Sensible Gun Safety

The odds are excellent that you will leave this forum hating someone.
User avatar
cradleandshoot
Posts: 13744
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2018 4:42 pm

Re: Sensible Gun Safety

Post by cradleandshoot »

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? :roll:
I use to be a people person until people ruined that for me.
jhu72
Posts: 13835
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2018 12:52 pm

Re: Sensible Gun Safety

Post by jhu72 »

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.
Image STAND AGAINST FASCISM
User avatar
cradleandshoot
Posts: 13744
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2018 4:42 pm

Re: Sensible Gun Safety

Post by cradleandshoot »

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.
By dumbass of course you are referring to its 3 FLP members? :D
I use to be a people person until people ruined that for me.
User avatar
youthathletics
Posts: 14367
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2018 7:36 pm

Re: Sensible Gun Safety

Post by youthathletics »

cradleandshoot wrote: Sat Jul 23, 2022 6:10 am
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.
By dumbass of course you are referring to its 3 FLP members? :D
It's really a subtle shot at IVY league educated people. :lol:
A fraudulent intent, however carefully concealed at the outset, will generally, in the end, betray itself.
~Livy
User avatar
dislaxxic
Posts: 4501
Joined: Thu May 10, 2018 11:00 am
Location: Moving to Montana Soon...

Re: Sensible Gun Safety

Post by dislaxxic »

- 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.
Time to start prying guns from cold, dead fingers i guess...

..
"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
User avatar
cradleandshoot
Posts: 13744
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2018 4:42 pm

Re: Sensible Gun Safety

Post by cradleandshoot »

dislaxxic wrote: Mon Jul 25, 2022 8:03 am
- 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.
Time to start prying guns from cold, dead fingers i guess...

..
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?? :roll:
I use to be a people person until people ruined that for me.
Typical Lax Dad
Posts: 32095
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2018 12:10 pm

Re: Sensible Gun Safety

Post by Typical Lax Dad »

cradleandshoot wrote: Mon Jul 25, 2022 8:36 am
dislaxxic wrote: Mon Jul 25, 2022 8:03 am
- 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.
Time to start prying guns from cold, dead fingers i guess...

..
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?? :roll:
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.
“You lucky I ain’t read wretched yet!”
User avatar
cradleandshoot
Posts: 13744
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2018 4:42 pm

Re: Sensible Gun Safety

Post by cradleandshoot »

Typical Lax Dad wrote: Mon Jul 25, 2022 2:47 pm
cradleandshoot wrote: Mon Jul 25, 2022 8:36 am
dislaxxic wrote: Mon Jul 25, 2022 8:03 am
- 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.
Time to start prying guns from cold, dead fingers i guess...

..
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?? :roll:
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.
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.
I use to be a people person until people ruined that for me.
Typical Lax Dad
Posts: 32095
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2018 12:10 pm

Re: Sensible Gun Safety

Post by Typical Lax Dad »

cradleandshoot wrote: Mon Jul 25, 2022 2:56 pm
Typical Lax Dad wrote: Mon Jul 25, 2022 2:47 pm
cradleandshoot wrote: Mon Jul 25, 2022 8:36 am
dislaxxic wrote: Mon Jul 25, 2022 8:03 am
- 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.
Time to start prying guns from cold, dead fingers i guess...

..
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?? :roll:
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.
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.
https://lawkm.com/wrongful-death-lawsui ... igarettes/
“You lucky I ain’t read wretched yet!”
Typical Lax Dad
Posts: 32095
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2018 12:10 pm

Re: Sensible Gun Safety

Post by Typical Lax Dad »

“You lucky I ain’t read wretched yet!”
Typical Lax Dad
Posts: 32095
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2018 12:10 pm

Re: Sensible Gun Safety

Post by Typical Lax Dad »

“You lucky I ain’t read wretched yet!”
PizzaSnake
Posts: 4654
Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2019 8:36 pm

Re: Sensible Gun Safety

Post by PizzaSnake »

cradleandshoot wrote: Mon Jul 25, 2022 2:56 pm
Typical Lax Dad wrote: Mon Jul 25, 2022 2:47 pm
cradleandshoot wrote: Mon Jul 25, 2022 8:36 am
dislaxxic wrote: Mon Jul 25, 2022 8:03 am
- 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.
Time to start prying guns from cold, dead fingers i guess...

..
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?? :roll:
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.
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.
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?
"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."
User avatar
cradleandshoot
Posts: 13744
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2018 4:42 pm

Re: Sensible Gun Safety

Post by cradleandshoot »

PizzaSnake wrote: Mon Jul 25, 2022 3:32 pm
cradleandshoot wrote: Mon Jul 25, 2022 2:56 pm
Typical Lax Dad wrote: Mon Jul 25, 2022 2:47 pm
cradleandshoot wrote: Mon Jul 25, 2022 8:36 am
dislaxxic wrote: Mon Jul 25, 2022 8:03 am
- 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.
Time to start prying guns from cold, dead fingers i guess...

..
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?? :roll:
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.
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.
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?
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.
I use to be a people person until people ruined that for me.
Typical Lax Dad
Posts: 32095
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2018 12:10 pm

Re: Sensible Gun Safety

Post by Typical Lax Dad »

cradleandshoot wrote: Mon Jul 25, 2022 4:31 pm
PizzaSnake wrote: Mon Jul 25, 2022 3:32 pm
cradleandshoot wrote: Mon Jul 25, 2022 2:56 pm
Typical Lax Dad wrote: Mon Jul 25, 2022 2:47 pm
cradleandshoot wrote: Mon Jul 25, 2022 8:36 am
dislaxxic wrote: Mon Jul 25, 2022 8:03 am
- 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.
Time to start prying guns from cold, dead fingers i guess...

..
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?? :roll:
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.
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.
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?
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.
Why would it be easier?
“You lucky I ain’t read wretched yet!”
PizzaSnake
Posts: 4654
Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2019 8:36 pm

Re: Sensible Gun Safety

Post by PizzaSnake »

cradleandshoot wrote: Mon Jul 25, 2022 4:31 pm
PizzaSnake wrote: Mon Jul 25, 2022 3:32 pm
cradleandshoot wrote: Mon Jul 25, 2022 2:56 pm
Typical Lax Dad wrote: Mon Jul 25, 2022 2:47 pm
cradleandshoot wrote: Mon Jul 25, 2022 8:36 am
dislaxxic wrote: Mon Jul 25, 2022 8:03 am
- 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.
Time to start prying guns from cold, dead fingers i guess...

..
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?? :roll:
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?

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."
User avatar
cradleandshoot
Posts: 13744
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2018 4:42 pm

Re: Sensible Gun Safety

Post by cradleandshoot »

PizzaSnake wrote: Mon Jul 25, 2022 10:00 pm
cradleandshoot wrote: Mon Jul 25, 2022 4:31 pm
PizzaSnake wrote: Mon Jul 25, 2022 3:32 pm
cradleandshoot wrote: Mon Jul 25, 2022 2:56 pm
Typical Lax Dad wrote: Mon Jul 25, 2022 2:47 pm
cradleandshoot wrote: Mon Jul 25, 2022 8:36 am
dislaxxic wrote: Mon Jul 25, 2022 8:03 am
- 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.
Time to start prying guns from cold, dead fingers i guess...

..
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?? :roll:
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?

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.
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.
I use to be a people person until people ruined that for me.
Typical Lax Dad
Posts: 32095
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2018 12:10 pm

Re: Sensible Gun Safety

Post by Typical Lax Dad »

cradleandshoot wrote: Tue Jul 26, 2022 5:57 am
PizzaSnake wrote: Mon Jul 25, 2022 10:00 pm
cradleandshoot wrote: Mon Jul 25, 2022 4:31 pm
PizzaSnake wrote: Mon Jul 25, 2022 3:32 pm
cradleandshoot wrote: Mon Jul 25, 2022 2:56 pm
Typical Lax Dad wrote: Mon Jul 25, 2022 2:47 pm
cradleandshoot wrote: Mon Jul 25, 2022 8:36 am
dislaxxic wrote: Mon Jul 25, 2022 8:03 am
- 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.
Time to start prying guns from cold, dead fingers i guess...

..
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?? :roll:
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?

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.
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.
The employer doesn’t give them what they need? Soldiers also buying ghost guns because they get latitude?

BTW, you used the word “May” earlier…..
“You lucky I ain’t read wretched yet!”
User avatar
cradleandshoot
Posts: 13744
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2018 4:42 pm

Re: Sensible Gun Safety

Post by cradleandshoot »

Typical Lax Dad wrote: Tue Jul 26, 2022 9:45 am
cradleandshoot wrote: Tue Jul 26, 2022 5:57 am
PizzaSnake wrote: Mon Jul 25, 2022 10:00 pm
cradleandshoot wrote: Mon Jul 25, 2022 4:31 pm
PizzaSnake wrote: Mon Jul 25, 2022 3:32 pm
cradleandshoot wrote: Mon Jul 25, 2022 2:56 pm
Typical Lax Dad wrote: Mon Jul 25, 2022 2:47 pm
cradleandshoot wrote: Mon Jul 25, 2022 8:36 am
dislaxxic wrote: Mon Jul 25, 2022 8:03 am
- 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.
Time to start prying guns from cold, dead fingers i guess...

..
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?? :roll:
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?

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.
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.
The employer doesn’t give them what they need? Soldiers also buying ghost guns because they get latitude?

BTW, you used the word “May” earlier…..
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. :D
I use to be a people person until people ruined that for me.
Typical Lax Dad
Posts: 32095
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2018 12:10 pm

Re: Sensible Gun Safety

Post by Typical Lax Dad »

cradleandshoot wrote: Tue Jul 26, 2022 10:56 am
Typical Lax Dad wrote: Tue Jul 26, 2022 9:45 am
cradleandshoot wrote: Tue Jul 26, 2022 5:57 am
PizzaSnake wrote: Mon Jul 25, 2022 10:00 pm
cradleandshoot wrote: Mon Jul 25, 2022 4:31 pm
PizzaSnake wrote: Mon Jul 25, 2022 3:32 pm
cradleandshoot wrote: Mon Jul 25, 2022 2:56 pm
Typical Lax Dad wrote: Mon Jul 25, 2022 2:47 pm
cradleandshoot wrote: Mon Jul 25, 2022 8:36 am
dislaxxic wrote: Mon Jul 25, 2022 8:03 am
- 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.
Time to start prying guns from cold, dead fingers i guess...

..
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?? :roll:
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?

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.
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.
The employer doesn’t give them what they need? Soldiers also buying ghost guns because they get latitude?

BTW, you used the word “May” earlier…..
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. :D
Just an example of how an employer makes sure the employees have what “they need”. Use your thinking cap.
“You lucky I ain’t read wretched yet!”
User avatar
cradleandshoot
Posts: 13744
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2018 4:42 pm

Re: Sensible Gun Safety

Post by cradleandshoot »

Typical Lax Dad wrote: Tue Jul 26, 2022 11:01 am
cradleandshoot wrote: Tue Jul 26, 2022 10:56 am
Typical Lax Dad wrote: Tue Jul 26, 2022 9:45 am
cradleandshoot wrote: Tue Jul 26, 2022 5:57 am
PizzaSnake wrote: Mon Jul 25, 2022 10:00 pm
cradleandshoot wrote: Mon Jul 25, 2022 4:31 pm
PizzaSnake wrote: Mon Jul 25, 2022 3:32 pm
cradleandshoot wrote: Mon Jul 25, 2022 2:56 pm
Typical Lax Dad wrote: Mon Jul 25, 2022 2:47 pm
cradleandshoot wrote: Mon Jul 25, 2022 8:36 am
dislaxxic wrote: Mon Jul 25, 2022 8:03 am
- 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.
Time to start prying guns from cold, dead fingers i guess...

..
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?? :roll:
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?

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.
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.
The employer doesn’t give them what they need? Soldiers also buying ghost guns because they get latitude?

BTW, you used the word “May” earlier…..
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. :D
Just an example of how an employer makes sure the employees have what “they need”. Use your thinking cap.
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. :D
I use to be a people person until people ruined that for me.
Post Reply

Return to “POLITICS”