Recent content by ShooterMcGavin

He could only be referring to smarter laws of physics. If we had better laws of physics (velocity, momentum, etc.), nobody would die when a gun was fired in their direction. That can be the only answer. ETA: But, um, yep. There is no reasoning coming from the other side most times.

One mistruth I heard Hussein Obama mention more than once, is his "fact" that a gun in the house is more likely to kill the owner/family than stop a criminal (paraphrasing).

We both know the answer to that... He would lie to us and tell us that he respects self-defense and hunting and sporting.

*emphasis is mine* Throughout the whole Q/A session, I just wanted someone to ask "Do you know precisely WHY the 2nd amendment was included in the Bill of Rights???". Although, I'm sure he would skirt the question "uh, ummm, uh, well Americans, see Americans have a long, uh, uh, uh...

Sorry about that... I kinda jumped into the middle of someone else's story with an account of my own. I can understand the confusion :)

No, I'm sorry... Mine was a separate event. Unrelated to Kiln's experience.

It was a jury who did the actual conviction, but the judge did and said many things that tipped his hand that he had made his own "conviction" in his mind. His breaking of several laws forced the jury into making the final conviction. I agree with everything you said. The short answer is...

Technically, no. However, they can convict people in their own minds, and then break the law in ways to force a conviction. Yes, I have seen it happen.

I would tend to think... If a person must be 18+ in your state to "buy" a rifle, then you cannot legally sell the rifle to your son. That would be one violation, and maybe the major one... selling a firearm to a prohibited person. Yes, I would think that this is also a straw purchase...

The link you provided says nothing about the exemption for straw purchases for spouse/offspring. Do you have a link that shows where a straw purchase is ok for those 2 categories? *ETA: Actually, I think Sam has cleared this up, as I understand the law to be.

There were no limitations in the original post. I added the emphasis, but the OP said "any reason"... He went on to list some examples... it could be a plane crash, a bump in the night, or add your own scenario (because that would fall under the category of "any reason" :) ). My scenario...

What a slap in the face that was, to us "regular folk"!

Wow. I think I am justified in inferring this to mean that, those who support the 2nd A do not oppose "gun violence". There is so much wrong with this entire article. It is a waste of time, thought, and energy.

I'm sorry. It was a complete joke and nothing more. I was hoping that the idea of "turd" would stick in your mind and be something that made you snicker each time you saw the label on the front "Sturdy" :) No offense meant. Actually, I have read through their information in the past and I...

I don't know if I can support that recommendation... I mean, it says "turd" right in the title ;) :scrutiny: