...a good start.
Posted on 02/10/2016 4:51:22 AM PST by marktwain
Hopefully it will end with every conservative and moderate in our nation having a virtual arsenal in every home - and every liberal/progressive and other person with evil intent toward others having none in their homes.
Hopefully it will end with a government that fears its citizens instead the other way around - just as it was in the beginning of this miraculous nation.
And hopefully the strength of the well-armed will prevent the government and progressives/liberals/Marxists from ever making a move on its citizens to take away freedoms granted us by the constitution. Between nations, it’s called peace through strength, demonstrated best by Ronald Reagan.
But it not only applies to nations, but to the relationship between governments and the citizens.
I don’t think we should be able to buy tactical nukes at gun shows. At least not without a really solid background check.
...a good start.
Interesting question but poor choice of term.
The question is about MARKET SATURATION, not imposing artificial limits fit political reasons.
Infinity. Plus one.
Then answer to the “need” question is simply this:
As many weapons, of such types as I deem fit, to secure the liberty of myself and my family.
At least all LOS.
Maybe Ted Cruz could write the supreme court brief on the right to keep and bear electromagnetic rail guns and laser weaponry.
I do see the need for a sensible limitation, based on safety.
Not on the firearms themselves, but on the propellants, explosives, compressed gases, and inflammable liquids and solids. Of any kind.
This sensible limitation is strictly based on “safe storage.”
Possibly a good example of this was the recent house fire in Gilbert, AZ. Perhaps an accident or just “bad luck”, and things got out of control in a hurry.
For a home gun owner, who perhaps does his own reloads, safety guidelines are a must. For example, having a fire resistant powder safe. Not storing cans of gasoline, paint or solvent, pool chlorine, compressed gas tanks, etc. nearby. And, in very hot places, having at least some temperature control in storage and use areas. Ventilation is also a must when using high vapor or dust hazards.
Okay, so who polices all of this?
The individual. However, there is a twist. If they refuse to keep a safe and orderly storage space, if the police or fire department are called there, if it is “unsafe”, they have the option to “blow it in place.”
For many years, hoarders, especially in California, took to building bunkers out in the desert, which were packed with all sorts of ammunition, and flammable liquids and solids. So the authorities didn’t even bother to enter, other than to take a quick look, before inserting a pole with dynamite on the end, then retreating to outside the estimated hazard area.
But no need to do any of this with the guns themselves, assuming they have been cleared.
The irony of the Tremors movies is that Michael Gross is a big time gun control activist, or was.
Of course, Hollywood’s hypocrisy knows no bounds.
Sharks! Sharks with fricken lazers.
There should be no limits whatsoever.
The corrupt factions within our government answerable to that treasonous, corrupt, dictatorial, piece of human excrement, the (dis)honorable Barky mobambam would have you turn in every gun you had, and would jail you for not doing so.
And, of course, me, being a good citizen, would do that if he would only ask...but alas, the boat accident and all that, you know.
Statistically, could someone please explain how 2.55 million background checks translates into 1.9 million firearms sold?
I would think the number would be reversed, since one background check can be used to purchase multiple firearms.
Or do nearly 700,000 background checks (and possibly much more), per month, fail?
Why is it that the disarmists believe they can toy with the Second Amendment while all others are sacred? What part of "shall not be infringed" don't they understand?
January’s background checks hit 2.5 million.
A slight decline from December’s 3.3 million.
But with Christmas and all....
Why not? STRATEGIC nukes, I can see. But why not tacs?
Your initial pistol purchase was "too many" in the eyes of government. At every level it yearns to limit and eliminate gun ownership.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.