" or the
> military are the only ones who should be able to
> vote.


Very well said. The phrase "the People" appears 144 times in
the Constitution. Crackpots always seem to be in denial.

And people who count phrases in the Constitution are a ton of fun at parties.

Charleton Chew Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> And people who count phrases in the Constitution
> are a ton of fun at parties.

Parties are covered under the First Amemdment. (Freedom of Assembly)

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?id=192&issue=010

If you read the 2nd amendment as written..not interpreted to suite ones political agenda it is obvious that there is only one reason for people to bear arms...and that is to support "a well-regulated militia". So, in today's world the closest thing we have to a militia is the National Guard...so, if you arent a member of the National Guard..you have no protection under the 2nd amendment. Secondly...please note the term "well regulated" militia. Imbedded in the very words is the ability to regulate the militia of which baring arms is a part of.

It's there...it's obvious...only a right wing supreme court benton legislating from the bench would decide otherwise.

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If you read the 2nd amendment as written..not
> interpreted to suite ones political agenda it is
> obvious that there is only one reason for people
> to bear arms...and that is to support "a
> well-regulated militia". So, in today's world the
> closest thing we have to a militia is the National
> Guard...so, if you arent a member of the National
> Guard..you have no protection under the 2nd
> amendment. Secondly...please note the term "well
> regulated" militia. Imbedded in the very words is
> the ability to regulate the militia of which
> baring arms is a part of.
>
> It's there...it's obvious...only a right wing
> supreme court benton legislating from the bench
> would decide otherwise.


Only a delusional Commie-Pinko-Fag would deny "Shall not be infringed".
I hear the music now...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kVdVTVR-j0Q

You of course didn't answer my question (big surprise, demokrats just keep repeating nonsensical things in hopes they will become fact!), however to address your simplistic argument here is a more in-depth analysis done by someone who knows what they are talking about.

http://www.largo.org/literary.html

TomJ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Vince(1) Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > If you read the 2nd amendment as written..not
> > interpreted to suite ones political agenda it
> is
> > obvious that there is only one reason for
> people
> > to bear arms...and that is to support "a
> > well-regulated militia". So, in today's world
> the
> > closest thing we have to a militia is the
> National
> > Guard...so, if you arent a member of the
> National
> > Guard..you have no protection under the 2nd
> > amendment. Secondly...please note the term
> "well
> > regulated" militia. Imbedded in the very words
> is
> > the ability to regulate the militia of which
> > baring arms is a part of.
> >
> > It's there...it's obvious...only a right wing
> > supreme court benton legislating from the bench
> > would decide otherwise.
>
>
> Only a delusional Commie-Pinko-Fag would deny
> "Shall not be infringed".
> I hear the music now...
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kVdVTVR-j0Q

basic english lesson...that is the second phrase of the sentence...and is subject to the limits of the first phrase...so in simple english....the right of the individual to have firearms was given constitutional protection only to the extent that the right of the particular individual to have a gun was essential to the ability of the state to have an effective militia.

conVince Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You of course didn't answer my question (big
> surprise, demokrats just keep repeating
> nonsensical things in hopes they will become
> fact!), however to address your simplistic
> argument here is a more in-depth analysis done by
> someone who knows what they are talking about.
>
> http://www.largo.org/literary.html

Question? Do I see a question mark behind any of your sentences? Please repeat..this time in the form of a question.

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If you read the 2nd amendment as written..not
> interpreted to suite ones political agenda it is
> obvious that there is only one reason for people
> to bear arms...and that is to support "a
> well-regulated militia".

It appears that Vince, in his infinite capacity to be oblivious to his own hypocrisy, has interpreted the second amendment to suite [sic] his political agenda. If I didn't understand irony, I wouldn't think anything he said was funny.

The full text says, "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." Vince doesn't have a full grasp of the English language ("aposalatigising," lol), so those pesky commas are probably throwing him off.

Commas can be used to distinguish a separate idea or reason directly related to the sentence as a whole. For example:

"Vince's opinions, often poorly-worded and lacking any basis in reality, are easily dismissable." I also could have said, "Vince's opinions are easily dismissable. They are often poorly-worded and lacking any basis in reality." Both work.

Keeping the cadence of the amendment's language, I could write, "Vince's opinions, often poorly-worded and lacking any basis in reality, not really surprising since he likes the smell of his own farts, are easily dismissable."

The fact that a distinction was even made between a militia and the people reads quite literally (to anybody that can read, that is) that citizens are allowed to own weapons. Otherwise, they would have written, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the Militia to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Need further proof? Look up the definition of "militia." Here, I'll help: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia

If a militia is comprised of ordinary citizens, what do you expect them to fight with if they're mustered?

But who cares, guns kill people and should be banned. All gun owners are murdering pederasts.

--------------------------------------------------------------
13 4826 0948 82695 25847. Yes.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/10/2009 02:43PM by MrMephisto.

GUNS SAVE LIVES. Anyone who believes otherwise is ignorant.

Well then, the soldiers in Iraq must have forgotten their guns because the death toll is approaching 4,500.

Anyone who believes otherwise is redneck and toothless.

MrMephisto Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Vince(1) Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > If you read the 2nd amendment as written..not
> > interpreted to suite ones political agenda it
> is
> > obvious that there is only one reason for
> people
> > to bear arms...and that is to support "a
> > well-regulated militia".
>
> It appears that Vince, in his infinite capacity to
> be oblivious to his own hypocrisy, has interpreted
> the second amendment to suite his political
> agenda. If I didn't understand irony, I wouldn't
> think anything he said was funny.
>
> The full text says, "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." Vince doesn't have a
> full grasp of the English language
> ("aposalatigising," lol), so those pesky commas
> are probably throwing him off.
>
> Commas can be used to distinguish a separate idea
> or reason directly related to the sentence as a
> whole. For example:
>
> "Vince's opinions, often poorly-worded and lacking
> any basis in reality, are easily dismissable." I
> also could have said, "Vince's opinions are easily
> dismissable. They are often poorly-worded and
> lacking any basis in reality." Both work.
>
> Keeping the cadence of the amendment's language, I
> could write, "Vince's opinions, often
> poorly-worded and lacking any basis in reality,
> not really surprising since he likes the smell of
> his own farts, are easily dismissable."
>
> The fact that a distinction was even made between
> a militia and the people reads quite literally (to
> anybody that can read, that is) that citizens are
> allowed to own weapons. Otherwise, they would
> have written, "A well regulated Militia, being
> necessary to the security of a free state, the
> right of the Militia to keep and bear arms, shall
> not be infringed."
>
> Need further proof? Look up the definition of
> "militia." Here, I'll help:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia
>
> If a militia is comprised of ordinary citizens,
> what do you expect them to fight with if they're
> mustered?
>
> But who cares, guns kill people and should be
> banned. All gun owners are murdering pederasts.


The sentence is clear...it is written in the context of state militias..thats why people have guns to support militias. Outside that context the sentence does not apply. Since militias dont exist...neither does the need for uninfringed gun ownership. You can make beleive it says whatever you want...the republikan supreme court did!

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Question? Do I see a question mark behind any of
> your sentences? Please repeat..this time in the
> form of a question.


Again, a non-response. Keep repeating everything over and over! Keep arguing like a four-year-old and don't pay attention to the research of experts! Stay ignorant!

In today's environment, I'd rather stay ignorant than be associated with colossal failure.

Is it just me, or is Vince the biggest troll here on the boards? He always posts something to make somebody mad.

Lawman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Is it just me, or is Vince the biggest troll here
> on the boards? He always posts something to make
> somebody mad.

I guess you want a message board where everyone agrees....sorry, not gonna happen./

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Lawman Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Is it just me, or is Vince the biggest troll
> here
> > on the boards? He always posts something to
> make
> > somebody mad.
>
> I guess you want a message board where everyone
> agrees....sorry, not gonna happen./

No, not at all. You just have that attitude of arguing just to argue. You also like to push peoples' buttons judging by what you say as well. I was a long-time lurker before I registered.

I think you will find I have only a few issues that I care about...unlike some who leave a comment on every thread. I believe I am consistent in my views. So I take some exception to your statement that I just comment to push people's buttons.

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think you will find I have only a few issues
> that I care about...unlike some who leave a
> comment on every thread. I believe I am
> consistent in my views. So I take some exception
> to your statement that I just comment to push
> people's buttons.

Fair enough, I've kinda noticed that too. At least you stick to your views, which I may disagree with partially, but It's respectable that you don't just blindly agree with what people say.

However, I will kindly disagree with your position on the second amendment. There is plenty of justification for the ownership of a firearm. Maybe not a semi-automatic copy of an AK-47, but then again, the majority of homicides by a firearm are with a handgun...which to me doesn't give the justification of banning these semi automatic rifles. I don't believe in banning any type of firearm, as it wouldn't affect those who abuse them, as there are already hundreds of millions of weapons in this country already.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/10/2009 09:16PM by Lawman.

God you're stupid.

Let's talk about another decision, Roe v Wade. AKA a woman's right to privacy. PRIVACY is not mentioned anywhere in the constitution either. Yet it was inferred in the equal protection clause and gave the landmark decision for a woman's right to choose and modern abortion law. Probably more "judicial legislation"?

Let us know when you graduate from night school.


Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> My reading of the constitution does not reveal any
> words saying individuals have the right to bear
> arms. The latest Supreme Court decision to the
> contrary is nothing more then judicial
> legislation. Hopefully laws protecting gun and
> ammuntion manufacturers from lawsuits will be
> lifted. After all why should this death industry
> have an exclusion from lawsuits? Either that or
> we need to start taxing ammunition..when ammo cost
> $50 a round maybe then you nuts will see the folly
> of your beleifs.

Mofo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> God you're stupid.
>
> Let's talk about another decision, Roe v Wade. AKA
> a woman's right to privacy. PRIVACY is not
> mentioned anywhere in the constitution either. Yet
> it was inferred in the equal protection clause and
> gave the landmark decision for a woman's right to
> choose and modern abortion law. Probably more
> "judicial legislation"?
>
> Let us know when you graduate from night school.
>
>

Well..you are partially correct. The word abortion doesnt exist anywhere in the Constitution...and if you believe that the only rights we have are those mentioned in the constitution you would agree with the right to life organizations...personally I do not beleive the only rights we have are those specifically mentioned in the constitution. The difference between the gun and abortion cases is that guns are mentioned...specifically...and we are discussing what those words mean. Undoubtedly the Supreme Court that decided in favor of an individuals right to bear arms used as their rationale rights not mentioned in the constitution....because the constitution does not say that (my opinion). Thus supporting my original statement that it took the court legislated rather then being strict constitutionalists.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/10/2009 10:22PM by Vince(1).

Vince(1) Wrote:
------------------------------------------------------
>
> basic english lesson...that is the second phrase
> of the sentence...and is subject to the limits of
> the first phrase...so in simple english....the
> right of the individual to have firearms was given
> constitutional protection only to the extent that
> the right of the particular individual to have a
> gun was essential to the ability of the state to
> have an effective militia.


Not quite. The text of the 2nd amendment:
Justification clause: "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, "

Rights clause: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

The justification clause does not modify, restrict, or deny the rights clause.

RandT Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Well then, the soldiers in Iraq must have
> forgotten their guns because the death toll is
> approaching 4,500.
>
> Anyone who believes otherwise is redneck and
> toothless.


Agreed, we should prohibit the military from using guns, then they will be safe, since you think guns do not save lives.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/10/2009 10:04PM by KeepOnTruckin.

Lawman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Vince(1) Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I think you will find I have only a few issues
> > that I care about...unlike some who leave a
> > comment on every thread. I believe I am
> > consistent in my views. So I take some
> exception
> > to your statement that I just comment to push
> > people's buttons.
>
> Fair enough, I've kinda noticed that too. At least
> you stick to your views, which I may disagree with
> partially, but It's respectable that you don't
> just blindly agree with what people say.
>
> However, I will kindly disagree with your position
> on the second amendment. There is plenty of
> justification for the ownership of a firearm.
> Maybe not a semi-automatic copy of an AK-47, but
> then again, the majority of homicides by a firearm
> are with a handgun...which to me doesn't give the
> justification of banning these semi automatic
> rifles. I don't believe in banning any type of
> firearm, as it wouldn't affect those who abuse
> them, as there are already hundreds of millions of
> weapons in this country already.


Let me ask you a few questions.

Why should gun/ammo manufacturers have special exemption from lawsuits?

Why shouldnt we tax guns and ammo? The constitution doesnt say arms have to be cheap.

Why shouldnt gun owners whose firearms are stolen be held accountable for the crimes committed subsequently with the hand gun?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/10/2009 10:16PM by Vince(1).

Lawman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Vince(1) Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > There is blood on the hands of every gun owner.
>
> Don't like people owning guns? Go live in the
> U.K., there you'll find just as many people as
> ignorant as you are.


In the 10 years after guns were banned in Britain, firearm use in crimes doubled.

A criminal is someone who does not follow laws. So, why would making laws banning all guns prevent criminals from using guns?

KeepOnTruckin Wrote:
>
>
> Not quite. The text of the 2nd amendment:
> Justification clause: "A well regulated Militia
> being necessary to the security of a free State,
> "
>
> Rights clause: "the right of the people to keep
> and bear Arms shall not be infringed."
>
> The justification clause does not modify,
> restrict, or deny the rights clause.
>
I humbly disagree. If the founding fathers meant there to be no modification why right it that way? The amendment could have easily been written as follows "The right of the people to keep arms shall not be infringed."
But they didnt right it that way...they included the thought that bearing arms are needed to support militias.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/10/2009 10:12PM by Vince(1).

Code of Virginia
§ 44-1. Composition of militia.

The militia of the Commonwealth of Virginia shall consist of all able-bodied citizens of this Commonwealth and all other able-bodied persons resident in this Commonwealth who have declared their intention to become citizens of the United States, who are at least sixteen years of age and, except as hereinafter provided, not more than fifty-five years of age. The militia shall be divided into four classes, the National Guard, which includes the Army National Guard and the Air National Guard, the Virginia State Defense Force, the naval militia, and the unorganized militia.

KeepOnTruckin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Lawman Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Vince(1) Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > There is blood on the hands of every gun
> owner.
> >
> > Don't like people owning guns? Go live in the
> > U.K., there you'll find just as many people as
> > ignorant as you are.
>
>
> In the 10 years after guns were banned in Britain,
> firearm use in crimes doubled.
>
> A criminal is someone who does not follow laws.
> So, why would making laws banning all guns prevent
> criminals from using guns?


Without spending hours expolring the validity of those statistics...I believe they are highly suspect and put out by a very powerful lobby group.

here...you tell me what this says....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/10/2009 10:43PM by Vince(1).

Guest Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Code of Virginia
> § 44-1. Composition of militia.
>
> The militia of the Commonwealth of Virginia shall
> consist of all able-bodied citizens of this
> Commonwealth and all other able-bodied persons
> resident in this Commonwealth who have declared
> their intention to become citizens of the United
> States, who are at least sixteen years of age and,
> except as hereinafter provided, not more than
> fifty-five years of age. The militia shall be
> divided into four classes, the National Guard,
> which includes the Army National Guard and the Air
> National Guard, the Virginia State Defense Force,
> the naval militia, and the unorganized militia.


lol..how convenient! But could be changed at the drop of a hat.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/10/2009 10:19PM by Vince(1).

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Lawman Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Vince(1) Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > I think you will find I have only a few
> issues
> > > that I care about...unlike some who leave a
> > > comment on every thread. I believe I am
> > > consistent in my views. So I take some
> > exception
> > > to your statement that I just comment to push
> > > people's buttons.
> >
> > Fair enough, I've kinda noticed that too. At
> least
> > you stick to your views, which I may disagree
> with
> > partially, but It's respectable that you don't
> > just blindly agree with what people say.
> >
> > However, I will kindly disagree with your
> position
> > on the second amendment. There is plenty of
> > justification for the ownership of a firearm.
> > Maybe not a semi-automatic copy of an AK-47,
> but
> > then again, the majority of homicides by a
> firearm
> > are with a handgun...which to me doesn't give
> the
> > justification of banning these semi automatic
> > rifles. I don't believe in banning any type of
> > firearm, as it wouldn't affect those who abuse
> > them, as there are already hundreds of millions
> of
> > weapons in this country already.
>
>
> Let me ask you a few questions.
>
> Why should gun/ammo manufacturers have special
> exemption from lawsuits?
>
> Why shouldnt we tax guns and ammo? The
> constitution doesnt say arms have to be cheap.
>
> Why shouldnt gun owners whose firearms are stolen
> be held accountable for the crimes committed
> subsequently with the hand gun?


I think the gun manufacturers should only be liable to lawsuits IF their product causes damage to the user when used properly, not if somebody acts stupid and accidentally shoots himself in the foot. If somebody shoots somebody, that's not the gun manufacturer's fault. However, If their gun blows up in your hand even if you just bought it, you should be able to sue them for damages.

I believe a reasonable tax should be applicable, but a 500% tax rate per round of ammunition is ridiculous, unfortunately what is reasonable is a matter of opinion. Guns are already taxed, and ammo is already expensive. If you were to buy a gun or ammo, you would realize this. It generates quite a bit of revenue for the state, and any serious gun enthusiast spends quite a lot of money in pursuit of their hobby.

Gun owners who fail to report their missing gun should be liable, not the ones that report their gun as stolen. In many instances however, there is a penalty for failing to properly secure a firearm even if you report a stolen firearm.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/10/2009 10:42PM by Lawman.

Lawman..I was thinking in terms of a gun manufacturer who fails to incorporate safety improvements in their guns that could save lives by stopping purposeful but unauthorized use.

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Lawman..I was thinking in terms of a gun
> manufacturer who fails to incorporate safety
> improvements in their guns that could save lives
> by stopping purposeful but unauthorized use.


Ah, well you should've made that clear. What kind of devices would this be? A manual safety can be added, but if the person doesn't use it...how is that a gun manufacturer's mis-deed?

Most manufacturers have a lock built into the gun, which requires a key to unlock the trigger mechanism. The idea of a gun that reads fingerprints and allows this person to use the weapon is too Sci-Fi for any real use. Should this system fail like electronics occasionally do, the person who depended on this weapon to save his or her life (potentially a Police Officer) is now at the mercy of a possibly armed criminal.

In the scheme of things, we should just enforce the laws we have right now. That's common sense. Not think of more laws that cannot really be enforced nor do enough good to justify their implementation.

I just have one question for you though, which should be fair, as I answered three for you.

What do you have against guns and gun ownership? If it's a personal issue like the death of a loved one, feel free to not discuss it at your discretion.

I'll be damned... there is an actual Virginia Defense Force run by our own little state department of military affairs... who knew?

http://www.vdf.virginia.gov/

RESton Peace Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'll be damned... there is an actual Virginia
> Defense Force run by our own little state
> department of military affairs... who knew?
>
> http://www.vdf.virginia.gov/

The VDF has been recruiting at "The Nations Gunshow" and others for years.

The show begins today at 3pm for those of you who are interested in going!

Once the novelty has worn off and it becomes apparent the Obama is unable to deliver on all his promises the natives are apt to get restless. When that happens you'd better be armed.

Meh. Been to the gun show once. That was enough for me. Sure, I could have saved a few dollars on my handgun had I bought it there, but it's not enough savings to have to wait for it to come around once every 3 or 4 months. That, and nobody I've found can beat wal-marts price on ammo.

The show was PACKED! I had to wait in line for 1 hour just to get in!

WOW Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The show was PACKED! I had to wait in line for 1
> hour just to get in!

No kidding! I saw the line backed all the way to the little BBQ place on the corner, and just said screw it, and drove back home. This was at 3:30.

I got in line shortly after 3:00, and didn't get inside until after 4:00. You can join or extend your NRA membership for only $25, and if you do that then you don't have to wait in line and you get into the show for free. Just head straight to the NRA table by the front doors. I'll be going back to the show again tomorrow afternoon.

Ah Obama arming America like never before.

Last time I went to that show was crazy enough a few years ago. I guess this is one sector of the economy that does better in a recession?

This is the best thing about Obama winning, Vince. Because now more Americans will be buying guns. Just for you. The more you squawk like a chicken about the evil of guns, the more the rest of us realize we had better stock up.