The Gun Thread

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Personally I think background checks are a good idea. But I already mentioned how the FBI knew Omar mateen was a terrorist and he had no problem purchasing an AR-15 to murder 80 Americans
 
Dude653 said:
Personally I think background checks are a good idea. But I already mentioned how the FBI knew Omar mateen was a terrorist and he had no problem purchasing an AR-15 to murder 80 Americans
Click to expand...

Yes, exactly.... this should prove to nearly any thinking individual that laws will not stop the lawbreakers. Laws nearly always only serve to inconvenience law abiding citizens.
There are already enough laws on the books to make it illegal to "do" certain things... problem is, the enforcement of those laws is pretty lax...

During the Clinton years, the administration bragged and crowed about how their "laws" had prevented a couple hundred FELONS from purchasing firearms.

How many of those felons do you suppose went back to prison for the duration of their sentence? I never heard of ANY of them being sent back. They were prevented from THAT purchase... Where is the incentive to NOT break the law? "Oh, drat, you caught me this time. I promise I'll never do it again...." :rolleyes:
If the enforcement of the law was instantaneous and harsh, it might serve as some sort of deterrent.. as it is now? No way....
 
hornetguy said:
Yes, exactly.... this should prove to nearly any thinking individual that laws will not stop the lawbreakers. Laws nearly always only serve to inconvenience law abiding citizens.
There are already enough laws on the books to make it illegal to "do" certain things... problem is, the enforcement of those laws is pretty lax...

During the Clinton years, the administration bragged and crowed about how their "laws" had prevented a couple hundred FELONS from purchasing firearms.

How many of those felons do you suppose went back to prison for the duration of their sentence? I never heard of ANY of them being sent back. They were prevented from THAT purchase... Where is the incentive to NOT break the law? "Oh, drat, you caught me this time. I promise I'll never do it again...." :rolleyes:
If the enforcement of the law was instantaneous and harsh, it might serve as some sort of deterrent.. as it is now? No way....
Click to expand...
Right. A lot of people could have not lost their lives that day if the FBI had just done their job.
 
shittim said:
this one-
https://survivalblog.com/2020/03/30/sw-model-5904-pat-cascio/
Click to expand...
The squared trigger guard not only is esthetically attractive, but us functional even if not used with the support finger over it. More important is the extended length. It allows the trigger finger free unimpeded access from the frame side ready position.
This seems oxymoronic, but my other favorite when on custom 1911s is the melt, extreme dehorn treatment when done tastefully; Like that Sig Sas or this Clark Custom.
 
A certain individual on this thread needs to grow up and stop taking passive-aggressive shots at me. If you have something on your mind speak up
 
Dude653 said:
Personally I think background checks are a good idea. But I already mentioned how the FBI knew Omar mateen was a terrorist and he had no problem purchasing an AR-15 to murder 80 Americans
Click to expand...
So we need to regulate the FBI, then. Not guns.
 
Genipher said:
So we need to regulate the FBI, then. Not guns.
Click to expand...
The point I'm trying to make here is that there are people who shouldn't be armed like people who have known ties to terrorist organizations, people with violent priors etc
 
Dude653 said:
The point I'm trying to make here is that there are people who shouldn't be armed like people who have known ties to terrorist organizations, people with violent priors etc
Click to expand...
I don't know if being a "known terrorist" is an automatic reject, but the paperwork that the federal gov't requires on every gun sale asks if you have ever been convicted in any court of even a misdemeanor charge of domestic violence, or if you are subject to any restraining order.... you have to answer those questions.... and we know that nobody would ever lie on an application.... :rolleyes:

BUT the NICS background check should catch those things..... and if you lie on the application, you SHOULD go immediately to jail.... but I'm pretty sure that doesn't happen. The store, getting the "no" vote from the NICS check just refuses to sell you the firearm..... and you move on to the next store, and eventually either buy one on the black market, or steal one.
 
hornetguy said:
I don't know if being a "known terrorist" is an automatic reject, but the paperwork that the federal gov't requires on every gun sale asks if you have ever been convicted in any court of even a misdemeanor charge of domestic violence, or if you are subject to any restraining order.... you have to answer those questions.... and we know that nobody would ever lie on an application.... :rolleyes:

BUT the NICS background check should catch those things..... and if you lie on the application, you SHOULD go immediately to jail.... but I'm pretty sure that doesn't happen. The store, getting the "no" vote from the NICS check just refuses to sell you the firearm..... and you move on to the next store, and eventually either buy one on the black market, or steal one.
Click to expand...
Judges don't issue restraining orders for no reason. It's usually when someone is either threatening or stalking someone
I would say in most cases the person who filed for the restraining order is the one who needs to be armed
 
Dude653 said:
Judges don't issue restraining orders for no reason. It's usually when someone is either threatening or stalking someone
I would say in most cases the person who filed for the restraining order is the one who needs to be armed
Click to expand...
Well.... yeah. I think we are agreeing here.
The problem is not that there are not enough laws.... it's that the laws are not enforced strictly enough.
 
316103914_505864924919398_5539150025953463301_n.jpg
 
Oregonians here are rushing to get guns, etc before measure 114 goes into effect.
On the flip side, I've read that there IS an appeal/challenge that's been sent. Not sure how long the process will take but, hopefully, it'll be reversed!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back