idk, the friend is a gun dealer, but i also know it's a used weapon from him, so he probably knows the rules and how to make it legal? i didn't ask many questions, but he already owns a bunch of pistols and hunting firearms and is in the army, so....... yeah i didn't touch any of them and don't have anything to do with it lol.

Just wanted to explain to Goodie that people were in fact running afoul of the gun laws, watch his head aspode that this was actually occurring. I mean, IT'S A PROHIBITED ITEM!

ZOMG, don't they know that??

And yes, it is a violation of his civil liberties.

It could possibly be legal, you using the terminology "secondhand" made me feel it was likely shady, as all NFA firearms, being 25+ years old, are secondhand, and it's a very lengthy and expensive process to obtain them.

Last fully automatic Kalashnikov I personally bought took ~5 months and nearly $18k by the time the transfer was completed.

As well as the equivalent of a Sequoia worth of paperwork.

I'm well aware that it's almost 100% that this guy is doing something illegal. The fact that it was so easy to do so proves my point, not yours. How you could miss that is unreal to me.

It's a financial issue. This isn't an issue you really know anything about.

Any ******* can buy a gun, regardless of your gun laws.

You're trying to sell this magic wand theory, which is why we all kind of just LOL you.

Fair enough. I don't need to go down this road again. We are of differing opinions.

You believe that recreational use of guns and using guns to protect themselves is a citizens right.

I believe that recreation and a phantom protection is not a good enough reason to have innocent people die.

When senseless gun violence occurs:

You say "Oh well, that's the price we pay for our right to own guns" '

I say "What can we change to so that this type of person is not able to perpetrate this type of violence in the future?"

Differing opinions. We're not going to change.

No, it's far deeper than that.

You think fundamental self defense usages are "senseless gun violence".

Remember that fun little chat we had where I was discussing a case I'd worked where an elderly man used a shotgun for home defense against a burglar (without injuring the burglar no less) and you were appalled?

Yea, it's a bit deeper than that. And you've yet to answer this question:

in a way that doesn't have a negative effect on good people who desire guns.

Good news, it may be your natural right to have one. We're still waiting for confirmation.

I know its only been approx 2 hours but can I bump this question already? I'm seriously curious if for those (primarily Neblis and dblbarrelj) if there's some statement on the web somewhere or thread that you think particularly addresses this line of questioning? (if guns are okay... then what about, grenades, napalm, flamethrowers, poison gas, bombs, etc.) By their banter I assume they think its been adequately addressed and I'd be curious to see it. Little help if you could....

My personal view is that a weapon that cannot feasibly be used without causing collateral damage should be controlled.

Now what line that draws depends on who's making that decision.

Obviously my general feelings is that your reason for stealing someone's property should be a damn good (to the level of infallible) reason, and if you can't reach that level of proof we should lean heavily to the side of liberty.

I mean, the whole thing is rather stupid because it's just a dumb strawman, always has been. I've yet to read anyone arguing for napalm, flamethrowers, bombs, nukes etc. It's a dumb argument, the gun rights equivalent of "BUT ROADZ THO!?"

Now clearly, any ******* can get any of the items you listed, it's just a matter of money.

Yeah, you're going to have to go back to said "appalled" posts if you'd like to make that point. Not how I remember it.

I've made very clear in many, many arguments that I don't care one iota about good people's desire to own guns. That means nothing to me because I don't agree with the reasons they have that desire. That was also very, very clear in my post above.

Does that answer the question you have?

Ok, so you're a fascist.

CSB. That's all you really had to say.

How you could possibly make that kind of jump based on my opinions on one issue tells me all I need to know about your level of competency.

Nicely done.

Yea, I'm pretty damn good at what I do.

Here's the thing though. It's really weird and maybe tough for you to follow. The government is not based on ONE issue. Whoa!!!! I know, it's shocking and I know your mind is completely blown. And I'm going to blow it even more. To be a fascist, you need to have more than ONE view that aligns with fascism.

Holy crap!!! I know, you're just searching for words now.

Oh, like forcibly sterilizing the poor?

Who wants to do that? That sounds really crazy. Maybe you should use the words on the page as a guide to understand things further.

That might help you quite a bit.

i mean, who wouldn't want a big cat that glows in the dark?

Americans against the Metric System and Gun Control. Though online gambling is the threat to the nation

Lol at you thinking gun owners can be classified into Good Gun Owners and Bad Gun Owners

LOL at you thinking they can't.

But yet I'm the one with poor second level thinking for thinking you guys have an irrational fear of guns.

LOL

... Back later poasting from phone and my sides are killings from laughter.

Odds the squatter needs help getting back to his feet?

I mean, if you insist in drawing this line and using "Have you ever committed a crime with your gun yes/no" as the distinguishing metric, then fine, but there is then plenty of cross over between your other category (would/wouldn't give up a gun if it were illegal)