Free Republic

Criminals are not welcome. (if you have a warrant you are advised not to attend.)

The problem is that he left the house , went to get a gun and came back with intent to kill(2nd degree manslaughter).
If you leave and comeback, you loose that imminent danger.
If he had done anything but shoot through shower curtain he might have had a chance at self defense.
But then this is west coast.

The person by the way, yesterday was “an intruder”, but teacher is more dramatic.

The prohibited person is a felon. You lose your 2nd amendments rights when you are a convicted criminal.
Making a firearm for yourself is perfectly fine, no serial numbers needed.
He was manufacturing and selling firearms without a license.
these aren’t new laws. You are free to break the law and suffer the consequences, or change the law.
BTW, I have a type 7 FFL and I have to obey the law.

And the brown cardboard USPSA targets make me think of illegal aliens.

“Tragic mass shootings that capture headlines reinforce the mistaken beliefs that people with mental illness are violent and responsible for much of the gun violence in the United States. This misconception stigmatizes individuals with mental illness and distracts us from the awareness that approximately 65% of all firearm deaths each year are suicides.”
Ok, so 65% of firearms deaths are suicides but it is a mistaken belief that people with mental illness are responsible for much of the gun violence. Sounds contradictory to me.

The intelligence of a committee is inversely proportional to the number of it’s members.

The ATF may have realized they bit off more than they can chew. They are backing off on this silly ruling (for now)
https://www.nraila.org/articles/20160831/atf-delays-any-changes-to-nitrocellulose-regulation

Based on the feedback, I think the headline was a little misleading, sounding like 20% of legal gun owners committed crimes. It should read” Of all the guns confiscated in “gun crimes” in Pittsburg, only 20 % were legally acquired weapons.

The take away is that 4 out of 5 gun crimes are committed with stolen or illegally possessed guns(IE: underage, etc.)

Pretty face? Have you seen her.
The thing we need to address is rampant mental illness brought on by millions of people taking mind altering medications whose side effects include “may cause suicidal or homicidal thoughts”

If that were true, then you should share that with Hollywood and all the liberals that attack Christianity and Judaism on a daily basis.
Until now, drawing cartoons making fun of a religion was considered satire, not an attack that invites a violent response.

Looks like a whole new market for Holsters.

Ok, so what he said is that “no one cared when people in Mexico were getting killed with the guns he provided”. And he sees nothing wrong with this.

The one thing we should all understand about laws is that laws do not prevent crime. They only assign punishment. The threat of punishment has little effect on these people who are mentally ill.

What the second amendment really means
This has been a thorn in my side for a long time: What does the second amendment really mean. So many times I have heard it misinterpreted. It was bad enough to hear people deliberately spread misinformation, but to see a writer that I respected show how poorly he understood the meaning has forced me to speak out.
First of all let’s start with the understanding that the framers of the constitution were far better educated in the English language and were more eloquent speakers than any person I know today. If you have ever read Thomas Paine’s Common Sense or any of the letters of Franklin, Jefferson and Adams you would know that these men had a grasp of the English language that is severely lacking in today’s society. The second amendment is one sentence clearly stated. It says exactly what they meant to say. One problem with reading this today is not knowing they were speaking from.
I am not claiming here to be the final word on understanding the constitution, but I do have a slight advantage or some. I went to a Catholic School in the 60’s and there was one thing we learned that public schools were not teaching at the time and that was how to diagram a sentence. That is how to take apart a sentence and understand what it means. So allow me to diagram this sentence and share some knowledge I have gained from reading many books about Early America.
But first bear in mind that the Bill of Rights was meant as a guarantee of the limitation of power of the federal government only. It was not meant to create restrictions on citizens.
Let’s start with our sentence as ratified by Jefferson as Secretary of State:1
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.
Diagraming a sentence involves breaking it down into its component parts. A coherent compound sentence should have (at least) a statement and a qualifier. We have that here. Let’s find the statement, a portion of the sentence that can stand on its own as a sentence. I will take you right to it.
“...the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” That is a complete sentence. I do not think anyone can disagree with that. It is easy to understand. Yes there are qualifying phrases, but we will get to them shortly.
Why did this need to be said? Because most subjects of the British Empire were not allowed to have guns. People in the colonies could own guns for hunting, but most of the guns in the colonies were in armories, locked away from the people and only passed out when necessary to members of the local militia to defend your community from attack. The phrase “to keep” simply meant exactly that we should to be able to keep our arms, and not have them stored in the public armories. The phrase “to bear” assured that you can carry on your person arms. (Once again this was a limitation on federal powers and nothing else. The discussion of State vs. federal powers is food for another discussion, but this statement quite clearly means that the federal government cannot restrict our right to keep and bear arms. Court rulings may “interpret” differently. But they are defying the original meaning of the set forth by the Founders.
Let’s go on to the rest of the sentence. The qualifier. A qualifier limits, expands upon or defines the parameters of the statement. Here is the qualifier.
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State…”
So what did they mean by this? Well they are not saying well regulated people or regulated possession of guns. They are saying well regulated militia. What is that and why did they feel the need to say it? There was no standing army at this time. Washington had an army of volunteers that disbanded after the Treaty of Paris. The founders believed that a standing army would be a tool of tyrants. Even the British Empire understood this when they established their bill of rights 2 taking control of the standing army away from the king. Since there was to be no standing army in America (yet), Militias were considered the best alternative, but when trouble would come they did not want a disorganized mob of men with guns to defend their communities. The proven method of defending your home, your community, you state was an organized, well trained militia that followed rules and “regulations”. Militia members were expected to attend regular drill sessions and to provide their own arms and ammunition. They were required to have at any time a certain weight of powder and bullets. Hence, the qualifying phrase: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State” becomes clear. The reason we need to be able to keep and bear arms is to secure our free State, but to do that requires an organized trained force. This qualifier is not then a limitation on the right of the people but the reason that this right must be maintained.
Things have changed. We do now have a stand army whose leadership we entrust to the President. We entrust the judiciary to make impartial decisions based on the constitution and find time and again that those decisions are not impartial or based on the constitution. We live in the most powerful country in the world, safe from invasion and harm and it is easy to imagine that we have no use for guns in our peaceful gated communities and quiet homes, but we have to remember that it is the freedom that every citizen can own a gun that keeps us the most powerful country in the world. The General Yamamoto during World War II said that he would never invade America because there would be a gun behind every blade of grass. That may one day no longer be the case if we allow this to continue. An endless struggle ensues to slowly whittle away at the rights we were guaranteed. It is important that each one of us understands why we must protect the 2nd amendment not just for today but for the future.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Rights_1689

I thought the same thing. I guess you could shoot one down to check and see.