Bob Denman
New member
I haven't looked it up lately, but if I remember, the legal definition of an assault rifle is "a firearm that can mount a bayonet".
john
Oh! Do you mean like the 1903-A3 bolt-action rifle??? :shocked:
I haven't looked it up lately, but if I remember, the legal definition of an assault rifle is "a firearm that can mount a bayonet".
john
Actual assault rifles have been essentially 'Illegal' to own since 1934, with revisions to the law in 1968 and 1986. While true that it is still legal to own one. It is very strictly regulated. You get looked at VERY closely. It usually takes at least a year to get through the lengthy and expensive process.
What the media and others do is continue to characterize rifles which LOOK like an assault weapon, but are not, incorrectly. Most know they are doing this but it fits their agenda and they know most people don't know the difference and will take their word for it.
It is interesting to note that none of the recent mass shootings was done with a LEGAL Assault Rifle. The news media gives a partial truth when saying that the guns used by the San Bernardino shooters were legal and purchased legally. True, as far as it goes. But they purposefully (IMHO) leave out the pertinent part of this story.
The original transaction was a 'Straw Purchase'. In other words. The original buyer was not purchasing these guns for himself. He was simply the middle man, purchasing them for the 2 shooters. This is an illegal sale.
As originally configured, the guns were legal. But the shooters ILLEGALLY modified these weapons making them illegal to own.
But since it is also illegal to shoot a number of people for no reason. It really didn't matter to these shooters that they had broken a number of laws before they stepped into the Christmas party that day. Since only the bad guys had guns that day, it was no contest.
And, by the way, it is also illegal to make pipe bombs. As far as I know, it has been for quite some time.
It will be repetitively easy to get guns out of the hands of honest, law abiding citizens. But you'll never get them away from criminals.
Let me start by saying I support the right to bear arms.
BUT.... like the infant a week ago in Kansas that picked up an un-secured handgun and proceeded to kill
themself , it can indeed be a health hazard.
Weird part of story, it was a Deputy's child, in HIS home, with a gun that DID NOT belong to Him.
Go figure ! I obviously just don't get it.
I support RESPONSIBLE gun ownership.
We have some stupid, crazy and just plain nutty people running this state
with more idiot laws than you can count however.... I just had my annual
physical and was given a multi page stack of paperwork to fill out, all kinds
of questions on it but NOT ONE having to do with any firearms. You would think
living in California that would have been one of the first questions on the forms.
The question was not presented in the pre-visit forms it was asked directly by the doctor as she was entering information on the computer.
Maybe the DR had a "gun question":shemademe_smilie::roflblack:
There is a staggering number of suicides every year, and a large number of those involve guns. Gun owners are at risk for a higher rate of suicides. Your doctor is just doing his job and assessing ALL the risks to your health. Besides, those antidepressants work very well.
put away your paranoia and remember that you have a doctor-patient relationship to protect you from the government. That is unless you tell him/her that you are going to hurt someone, then you should be turned in.
Last week I had my annual physical and the Gun question came up, it has before, and as always I passed and the doctor would moved on. This visit I was told answering the question was mandatory. I did not ask about the consequences but surmised the doctor would not get compensated without an answer. Any thoughts? I think the feds will try and do gun control through oXXXX care. They are gathering data.
When I first read this post, I thought it was a joke. It is a joke, isn't it?
If not, why in the heck would a doc ask such a question unless there was some kind of family history involving gun violence?? Even then, that would be out of line, I think.
So, is the post 'real or Memorex?'
Joe T.
It is all part of the new 'Open and Transparent' health care system. 'If you like your gun.... You can keep it!'
It's no joke.
We live in the everybody wants to know everything and what time you did it. Time to get out of this mode & go back to minding our own business. How about having to give your credit card number to register your drone? Seems to me the gov't wants to charge stuff on you if you buy a drone now.
I know it's not a good thing to tell a lie------- BUT --I would lie to any medical "professional" asking about if I posessed a firearm in my home. Remember you have to sign some form about shareing your medical information----name the governmental agency here.....
As I said in a previous post on this thread, "Just say no!!"
Kaos
When I first read this post, I thought it was a joke. It is a joke, isn't it?
If not, why in the heck would a doc ask such a question unless there was some kind of family history involving gun violence?? Even then, that would be out of line, I think.
So, is the post 'real or Memorex?'
Joe T.