https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/roche ... ar-AAZR4uz
Rochester Mayor Malik Evans is a good man. The realization that his city is turning into the wild west is finally sinking in. This assassination of an RPD officer occurred just a few hours after the mayor declared a gun violence emergency in the city. Early reports say the almost 30 year service officer was part of a plain clothes task force trying to locate a homicide suspect. Why these police officers even care anymore is beyond me?
Sensible Gun Safety
- cradleandshoot
- Posts: 13744
- Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2018 4:42 pm
Re: Sensible Gun Safety
I use to be a people person until people ruined that for me.
Re: Sensible Gun Safety
California bans assault weapons and allows vigilantes to enforce it. This in a gambit to screw with Texas abortion law and the dumbass supreme court.
STAND AGAINST FASCISM
- cradleandshoot
- Posts: 13744
- Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2018 4:42 pm
Re: Sensible Gun Safety
By dumbass of course you are referring to its 3 FLP members?jhu72 wrote: ↑Fri Jul 22, 2022 5:38 pm California bans assault weapons and allows vigilantes to enforce it. This in a gambit to screw with Texas abortion law and the dumbass supreme court.
I use to be a people person until people ruined that for me.
- youthathletics
- Posts: 14367
- Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2018 7:36 pm
Re: Sensible Gun Safety
It's really a subtle shot at IVY league educated people.cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Sat Jul 23, 2022 6:10 amBy dumbass of course you are referring to its 3 FLP members?jhu72 wrote: ↑Fri Jul 22, 2022 5:38 pm California bans assault weapons and allows vigilantes to enforce it. This in a gambit to screw with Texas abortion law and the dumbass supreme court.
A fraudulent intent, however carefully concealed at the outset, will generally, in the end, betray itself.
~Livy
~Livy
Re: Sensible Gun Safety
Time to start prying guns from cold, dead fingers i guess...- Under California’s law, private citizens can sue for a minimum of $10,000 per weapon against:
Anyone who manufactures, transports or distributes assault weapons
Licensed dealers who sell firearms to buyers under 21
- The text of the California bill as written in February was tied directly to Texas’ abortion ban. The gun law would become “inoperative” if the Texas abortion law got struck down by the Supreme Court, according to the text.
..
"The purpose of writing is to inflate weak ideas, obscure poor reasoning, and inhibit clarity. With a little practice, writing can be an intimidating and impenetrable fog." - Calvin, to Hobbes
- cradleandshoot
- Posts: 13744
- Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2018 4:42 pm
Re: Sensible Gun Safety
So who do they sue when your shot by someone carrying an ILLEGAL WEAPON?? So the text of the California Bill is " tied directly" to the Texas abortion bill? Isn't that an issue for a judge to decide??dislaxxic wrote: ↑Mon Jul 25, 2022 8:03 amTime to start prying guns from cold, dead fingers i guess...- Under California’s law, private citizens can sue for a minimum of $10,000 per weapon against:
Anyone who manufactures, transports or distributes assault weapons
Licensed dealers who sell firearms to buyers under 21
- The text of the California bill as written in February was tied directly to Texas’ abortion ban. The gun law would become “inoperative” if the Texas abortion law got struck down by the Supreme Court, according to the text.
..
I use to be a people person until people ruined that for me.
-
- Posts: 32095
- Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2018 12:10 pm
Re: Sensible Gun Safety
The manufacturer. I have said it for years. Expose them to civil liability. If the weapon was stolen, file a lawsuit against the person that didn't lock it up properly. If you find the trafficker, throw the book at them along with the person caught with an illegal weapon.cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Mon Jul 25, 2022 8:36 amSo who do they sue when your shot by someone carrying an ILLEGAL WEAPON?? So the text of the California Bill is " tied directly" to the Texas abortion bill? Isn't that an issue for a judge to decide??dislaxxic wrote: ↑Mon Jul 25, 2022 8:03 amTime to start prying guns from cold, dead fingers i guess...- Under California’s law, private citizens can sue for a minimum of $10,000 per weapon against:
Anyone who manufactures, transports or distributes assault weapons
Licensed dealers who sell firearms to buyers under 21
- The text of the California bill as written in February was tied directly to Texas’ abortion ban. The gun law would become “inoperative” if the Texas abortion law got struck down by the Supreme Court, according to the text.
..
“You lucky I ain’t read wretched yet!”
- cradleandshoot
- Posts: 13744
- Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2018 4:42 pm
Re: Sensible Gun Safety
The gun manufacturers should not be held liable for the stupidity of the people that buy their product. They manufactured a product that did what it was designed to do. I'm all for throwing the book at people who traffic in illegal weapons. I'm even more in favor of throwing the book at anyone cought in possession of an illegal firearm. When the powers that be in government turn their attention to this issue it will be a very good day.Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Mon Jul 25, 2022 2:47 pmThe manufacturer. I have said it for years. Expose them to civil liability. If the weapon was stolen, file a lawsuit against the person that didn't lock it up properly. If you find the trafficker, throw the book at them along with the person caught with an illegal weapon.cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Mon Jul 25, 2022 8:36 amSo who do they sue when your shot by someone carrying an ILLEGAL WEAPON?? So the text of the California Bill is " tied directly" to the Texas abortion bill? Isn't that an issue for a judge to decide??dislaxxic wrote: ↑Mon Jul 25, 2022 8:03 amTime to start prying guns from cold, dead fingers i guess...- Under California’s law, private citizens can sue for a minimum of $10,000 per weapon against:
Anyone who manufactures, transports or distributes assault weapons
Licensed dealers who sell firearms to buyers under 21
- The text of the California bill as written in February was tied directly to Texas’ abortion ban. The gun law would become “inoperative” if the Texas abortion law got struck down by the Supreme Court, according to the text.
..
I use to be a people person until people ruined that for me.
-
- Posts: 32095
- Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2018 12:10 pm
Re: Sensible Gun Safety
https://lawkm.com/wrongful-death-lawsui ... igarettes/cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Mon Jul 25, 2022 2:56 pmThe gun manufacturers should not be held liable for the stupidity of the people that buy their product. They manufactured a product that did what it was designed to do. I'm all for throwing the book at people who traffic in illegal weapons. I'm even more in favor of throwing the book at anyone cought in possession of an illegal firearm. When the powers that be in government turn their attention to this issue it will be a very good day.Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Mon Jul 25, 2022 2:47 pmThe manufacturer. I have said it for years. Expose them to civil liability. If the weapon was stolen, file a lawsuit against the person that didn't lock it up properly. If you find the trafficker, throw the book at them along with the person caught with an illegal weapon.cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Mon Jul 25, 2022 8:36 amSo who do they sue when your shot by someone carrying an ILLEGAL WEAPON?? So the text of the California Bill is " tied directly" to the Texas abortion bill? Isn't that an issue for a judge to decide??dislaxxic wrote: ↑Mon Jul 25, 2022 8:03 amTime to start prying guns from cold, dead fingers i guess...- Under California’s law, private citizens can sue for a minimum of $10,000 per weapon against:
Anyone who manufactures, transports or distributes assault weapons
Licensed dealers who sell firearms to buyers under 21
- The text of the California bill as written in February was tied directly to Texas’ abortion ban. The gun law would become “inoperative” if the Texas abortion law got struck down by the Supreme Court, according to the text.
..
“You lucky I ain’t read wretched yet!”
-
- Posts: 32095
- Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2018 12:10 pm
Re: Sensible Gun Safety
“You lucky I ain’t read wretched yet!”
-
- Posts: 32095
- Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2018 12:10 pm
Re: Sensible Gun Safety
“You lucky I ain’t read wretched yet!”
-
- Posts: 4654
- Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2019 8:36 pm
Re: Sensible Gun Safety
And manufacturers who build components provided to deliberately avoid tracing and accountability, i.e. ghost guns? What is their intent and what should be done?cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Mon Jul 25, 2022 2:56 pmThe gun manufacturers should not be held liable for the stupidity of the people that buy their product. They manufactured a product that did what it was designed to do. I'm all for throwing the book at people who traffic in illegal weapons. I'm even more in favor of throwing the book at anyone cought in possession of an illegal firearm. When the powers that be in government turn their attention to this issue it will be a very good day.Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Mon Jul 25, 2022 2:47 pmThe manufacturer. I have said it for years. Expose them to civil liability. If the weapon was stolen, file a lawsuit against the person that didn't lock it up properly. If you find the trafficker, throw the book at them along with the person caught with an illegal weapon.cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Mon Jul 25, 2022 8:36 amSo who do they sue when your shot by someone carrying an ILLEGAL WEAPON?? So the text of the California Bill is " tied directly" to the Texas abortion bill? Isn't that an issue for a judge to decide??dislaxxic wrote: ↑Mon Jul 25, 2022 8:03 amTime to start prying guns from cold, dead fingers i guess...- Under California’s law, private citizens can sue for a minimum of $10,000 per weapon against:
Anyone who manufactures, transports or distributes assault weapons
Licensed dealers who sell firearms to buyers under 21
- The text of the California bill as written in February was tied directly to Texas’ abortion ban. The gun law would become “inoperative” if the Texas abortion law got struck down by the Supreme Court, according to the text.
..
"There is nothing more difficult and more dangerous to carry through than initiating changes. One makes enemies of those who prospered under the old order, and only lukewarm support from those who would prosper under the new."
- cradleandshoot
- Posts: 13744
- Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2018 4:42 pm
Re: Sensible Gun Safety
Apples to oranges comparison. The folks manufacturing parts for ghost guns should be held accountable and their products should be banned. FTR my son built one of his AR-15 rifles from a kit he purchased on line. I don't know if the parts have serial numbers. I don't believe they do. If it matters he is a federal law enforcement officer. It may be easier for him to purchase these kits.PizzaSnake wrote: ↑Mon Jul 25, 2022 3:32 pmAnd manufacturers who build components provided to deliberately avoid tracing and accountability, i.e. ghost guns? What is their intent and what should be done?cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Mon Jul 25, 2022 2:56 pmThe gun manufacturers should not be held liable for the stupidity of the people that buy their product. They manufactured a product that did what it was designed to do. I'm all for throwing the book at people who traffic in illegal weapons. I'm even more in favor of throwing the book at anyone cought in possession of an illegal firearm. When the powers that be in government turn their attention to this issue it will be a very good day.Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Mon Jul 25, 2022 2:47 pmThe manufacturer. I have said it for years. Expose them to civil liability. If the weapon was stolen, file a lawsuit against the person that didn't lock it up properly. If you find the trafficker, throw the book at them along with the person caught with an illegal weapon.cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Mon Jul 25, 2022 8:36 amSo who do they sue when your shot by someone carrying an ILLEGAL WEAPON?? So the text of the California Bill is " tied directly" to the Texas abortion bill? Isn't that an issue for a judge to decide??dislaxxic wrote: ↑Mon Jul 25, 2022 8:03 amTime to start prying guns from cold, dead fingers i guess...- Under California’s law, private citizens can sue for a minimum of $10,000 per weapon against:
Anyone who manufactures, transports or distributes assault weapons
Licensed dealers who sell firearms to buyers under 21
- The text of the California bill as written in February was tied directly to Texas’ abortion ban. The gun law would become “inoperative” if the Texas abortion law got struck down by the Supreme Court, according to the text.
..
I use to be a people person until people ruined that for me.
-
- Posts: 32095
- Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2018 12:10 pm
Re: Sensible Gun Safety
Why would it be easier?cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Mon Jul 25, 2022 4:31 pmApples to oranges comparison. The folks manufacturing parts for ghost guns should be held accountable and their products should be banned. FTR my son built one of his AR-15 rifles from a kit he purchased on line. I don't know if the parts have serial numbers. I don't believe they do. If it matters he is a federal law enforcement officer. It may be easier for him to purchase these kits.PizzaSnake wrote: ↑Mon Jul 25, 2022 3:32 pmAnd manufacturers who build components provided to deliberately avoid tracing and accountability, i.e. ghost guns? What is their intent and what should be done?cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Mon Jul 25, 2022 2:56 pmThe gun manufacturers should not be held liable for the stupidity of the people that buy their product. They manufactured a product that did what it was designed to do. I'm all for throwing the book at people who traffic in illegal weapons. I'm even more in favor of throwing the book at anyone cought in possession of an illegal firearm. When the powers that be in government turn their attention to this issue it will be a very good day.Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Mon Jul 25, 2022 2:47 pmThe manufacturer. I have said it for years. Expose them to civil liability. If the weapon was stolen, file a lawsuit against the person that didn't lock it up properly. If you find the trafficker, throw the book at them along with the person caught with an illegal weapon.cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Mon Jul 25, 2022 8:36 amSo who do they sue when your shot by someone carrying an ILLEGAL WEAPON?? So the text of the California Bill is " tied directly" to the Texas abortion bill? Isn't that an issue for a judge to decide??dislaxxic wrote: ↑Mon Jul 25, 2022 8:03 amTime to start prying guns from cold, dead fingers i guess...- Under California’s law, private citizens can sue for a minimum of $10,000 per weapon against:
Anyone who manufactures, transports or distributes assault weapons
Licensed dealers who sell firearms to buyers under 21
- The text of the California bill as written in February was tied directly to Texas’ abortion ban. The gun law would become “inoperative” if the Texas abortion law got struck down by the Supreme Court, according to the text.
..
“You lucky I ain’t read wretched yet!”
-
- Posts: 4654
- Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2019 8:36 pm
Re: Sensible Gun Safety
And those (your son) who purchase these untraceable, unregulated firearms? What is his intent? Why not buy a fully assembled, more traceable and regulable firearm?cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Mon Jul 25, 2022 4:31 pmApples to oranges comparison. The folks manufacturing parts for ghost guns should be held accountable and their products should be banned. FTR my son built one of his AR-15 rifles from a kit he purchased on line. I don't know if the parts have serial numbers. I don't believe they do. If it matters he is a federal law enforcement officer. It may be easier for him to purchase these kits.PizzaSnake wrote: ↑Mon Jul 25, 2022 3:32 pmAnd manufacturers who build components provided to deliberately avoid tracing and accountability, i.e. ghost guns? What is their intent and what should be done?cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Mon Jul 25, 2022 2:56 pmThe gun manufacturers should not be held liable for the stupidity of the people that buy their product. They manufactured a product that did what it was designed to do. I'm all for throwing the book at people who traffic in illegal weapons. I'm even more in favor of throwing the book at anyone cought in possession of an illegal firearm. When the powers that be in government turn their attention to this issue it will be a very good day.Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Mon Jul 25, 2022 2:47 pmThe manufacturer. I have said it for years. Expose them to civil liability. If the weapon was stolen, file a lawsuit against the person that didn't lock it up properly. If you find the trafficker, throw the book at them along with the person caught with an illegal weapon.cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Mon Jul 25, 2022 8:36 amSo who do they sue when your shot by someone carrying an ILLEGAL WEAPON?? So the text of the California Bill is " tied directly" to the Texas abortion bill? Isn't that an issue for a judge to decide??dislaxxic wrote: ↑Mon Jul 25, 2022 8:03 amTime to start prying guns from cold, dead fingers i guess...- Under California’s law, private citizens can sue for a minimum of $10,000 per weapon against:
Anyone who manufactures, transports or distributes assault weapons
Licensed dealers who sell firearms to buyers under 21
- The text of the California bill as written in February was tied directly to Texas’ abortion ban. The gun law would become “inoperative” if the Texas abortion law got struck down by the Supreme Court, according to the text.
..
Ask him and get back to us. If you are going to assert authenticity and relevance due to proximity, then exercise it. Otherwise, who cares what your progeny is doing?
Every person, reviled or esteemed, has parents.
"There is nothing more difficult and more dangerous to carry through than initiating changes. One makes enemies of those who prospered under the old order, and only lukewarm support from those who would prosper under the new."
- cradleandshoot
- Posts: 13744
- Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2018 4:42 pm
Re: Sensible Gun Safety
Easy answer he built his rifle around 7 years ago. The kit rifles allow you to customize your rifle to your own specs. Building kit rifles was not all that controversial 7 years ago. The fact my son is a FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENT gives him a bit of a justification for choosing to build his own rifle. FTR the vast majority of federal agents have done the same thing. These rifles are very popular with law enforcement because they can customize them to their specific needs. FTR nothing he did was illegal or unethical. Law enforcement are generally very particular about the weapons they use to protect themselves. It is very similar to why your auto mechanic uses tools from Snap On or Mac instead of buying them from Harbor Freight. Also FTR he purchased his kit rifle from a licensed FF dealer who deals strictly with law enforcement. If that bothers you then that is your problem.PizzaSnake wrote: ↑Mon Jul 25, 2022 10:00 pmAnd those (your son) who purchase these untraceable, unregulated firearms? What is his intent? Why not buy a fully assembled, more traceable and regulable firearm?cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Mon Jul 25, 2022 4:31 pmApples to oranges comparison. The folks manufacturing parts for ghost guns should be held accountable and their products should be banned. FTR my son built one of his AR-15 rifles from a kit he purchased on line. I don't know if the parts have serial numbers. I don't believe they do. If it matters he is a federal law enforcement officer. It may be easier for him to purchase these kits.PizzaSnake wrote: ↑Mon Jul 25, 2022 3:32 pmAnd manufacturers who build components provided to deliberately avoid tracing and accountability, i.e. ghost guns? What is their intent and what should be done?cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Mon Jul 25, 2022 2:56 pmThe gun manufacturers should not be held liable for the stupidity of the people that buy their product. They manufactured a product that did what it was designed to do. I'm all for throwing the book at people who traffic in illegal weapons. I'm even more in favor of throwing the book at anyone cought in possession of an illegal firearm. When the powers that be in government turn their attention to this issue it will be a very good day.Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Mon Jul 25, 2022 2:47 pmThe manufacturer. I have said it for years. Expose them to civil liability. If the weapon was stolen, file a lawsuit against the person that didn't lock it up properly. If you find the trafficker, throw the book at them along with the person caught with an illegal weapon.cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Mon Jul 25, 2022 8:36 amSo who do they sue when your shot by someone carrying an ILLEGAL WEAPON?? So the text of the California Bill is " tied directly" to the Texas abortion bill? Isn't that an issue for a judge to decide??dislaxxic wrote: ↑Mon Jul 25, 2022 8:03 amTime to start prying guns from cold, dead fingers i guess...- Under California’s law, private citizens can sue for a minimum of $10,000 per weapon against:
Anyone who manufactures, transports or distributes assault weapons
Licensed dealers who sell firearms to buyers under 21
- The text of the California bill as written in February was tied directly to Texas’ abortion ban. The gun law would become “inoperative” if the Texas abortion law got struck down by the Supreme Court, according to the text.
..
Ask him and get back to us. If you are going to assert authenticity and relevance due to proximity, then exercise it. Otherwise, who cares what your progeny is doing?
Every person, reviled or esteemed, has parents.
I use to be a people person until people ruined that for me.
-
- Posts: 32095
- Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2018 12:10 pm
Re: Sensible Gun Safety
The employer doesn’t give them what they need? Soldiers also buying ghost guns because they get latitude?cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Tue Jul 26, 2022 5:57 amEasy answer he built his rifle around 7 years ago. The kit rifles allow you to customize your rifle to your own specs. Building kit rifles was not all that controversial 7 years ago. The fact my son is a FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENT gives him a bit of a justification for choosing to build his own rifle. FTR the vast majority of federal agents have done the same thing. These rifles are very popular with law enforcement because they can customize them to their specific needs. FTR nothing he did was illegal or unethical. Law enforcement are generally very particular about the weapons they use to protect themselves. It is very similar to why your auto mechanic uses tools from Snap On or Mac instead of buying them from Harbor Freight. Also FTR he purchased his kit rifle from a licensed FF dealer who deals strictly with law enforcement. If that bothers you then that is your problem.PizzaSnake wrote: ↑Mon Jul 25, 2022 10:00 pmAnd those (your son) who purchase these untraceable, unregulated firearms? What is his intent? Why not buy a fully assembled, more traceable and regulable firearm?cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Mon Jul 25, 2022 4:31 pmApples to oranges comparison. The folks manufacturing parts for ghost guns should be held accountable and their products should be banned. FTR my son built one of his AR-15 rifles from a kit he purchased on line. I don't know if the parts have serial numbers. I don't believe they do. If it matters he is a federal law enforcement officer. It may be easier for him to purchase these kits.PizzaSnake wrote: ↑Mon Jul 25, 2022 3:32 pmAnd manufacturers who build components provided to deliberately avoid tracing and accountability, i.e. ghost guns? What is their intent and what should be done?cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Mon Jul 25, 2022 2:56 pmThe gun manufacturers should not be held liable for the stupidity of the people that buy their product. They manufactured a product that did what it was designed to do. I'm all for throwing the book at people who traffic in illegal weapons. I'm even more in favor of throwing the book at anyone cought in possession of an illegal firearm. When the powers that be in government turn their attention to this issue it will be a very good day.Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Mon Jul 25, 2022 2:47 pmThe manufacturer. I have said it for years. Expose them to civil liability. If the weapon was stolen, file a lawsuit against the person that didn't lock it up properly. If you find the trafficker, throw the book at them along with the person caught with an illegal weapon.cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Mon Jul 25, 2022 8:36 amSo who do they sue when your shot by someone carrying an ILLEGAL WEAPON?? So the text of the California Bill is " tied directly" to the Texas abortion bill? Isn't that an issue for a judge to decide??dislaxxic wrote: ↑Mon Jul 25, 2022 8:03 amTime to start prying guns from cold, dead fingers i guess...- Under California’s law, private citizens can sue for a minimum of $10,000 per weapon against:
Anyone who manufactures, transports or distributes assault weapons
Licensed dealers who sell firearms to buyers under 21
- The text of the California bill as written in February was tied directly to Texas’ abortion ban. The gun law would become “inoperative” if the Texas abortion law got struck down by the Supreme Court, according to the text.
..
Ask him and get back to us. If you are going to assert authenticity and relevance due to proximity, then exercise it. Otherwise, who cares what your progeny is doing?
Every person, reviled or esteemed, has parents.
BTW, you used the word “May” earlier…..
“You lucky I ain’t read wretched yet!”
- cradleandshoot
- Posts: 13744
- Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2018 4:42 pm
Re: Sensible Gun Safety
What has what soldiers buying have anything to do with this conversation??? I'm discussing what local law enforcement and federal law enforcement are doing. There is an oft used expression among many people in law enforcement... it is better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6. Roll that around in your cranium for awhile and see if you can figure out what it means?? Break time is over... you need to get your ass back to work and help pay for my socialist benefits.Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Tue Jul 26, 2022 9:45 amThe employer doesn’t give them what they need? Soldiers also buying ghost guns because they get latitude?cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Tue Jul 26, 2022 5:57 amEasy answer he built his rifle around 7 years ago. The kit rifles allow you to customize your rifle to your own specs. Building kit rifles was not all that controversial 7 years ago. The fact my son is a FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENT gives him a bit of a justification for choosing to build his own rifle. FTR the vast majority of federal agents have done the same thing. These rifles are very popular with law enforcement because they can customize them to their specific needs. FTR nothing he did was illegal or unethical. Law enforcement are generally very particular about the weapons they use to protect themselves. It is very similar to why your auto mechanic uses tools from Snap On or Mac instead of buying them from Harbor Freight. Also FTR he purchased his kit rifle from a licensed FF dealer who deals strictly with law enforcement. If that bothers you then that is your problem.PizzaSnake wrote: ↑Mon Jul 25, 2022 10:00 pmAnd those (your son) who purchase these untraceable, unregulated firearms? What is his intent? Why not buy a fully assembled, more traceable and regulable firearm?cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Mon Jul 25, 2022 4:31 pmApples to oranges comparison. The folks manufacturing parts for ghost guns should be held accountable and their products should be banned. FTR my son built one of his AR-15 rifles from a kit he purchased on line. I don't know if the parts have serial numbers. I don't believe they do. If it matters he is a federal law enforcement officer. It may be easier for him to purchase these kits.PizzaSnake wrote: ↑Mon Jul 25, 2022 3:32 pmAnd manufacturers who build components provided to deliberately avoid tracing and accountability, i.e. ghost guns? What is their intent and what should be done?cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Mon Jul 25, 2022 2:56 pmThe gun manufacturers should not be held liable for the stupidity of the people that buy their product. They manufactured a product that did what it was designed to do. I'm all for throwing the book at people who traffic in illegal weapons. I'm even more in favor of throwing the book at anyone cought in possession of an illegal firearm. When the powers that be in government turn their attention to this issue it will be a very good day.Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Mon Jul 25, 2022 2:47 pmThe manufacturer. I have said it for years. Expose them to civil liability. If the weapon was stolen, file a lawsuit against the person that didn't lock it up properly. If you find the trafficker, throw the book at them along with the person caught with an illegal weapon.cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Mon Jul 25, 2022 8:36 amSo who do they sue when your shot by someone carrying an ILLEGAL WEAPON?? So the text of the California Bill is " tied directly" to the Texas abortion bill? Isn't that an issue for a judge to decide??dislaxxic wrote: ↑Mon Jul 25, 2022 8:03 amTime to start prying guns from cold, dead fingers i guess...- Under California’s law, private citizens can sue for a minimum of $10,000 per weapon against:
Anyone who manufactures, transports or distributes assault weapons
Licensed dealers who sell firearms to buyers under 21
- The text of the California bill as written in February was tied directly to Texas’ abortion ban. The gun law would become “inoperative” if the Texas abortion law got struck down by the Supreme Court, according to the text.
..
Ask him and get back to us. If you are going to assert authenticity and relevance due to proximity, then exercise it. Otherwise, who cares what your progeny is doing?
Every person, reviled or esteemed, has parents.
BTW, you used the word “May” earlier…..
I use to be a people person until people ruined that for me.
-
- Posts: 32095
- Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2018 12:10 pm
Re: Sensible Gun Safety
Just an example of how an employer makes sure the employees have what “they need”. Use your thinking cap.cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Tue Jul 26, 2022 10:56 amWhat has what soldiers buying have anything to do with this conversation??? I'm discussing what local law enforcement and federal law enforcement are doing. There is an oft used expression among many people in law enforcement... it is better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6. Roll that around in your cranium for awhile and see if you can figure out what it means?? Break time is over... you need to get your ass back to work and help pay for my socialist benefits.Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Tue Jul 26, 2022 9:45 amThe employer doesn’t give them what they need? Soldiers also buying ghost guns because they get latitude?cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Tue Jul 26, 2022 5:57 amEasy answer he built his rifle around 7 years ago. The kit rifles allow you to customize your rifle to your own specs. Building kit rifles was not all that controversial 7 years ago. The fact my son is a FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENT gives him a bit of a justification for choosing to build his own rifle. FTR the vast majority of federal agents have done the same thing. These rifles are very popular with law enforcement because they can customize them to their specific needs. FTR nothing he did was illegal or unethical. Law enforcement are generally very particular about the weapons they use to protect themselves. It is very similar to why your auto mechanic uses tools from Snap On or Mac instead of buying them from Harbor Freight. Also FTR he purchased his kit rifle from a licensed FF dealer who deals strictly with law enforcement. If that bothers you then that is your problem.PizzaSnake wrote: ↑Mon Jul 25, 2022 10:00 pmAnd those (your son) who purchase these untraceable, unregulated firearms? What is his intent? Why not buy a fully assembled, more traceable and regulable firearm?cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Mon Jul 25, 2022 4:31 pmApples to oranges comparison. The folks manufacturing parts for ghost guns should be held accountable and their products should be banned. FTR my son built one of his AR-15 rifles from a kit he purchased on line. I don't know if the parts have serial numbers. I don't believe they do. If it matters he is a federal law enforcement officer. It may be easier for him to purchase these kits.PizzaSnake wrote: ↑Mon Jul 25, 2022 3:32 pmAnd manufacturers who build components provided to deliberately avoid tracing and accountability, i.e. ghost guns? What is their intent and what should be done?cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Mon Jul 25, 2022 2:56 pmThe gun manufacturers should not be held liable for the stupidity of the people that buy their product. They manufactured a product that did what it was designed to do. I'm all for throwing the book at people who traffic in illegal weapons. I'm even more in favor of throwing the book at anyone cought in possession of an illegal firearm. When the powers that be in government turn their attention to this issue it will be a very good day.Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Mon Jul 25, 2022 2:47 pmThe manufacturer. I have said it for years. Expose them to civil liability. If the weapon was stolen, file a lawsuit against the person that didn't lock it up properly. If you find the trafficker, throw the book at them along with the person caught with an illegal weapon.cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Mon Jul 25, 2022 8:36 amSo who do they sue when your shot by someone carrying an ILLEGAL WEAPON?? So the text of the California Bill is " tied directly" to the Texas abortion bill? Isn't that an issue for a judge to decide??dislaxxic wrote: ↑Mon Jul 25, 2022 8:03 amTime to start prying guns from cold, dead fingers i guess...- Under California’s law, private citizens can sue for a minimum of $10,000 per weapon against:
Anyone who manufactures, transports or distributes assault weapons
Licensed dealers who sell firearms to buyers under 21
- The text of the California bill as written in February was tied directly to Texas’ abortion ban. The gun law would become “inoperative” if the Texas abortion law got struck down by the Supreme Court, according to the text.
..
Ask him and get back to us. If you are going to assert authenticity and relevance due to proximity, then exercise it. Otherwise, who cares what your progeny is doing?
Every person, reviled or esteemed, has parents.
BTW, you used the word “May” earlier…..
“You lucky I ain’t read wretched yet!”
- cradleandshoot
- Posts: 13744
- Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2018 4:42 pm
Re: Sensible Gun Safety
The employer has diddly jack squat to do with what weapons their employees like and dislike. why don't you take your own advice and use your thinking cap?? Why do you think so many local and federal law enforcement agents pay their own money to build a weapon suitable to their own preferences??? My son and many other members of law enforcement paid money out of pocket to design the AR 15 weapons they are comfortable with. Go back to work, i need you working to support me and not blathering on about stuff that is way out of your wheelhouse.Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Tue Jul 26, 2022 11:01 amJust an example of how an employer makes sure the employees have what “they need”. Use your thinking cap.cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Tue Jul 26, 2022 10:56 amWhat has what soldiers buying have anything to do with this conversation??? I'm discussing what local law enforcement and federal law enforcement are doing. There is an oft used expression among many people in law enforcement... it is better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6. Roll that around in your cranium for awhile and see if you can figure out what it means?? Break time is over... you need to get your ass back to work and help pay for my socialist benefits.Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Tue Jul 26, 2022 9:45 amThe employer doesn’t give them what they need? Soldiers also buying ghost guns because they get latitude?cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Tue Jul 26, 2022 5:57 amEasy answer he built his rifle around 7 years ago. The kit rifles allow you to customize your rifle to your own specs. Building kit rifles was not all that controversial 7 years ago. The fact my son is a FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENT gives him a bit of a justification for choosing to build his own rifle. FTR the vast majority of federal agents have done the same thing. These rifles are very popular with law enforcement because they can customize them to their specific needs. FTR nothing he did was illegal or unethical. Law enforcement are generally very particular about the weapons they use to protect themselves. It is very similar to why your auto mechanic uses tools from Snap On or Mac instead of buying them from Harbor Freight. Also FTR he purchased his kit rifle from a licensed FF dealer who deals strictly with law enforcement. If that bothers you then that is your problem.PizzaSnake wrote: ↑Mon Jul 25, 2022 10:00 pmAnd those (your son) who purchase these untraceable, unregulated firearms? What is his intent? Why not buy a fully assembled, more traceable and regulable firearm?cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Mon Jul 25, 2022 4:31 pmApples to oranges comparison. The folks manufacturing parts for ghost guns should be held accountable and their products should be banned. FTR my son built one of his AR-15 rifles from a kit he purchased on line. I don't know if the parts have serial numbers. I don't believe they do. If it matters he is a federal law enforcement officer. It may be easier for him to purchase these kits.PizzaSnake wrote: ↑Mon Jul 25, 2022 3:32 pmAnd manufacturers who build components provided to deliberately avoid tracing and accountability, i.e. ghost guns? What is their intent and what should be done?cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Mon Jul 25, 2022 2:56 pmThe gun manufacturers should not be held liable for the stupidity of the people that buy their product. They manufactured a product that did what it was designed to do. I'm all for throwing the book at people who traffic in illegal weapons. I'm even more in favor of throwing the book at anyone cought in possession of an illegal firearm. When the powers that be in government turn their attention to this issue it will be a very good day.Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Mon Jul 25, 2022 2:47 pmThe manufacturer. I have said it for years. Expose them to civil liability. If the weapon was stolen, file a lawsuit against the person that didn't lock it up properly. If you find the trafficker, throw the book at them along with the person caught with an illegal weapon.cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Mon Jul 25, 2022 8:36 amSo who do they sue when your shot by someone carrying an ILLEGAL WEAPON?? So the text of the California Bill is " tied directly" to the Texas abortion bill? Isn't that an issue for a judge to decide??dislaxxic wrote: ↑Mon Jul 25, 2022 8:03 amTime to start prying guns from cold, dead fingers i guess...- Under California’s law, private citizens can sue for a minimum of $10,000 per weapon against:
Anyone who manufactures, transports or distributes assault weapons
Licensed dealers who sell firearms to buyers under 21
- The text of the California bill as written in February was tied directly to Texas’ abortion ban. The gun law would become “inoperative” if the Texas abortion law got struck down by the Supreme Court, according to the text.
..
Ask him and get back to us. If you are going to assert authenticity and relevance due to proximity, then exercise it. Otherwise, who cares what your progeny is doing?
Every person, reviled or esteemed, has parents.
BTW, you used the word “May” earlier…..
I use to be a people person until people ruined that for me.