ISIS Tells Followers It's 'Easy' to Get Firearms From U.S. Gun Shows

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

Just now, spookyturtle said:

Cars are safer today, but there have been decades of education on drunk driving since the peak in the early 80's. Drivers are finally starting to smarten up. Penalties for DUI are much harsher. But habitual drunks still drive, just as criminals still us firearms illegally. Without human interaction, cars and guns are quite safe. When used responsibly and lawfully, both are also safe. 

Fair enough, the technology of roads and cars have been the largest drivers of safety though. The point is we strive to make cars safer through laws, but that is a non starter with some discussions on gun acquisition.  

[IAMX 3,055]

52 minutes ago, ccneat said:

Fair enough, the technology of roads and cars have been the largest drivers of safety though. The point is we strive to make cars safer through laws, but that is a non starter with some discussions on gun acquisition.  

Because no proof has been made that increasingly restrictive laws stop crimes.

 

All that's proven they do is make it harder for law abiding citizens to attain guns. 

 

Add that to the espoused motivation of those with clout such as the Brady Foundation and it's longtime leaders about it's long game of restrictions and then bans, along with the hysteria by the left of anything-guns, and now you have a situation where there's no point in discussing.

[OriZ 3,157]

3 hours ago, ccneat said:

But we do strive and succeed  to make cars safer every year.  Also I do not see any call of any ban in this thread.  

Cars are safer, but you still have the human factor, and no matter how safe you try to make the car - when the person handling it has not the first clue what they're doing it's going to cause a problem. Same with guns. I am willing to accept some things in order to ensure safer use, with guns and with cars, but I believe everyone should be allowed to carry if they wish, just like everybody is allowed to drive. 

 

5 hours ago, spookyturtle said:

Drunk drivers still kill over 10,000 people a year in the US. Even when the figure was over 25,000, there was no outcry to ban cars. 

Yeah, although I was not even talking just about drunk drivers. Most of them act like they're drunk even if they're not. In all honesty even though I don't believe there should be extreme regulation over everything when it comes to something like that, I think in the US it should be like many other countries in the world where you have to learn from a professional instructor, not just any adult that will pass their own bad habits on to you. I get the test is supposed to take care of that, but it obviously doesn't...how some people pass I'm not sure, but they need to learn from a professional if they want a license is my take.

[IAMX 3,055]

1 minute ago, OriZ said:

Cars are safer, but you still have the human factor, and no matter how safe you try to make the car - when the person handling it has not the first clue what they're doing it's going to cause a problem. Same with guns. I am willing to accept some things in order to ensure safer use, with guns and with cars, but I believe everyone should be allowed to carry if they wish, just like everybody is allowed to drive. 

 

Yeah, although I was not even talking just about drunk drivers. Most of them act like they're drunk even if they're not. In all honesty even though I don't believe there should be extreme regulation over everything when it comes to something like that, I think in the US it should be like many other countries in the world where you have to learn from a professional instructor, not just any adult that will pass their own bad habits on to you. I get the test is supposed to take care of that, but it obviously doesn't...how some people pass I'm not sure, but they need to learn from a professional if they want a license is my take.

I honestly see this discussion of cars to be non-sequitur related to guns for one simple reason -- guns are a right, driving is not.

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

3 minutes ago, IAMX said:

I honestly see this discussion of cars to be non-sequitur related to guns for one simple reason -- guns are a right, driving is not.

Try taking the keys away from someone who has had too much to drink and say that.

[IAMX 3,055]

Just now, ccneat said:

Try taking the keys away from someone who has had too much to drink and say that.

With choices come consequence.

[Cyberfx1024 7,980]

5 hours ago, spookyturtle said:

#######, I had to pay for mine. 

 

9 hours ago, Ban Hammer said:

how pathetic!  i just say "ar-15" and the NRA sends me one for free!

That's funny because one of the biggest reasons I went with the AK-47 was because the AR-15 and ammo are so expensive in comparison to the AK. 

[IAMX 3,055]

1 minute ago, cyberfx1024 said:

 

That's funny because one of the biggest reasons I went with the AK-47 was because the AR-15 and ammo are so expensive in comparison to the AK. 

They just had major sales on the AR-15 in Canada but because they had 5-mag restrictions, plus RPAL requirements, plus not being able to use it unless at a range, I said to hell with it, can get another semi-auto that looks nearly identical to the AR-15 but hasn't yet been given the leftist label of "evil looking".

[Cyberfx1024 7,980]

1 hour ago, spookyturtle said:

Cars are safer today, but there have been decades of education on drunk driving since the peak in the early 80's. Drivers are finally starting to smarten up. Penalties for DUI are much harsher. But habitual drunks still drive, just as criminals still us firearms illegally. Without human interaction, cars and guns are quite safe. When used responsibly and lawfully, both are also safe. 

They used to have gun safety classes in school decades ago, but of course that was before the gun control lobby popped up. Now most schools and parents do nothing about teaching firearm safety, that is why kids find real guns and play cowboys with them or just think they are play toys. My 3 year old probably knows more about gun safety and what to do or not to do than the vast majority of gun control liberals. 

[Cyberfx1024 7,980]

2 minutes ago, IAMX said:

They just had major sales on the AR-15 in Canada but because they had 5-mag restrictions, plus RPAL requirements, plus not being able to use it unless at a range, I said to hell with it, can get another semi-auto that looks nearly identical to the AR-15 but hasn't yet been given the leftist label of "evil looking".

California is the same way with any type of firearms. It's sad really because the only people that comply with the laws are law abiding people, and criminals don't. 

[spookyturtle 9,465]

1 hour ago, cyberfx1024 said:

They used to have gun safety classes in school decades ago, but of course that was before the gun control lobby popped up. Now most schools and parents do nothing about teaching firearm safety, that is why kids find real guns and play cowboys with them or just think they are play toys. My 3 year old probably knows more about gun safety and what to do or not to do than the vast majority of gun control liberals. 

It's funny, when I was a kid, we used to play with toy guns, cap guns, etc. But we also had BB guns, .22's, etc and knew the difference between the two because we were taught gun safety. We could shoot each other with cap guns, but we would never point a real gun at a person or an animal unless we were hunting. Then again, we also had common sense, something that seems to be lacking nowadays. 

 

I also watched the Three Stooges and knew you didn't hit people in the head with a hammer. Go figure. 

[IAMX 3,055]

1 hour ago, cyberfx1024 said:

California is the same way with any type of firearms. It's sad really because the only people that comply with the laws are law abiding people, and criminals don't. 

Didn't always used to be that way. Hell, I was 6 years old when I had my first gun, would go hunting in the Sierras near Yosemite with my grandpa.

[Villanelle 4,122]

On 5/6/2017 at 7:05 PM, jg121783 said:

The article is talking about for profit firearms dealers. Not not a private individual selling their property to another individual. The article specifically used the word dealer. 

Yes, it uses the word dealer but it doesnt use the word firearm dealer. It says "can be purchased at showrooms or through online sales — by way of private dealers — with no background checks, and without requiring either an ID or a gun license."

 

 

Private dealers means private individuals not pro dealers. Ive bought guns this way in the past. There are online craigslist type sites for firearms. Private individuals posted "ads" for guns and other private citizens contact them and they make a sale/exchange. I actually bought my husband the gun from Scarface on there. I mean it wasnt the actual gun used in the movie, it was someone who built a gun like the one in the movie. Only it shot something else from the grenade part. (I honestly dont remember or even think I know what it shot.) Yet, I bought it. The guy sent it in the mail over 6 states away just cause I mailed him a check and then asked him to in an email. No ID, never spoke to the man to be honest. (Im a good example of why the laws need to change). 

[Cyberfx1024 7,980]

44 minutes ago, IAMX said:

Didn't always used to be that way. Hell, I was 6 years old when I had my first gun, would go hunting in the Sierras near Yosemite with my grandpa.

Well a majority of people don't know or see the different sides of California like I do with my job. When people think of California they think of the Bay area or the LA Metro area, but what they don't see is the far out of the way places like I see because of my job. I routinely travel out of my office at Caltech to the fartherest reaches of Central and Southern California in order to complete my mission. But I see and talk to the varied amount of people that live out of the metro areas. Just last week I was working in the Cayuma Valley area to install a seismic monitoring station. That far out the ranchers don't talk about having 5 acres, they talk about having 500 or 5000 acres. I can take you some place in California that is literally 1-2 hours off of a paved road, and you would find it beautiful. What I am trying to say is that these people out in the country still carry guns with them at all times because of bears, cougars, snakes, tweakers you name it. 

Edited May 8, 2017 by cyberfx1024

[Cyberfx1024 7,980]

11 minutes ago, Damara said:

Yes, it uses the word dealer but it doesnt use the word firearm dealer. It says "can be purchased at showrooms or through online sales — by way of private dealers — with no background checks, and without requiring either an ID or a gun license."

 

 

Private dealers means private individuals not pro dealers. Ive bought guns this way in the past. There are online craigslist type sites for firearms. Private individuals posted "ads" for guns and other private citizens contact them and they make a sale/exchange. I actually bought my husband the gun from Scarface on there. I mean it wasnt the actual gun used in the movie, it was someone who built a gun like the one in the movie. Only it shot something else from the grenade part. (I honestly dont remember or even think I know what it shot.) Yet, I bought it. The guy sent it in the mail over 6 states away just cause I mailed him a check and then asked him to in an email. No ID, never spoke to the man to be honest. (Im a good example of why the laws need to change). 

How did you get it through the mail, because that way you did it is HIGHLY ILLEGAL unless you both have FFLs.

Edited May 8, 2017 by cyberfx1024