Off Topic Chat. (MOD NOTE post# 3949 and post#5279)

Rows Grower

tudderone wrote: »

I have been keeping an eye on flights on flightradar, the reduction in air traffic is massive, and often the only flights up are UPS, or DHL etc, freight only. Everyone else, the Germans and french etc are ignoring eussr laws, they closed their borders. Why have we always to be the lickspittle for the eu ?

https://www.flightradar24.com/multiview/53.24,-6.91/7

Click on a plane to see its details.

I got sent a WhatsApp message today showing the air traffic over Europe in comparison to the US and the difference was mind boggling.

tudderone

Rows Grower wrote: »

I got sent a WhatsApp message today showing the air traffic over Europe in comparison to the US and the difference was mind boggling.

Just looking at the USA on flight radar now, the whole map was yellow, including New York. You would imagine that in a lockdown they would be grounded.

Marinetraffic for anyone interested, seems the fishing fleet and ferries its business as usual.


https://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais/home/centerx:-6.6/centery:42.5/zoom:4

EoghanS

i was supposed to sail to the UK with the family for a few days over Easter.
Irish Ferries point blank refused to refund any fee's paid as there was a mandatory travel ban, as the dont use forced air etc they can still sail, not our problem if you do not want to, despite being instructed to stay at home.
its a shambles

Grizzly 45

Just had a look at the airport info which you can get off Flightradar24.Dublin is as busy as ever in global arrivals and international departures as it was in pre Covid days??? WTF is going on ???

tudderone

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Just had a look at the airport info which you can get off Flightradar24.Dublin is as busy as ever in global arrivals and international departures as it was in pre Covid days??? WTF is going on ???

I reckon thats whats scheduled, but they never actually happen. If you watch the app, i have only seen one flight in the last hour, a ryanair flight from Bristol to Dublin.

kowloon

Are flare guns - the type that only fire flares and not anything high pressure - something you get on an authorisation for or are they treated like regular guns?

Grizzly 45

Depends ,are you tallking about the all plastic OLIN type launcher that fires a 12GA flare?Or the old style metal "Verey" flare pistol? The latter no doubt will be treated as a firearm here,and proably restricted because of it's calibre. The OLIN launcher ASFIK is incapable of accepting a normal 12GA cartridge,[and wouldnt survive along with your hand if you did fire one in it.] But because it does fire a projectile it proably is considerd a firearm? I do know however that the pen launched flares are legal here.,self contained round ,no barrel,just a spring loaded device with a clip to hold the flare in place.Have seen them in ships chandlers here,and a couple of better survival stores.Expensive as Hell tho.

kowloon

It was just general curiosity. I've seen them on sale in Ireland - brass Very types - and was wondering if it would count as a pistol. If it does would that not make it impossible to license one due to them being larger than .22? They're not uncommon in antiques places here and yet I'm sure you would be told where to go when you tried to get the okay for a 1" pistol licence.
As you mentioned, modern usage is probably all the plastic types, but I'm sure older brass flare guns were still in use for years after they were issued.

tudderone

I know for a fact that very or flare pistols in the UK are section 1 firearms, same as a rifle. So i doubt they are off ticket here.

tudderone

Oh what a tangled web we weave.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O3UBxsWDAeQ

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8211291/U-S-government-gave-3-7million-grant-Wuhan-lab-experimented-coronavirus-source-bats.html

Grizzly 45

kowloon wrote: »

It was just general curiosity. I've seen them on sale in Ireland - brass Very types - and was wondering if it would count as a pistol. If it does would that not make it impossible to license one due to them being larger than .22? They're not uncommon in antiques places here and yet I'm sure you would be told where to go when you tried to get the okay for a 1" pistol licence.
As you mentioned, modern usage is probably all the plastic types, but I'm sure older brass flare guns were still in use for years after they were issued.

I know some enterprising soul made some 12 GA conversion drop in barrels for these types of flare pistols.Now,whether they were just for flare ammo or could handle full blown 12GA ammo,I know not. But it wouldn't be beyond the mortal knowledge to machine one up on a lathe. Seen a bunch of those around as well here.But I doubt that they are still capable of firing,and aquiring flare shells for them would be no easy feat.As flare pistols were made in all sorts of cals for different armies and even branches of a countries armed forces.Its not a major headache,and as they are pretty easily deactivated.I would say they are treated about the same as FCA keepsakes of empty 40 mm Bofor shells gracing many a mantlepiece and serving as fire poker holders,even in some Garda households :)thru out the land.

kowloon

tudderone wrote: »

I know for a fact that very or flare pistols in the UK are section 1 firearms, same as a rifle. So i doubt they are off ticket here.

They have the obsolete calibre list as a get out of jail card for having one of those sitting on your mantlepiece whereas, like Grizzly says, in Ireland they're just around the place and nobody seems to worry about it.

yubabill

P&O has ferry impounded in Liverpool over unpaid port fees. Pretty critical to us that ferries keep operating

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/liverpool-port-detains-p-o-ship-on-dublin-liverpool-route-1.4230960

tudderone

Governor blackface in Virginia passes the anti-gun laws. No surprise and cowardly to do it when everyone was locked down.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pP433o10PT4

Mellor

tudderone wrote: »

Governor blackface in Virginia passes the anti-gun laws. No surprise and cowardly to do it when everyone was locked down.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pP433o10PT4

I thought the intro to that was very good where he took swipe at the people spreading rumors via social media, scaremongering, and generally making stuff up.
"Makes us look like an ignorant rube..racist ill-informed paranoid rednecks."

Couldn't agree more. Outside of gun control aspects, it's just general good advice when dealing with the constant wild claims online these days.


As for the laws, he kinda glossed over them, as he had reported on them previously. So excusing my ignorance, I had to get a list elsewhere. From WP.

• give authorities the power to temporarily seize weapons from someone deemed a threat;
• increase the penalty for recklessly leaving a loaded gun within reach of a child;
• establish universal background checks;
• require owners to report lost or stolen firearms within 48 hours;
• limit handgun purchases to one per month;

Accurate?

The "somebody deemed a threat" is obviously a bit loose. Somebody planning an attack, or other craziness. Ok sure. Somebody who's on medicaton for PTSD/Anxiety/Depression. Hold on a second there. I'd assume it's left up to subjectivity, which isn't good.

I'm ok with the loaded gun one tbh. I don't think load guns should be left unattended ever.

What's a universal background check mean ,in this context.

I don't know why anybody wouldn't report a legally held firearm being stolen asap. It's a fair assumption that a criminal who steals a gun whats to use it for something that gives gun owners a bad name.

1 handgun a month. I think that more interesting one tbh. From a discussion POV.

BattleCorp

Mellor wrote: »

The "somebody deemed a threat" is obviously a bit loose. Somebody planning an attack, or other craziness. Ok sure. Somebody who's on medicaton for PTSD/Anxiety/Depression. Hold on a second there. I'd assume it's left up to subjectivity, which isn't good.

Yeah, that's too subjective and wide open to abuse. If someone is planning an attack there's enough there to arrest them and take away their firearms and I've no problem with that part of it. But what's the benchmark for the other stuff? It could easily be misused by the powers that be.

I'm ok with the loaded gun one tbh. I don't think load guns should be left unattended ever.

I'm fine with this.

What's a universal background check mean ,in this context.

A background check is mandatory in some States for certain types of guns when you buy them from an authorised gun dealer, i.e. in a gun shop. Many states have no background checks if I was to sell you my gun (I'm not a gun dealer). A universal background check would cover those private gun sales too.

I don't know why anybody wouldn't report a legally held firearm being stolen asap. It's a fair assumption that a criminal who steals a gun whats to use it for something that gives gun owners a bad name.

Supposing I only use my gun an odd time and store it in the shed (nothing wrong with that in the US). I might not know it was stolen within 2 days of it being stolen. Supposing I went on holidays for two weeks and it was stolen when I was away, have I just committed a crime?

1 handgun a month. I think that more interesting one tbh. From a discussion POV.

What difference does that make if you buy one or ten handguns in a month? If someone is determined to do bad, then how does this law make people safer?

I can see most of these being challenged in the courts.

Mellor

BattleCorp wrote: »

A background check is mandatory in some States for certain types of guns when you buy them from an authorised gun dealer, i.e. in a gun shop. Many states have no background checks if I was to sell you my gun (I'm not a gun dealer). A universal background check would cover those private gun sales too.

Ah ok. That sounds completely reasonable then.
If im buying a gun off you privately, surely having some sort of document to say I’m allowed to have a gun protects you in that instance.

Supposing I only use my gun an odd time and store it in the shed (nothing wrong with that in the US). I might not know it was stolen within 2 days of it being stolen. Supposing I went on holidays for two weeks and it was stolen when I was away, have I just committed a crime?

I haven’t read the law in question, but I assume it is two days from the time you become aware. Otherwise it’s a bit ridiculous for reading s you point out.

What difference does that make if you buy one or ten handguns in a month? If someone is determined to do bad, then how does this law make people safer?.

I don’t think those laws have any impact on somebody buying a gun to do bad. But not do I imagine they intend to.

Maybe I’m wrong, but I assumed they were targeting “new” gun owners being a bit over enthusiastic.
Firearms are serious tools, there’s a learning curve. Somebody new to firearms doesn’t need 10 handguns on day 1. I can just imagine some guy with lofty expectations thinking he’s gonna be John Wick with two berettas.

Is the seasoned gun owner, who already has 10 handguns is particularly impacted. Does he buy more than 10 guns a year?

I do think somebody trading in or selling an existing gun should get credit though. Which isn’t clear if that’s the case.

BattleCorp

Mellor wrote: »

Ah ok. That sounds completely reasonable then.
If im buying a gun off you privately, surely having some sort of document to say I’m allowed to have a gun protects you in that instance.

That's the thing about America.......they have their 2nd Amendment. You shouldn't have to be 'allowed' to have a gun, it's your 'right' to have a gun or a heap of guns if you want. And the 2nd Amendment is also designed to help protect you against the Government. Not much protection if the Government have a list of who and where all the guns are.

That said, I've no problem with background checks but I don't set the rules.

I don’t think those laws have any impact on somebody buying a gun to do bad. But not do I imagine they intend to.

I don't quite follow what you are saying here. I'm guessing that you are saying that these laws aren't intended to impact on someone intending to do bad with the gun that they are buying. If that's the case, what's the point of the law?

Maybe I’m wrong, but I assumed they were targeting “new” gun owners being a bit over enthusiastic.

Nothing wrong with a bit of enthusiasm. I was an enthusiastic new gun owner once. Now I'm an enthusiastic old gun owner.

Firearms are serious tools, there’s a learning curve. Somebody new to firearms doesn’t need 10 handguns on day 1. I can just imagine some guy with lofty expectations thinking he’s gonna be John Wick with two berettas.

You are watching too many films if you think people are buying guns to be like John Wick. Bit insulting to law abiding gun owners to be honest.

Here's the problem. These laws don't just affect new gun owners, they affect all gun owners. If I had the money and lived in the States, I'd be the type of person who might buy two or three guns at a time. Why shouldn't I be allowed to buy them all tomorrow instead of one tomorrow, one the month after and one the month after?

Is the seasoned gun owner, who already has 10 handguns is particularly impacted. Does he buy more than 10 guns a year?

Some guys would. And there's absolutely nothing wrong with that.

I do think somebody trading in or selling an existing gun should get credit though. Which isn’t clear if that’s the case.

Again that's unfair on law abiding gun owners. There shouldn't be a 'one in - one out' policy on guns. We had Superintendents here in Ireland say things like that to gun owners but there was no basis in law for them requiring that. In other words, they were going beyond what the law allowed.

Mellor

BattleCorp wrote: »

That's the thing about America.......they have their 2nd Amendment. You shouldn't have to be 'allowed' to have a gun, it's your 'right' to have a gun or a heap of guns if you want. And the 2nd Amendment is also designed to help protect you against the Government.

Well the 2nd amendment is a minefield in itself.
I’m completely ok with’a convicted rapist, for example, being being excluded from owning a gun. They gave up that right imo. Others will disagree based on a literal reading of the 2nd amendment. Which is their choice.

I don't quite follow what you are saying here. I'm guessing that you are saying that these laws aren't intended to impact on someone intending to do bad with the gun that they are buying. If that's the case, what's the point of the law?

Not should have said nor. Autocorrect, sorry.
And yes that’s what im saying. If somebody wants to rob a gas station, they can do it just as easily with 1 him as 10 guns.
I don’t think that’s the target of the law, as it would be kinda pointless, no?

Nothing wrong with a bit of enthusiasm. I was an enthusiastic new gun owner once. Now I'm an enthusiastic old gun owner.

Absolutely nothing wrong with enthusiasm. I was enthusiastic myself. Spent a lot of time coveting various set ups on here.

Key word was “overly”. Run before they can walk sort of stuff.

You are watching too many films if you think people are buying guns to be like John Wick. Bit insulting to law abiding gun owners to be honest.

It was an example of somebody with of delusional expectations. I clearly wasn’t describing all gun owners in that light. Sorry if that wasn’t clear.
If somebody wants to take offence, that’s their right I suppose.

Most people are reasonable. Treat dangerous situations with respect. Know the limits of their ability. But there’s all a guy who has no limit.
Not just in regards to firearms.

Here's the problem. These laws don't just affect new gun owners, they affect all gun owners. If I had the money and lived in the States, I'd be the type of person who might buy two or three guns at a time. Why shouldn't I be allowed to buy them all tomorrow instead of one tomorrow, one the month after and one the month after?

If we were American, I’d imagine we’d both already own multiple guns.
Would we still he allowed to go to Bass Pro, and buy a new 9mm, a .22 and a shotgun in the same day. Or have I got that wrong?

I certainly don’t think the Irish “as few guns as possible” approach is right. But I also don’t think that buying 20 identical handguns should be “no questions asked”. (Intentional ridiculous example)

Some guys would. And there's absolutely nothing wrong with that.

Yes there’s not. Not harming anyone.

I suppose I was thinking that anyone would buy more long guns than handguns. So 12 handguns per year is 24-40 guns total per year. Which sounds like a sizeable limit.
But that ratio is probably reflective of my own wish list.

Again that's unfair on law abiding gun owners. There shouldn't be a 'one in - one out' policy on guns. We had Superintendents here in Ireland say things like that to gun owners but there was no basis in law for them requiring that. In other words, they were going beyond what the law allowed.

I think you misunderstood.
I’m not saying it should be 'one in - one out'.

I’m saying if state implements a 1 [type of gun] per sale. The somebody selling or trading in a gun should get credit and be allowed to buy two, as it’s only 1 “extra” gun out there in the big bad world.
Some will say no. Same rule for all, full stop. I see that logic too.

BattleCorp

Mellor wrote: »

I’m completely ok with’a convicted rapist, for example, being being excluded from owning a gun. They gave up that right imo. Others will disagree based on a literal reading of the 2nd amendment. Which is their choice.

I'm in agreement here too. If someone acts the bollix, they should have their guns removed. Some States in the US forbid convicted felons from owning firearms etc. Some states only allow them to have them in their own home etc.

I'd be in favour of preventing those who are convited of violent crime from having access to a firearm.

Not should have said nor. Autocorrect, sorry.
And yes that’s what im saying. If somebody wants to rob a gas station, they can do it just as easily with 1 him as 10 guns.
I don’t think that’s the target of the law, as it would be kinda pointless, no?

Yes, it is pointless. And it's these pointless laws that get law abiding gun owners p1ssed off. Why put limitations on law abiding gun owners if it will have no effect on criminals? Worse than pointless as it damages relations with law abiding shooters.

It was an example of somebody with of delusional expectations. I clearly wasn’t describing all gun owners in that light. Sorry if that wasn’t clear.
If somebody wants to take offence, that’s their right I suppose.

The reason most shooters don't like those comparisons as they are trotted out by the media who try to paint all gun owners as Rambos or John Wicks in an attempt to portray us as crazies who should have our guns taken away.

If we were American, I’d imagine we’d both already own multiple guns.
Would we still he allowed to go to Bass Pro, and buy a new 9mm, a .22 and a shotgun in the same day. Or have I got that wrong?

I don't know the ins and outs of the new US laws to be honest so I don't know the answer. I already own several guns as I am a target shooter who takes part in lots of different disciplines. Here in Ireland I have never bought two guns at the same time but I know a few people who have. Actually I have bought two guns in the same month and had no problems doing so here. The problem I had here was it taking two months to get one of the guns licenced and another three months after that for the second one. But that's down to inefficiencies in our system rather than anything to do with legislation.

tudderone

Some of the points are good. Not leaving firearms, especially loaded firearms where kids can get their hands on them, is something worth doing, and i would agree with that law.
But some are ambiguious, define "someone who might be a threat" in a legal way. Who decides ? Someone who has just had a screaming row with a spouse or neighbour ? Someone on medication for depression, which is half of America thanks to the drugs companies ?
The one pistol a month thing is a load of poop, you are either safe to own a firearm or you are not. Same as here, the type and number of firearms is just a detail.
What people in Virginia and other states are concerned about is this is the thin end of the wedge, being pushed by bloomberg and his cronies in the democrat party, some of whom are thinly veiled communists (Bernie, AOC etc).

Grizzly 45

The "somebody deemed a threat" is obviously a bit loose. Somebody planning an attack, or other craziness. Ok sure. Somebody who's on medicaton for PTSD/Anxiety/Depression. Hold on a second there. I'd assume it's left up to subjectivity, which isn't good.

Yeah,it's so loose that dumb blonde eaves dropping waitresses on an old 95 year old Korean and Vietnam vets table in the local cafe of his post. misheard a statement about one ol boy "planning to shoot up the high school across the road".When in actual fact the ol guy was commenting about the armed school security man leaving his place and sitting his ass in the diner for breakfast without any relif He actuallty said and witnessed by fellow Vets. "In my day there is no way you could desert you post like that without the relif showing up and being present.Now anyone could shoot up that school with him in here and no one gaurding the gate." Didnt stop the SWAT and PD arriving at his door and confiscating his gun collection as he was "red flagged" by the dopey coffee slinger. Now he is still looking at a huge court case and costs to retrive his guns.
Or your bitchy sister in law after another family arguement red flagging you because you told her to get out of the house and leave. Its wayy to subjective and makes a mockery of the guilty until proven innocent concept of Western law.

The kids and loaded firearms thing.Applying more to idiots leaving their guns in their cars in the seat rest,or glove compartment, or at home in the sock drawer and junior finding it,than actually kids taking the deer rifle or their .22 and going int o the forest or local town free fire area and plinking a few tins. But of course that now applies to all "childeren" which is a moveable feast over there in a definition in law.:rolleyes:

The universal backround check is ridicilous.There is already a backround check before you can purchase.It's called the Brady instant check.This is once your have filled in the form 4773 ,your details are typed in and it would give you a local and national yes/no/quiery answer.However what Gov Blackface now wants is that EVERY sale whether in a gunstore,bar or family member must fill in this form of firearms transfer.Even if you LOAN someone a gun to go deer or target shooting.So that means every transaction must be done in a gustore and the Brady/NiCSS check just cant handle this amount of quieries .it crashed utterly again in the run up to the national US lockdown.Where Americans bought over 350 MILLION guns and X million rounds of ammo in One.Single.Day!!!
IOW the civilian pouplation bought enough guns to requip their entire armed forces from the newest recruit to the highest brass in the Pentagon TWICE over!And oddly,since this lockdown started...Anyone hear of any "mass shootings?" That's why any sort of comparison between Ireland or Europe in gun-ownership with the US is a total non starter.

The one a month is going to fail in the courts.There is nothing in Virginia state law or the 2nd that says you can only buy X number of anything per month.

Looking at this with my TRUMP 2020 baseball cap on:D.The simple fact is anything restrictive is an infringement on the 2nd amendment. There are over 20 thousand federal,local ,state,state,city and town ordinances and laws on firearms ownership in the US lawbooks.How are more laws going to prevent further guncrimes?
Secondly.The US gunowners have steadily given ground,compromised and negoiated rights away since about 1934 more or less.When has the anti gun side ever recpriocated??? It's a non stop daily attack,by very wealthy arrogant men and women,who are not intrested in "just saving lives" and "sensible gun laws" who have armed security to protect them.it is about control and power,nothing else.

tudderone

Have any of the members here discovered over the course of this lockdown, the unbelieveable amount of pure muck women can watch on the telly ? Crappy soap operas, endless talk shows where four old bags put the world to rights, stomach churning medical programmes, where you can watch a doctor work on someones septic toenail or infected piles, and game shows where the contestants seem to be suffering from slow brain death.

I have and jesus it gets on my nerves. I don't watch the thing from one days end to the next.

Grizzly 45

Says it all

Mellor

BattleCorp wrote: »

I'm in agreement here too. If someone acts the bollix, they should have their guns removed. Some States in the US forbid convicted felons from owning firearms etc. Some states only allow them to have them in their own home etc.

I think it's fair to say any reasonable person is in favour of that. Should be easy to legislate for with tight definitions rather than loose laws.

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Yeah,it's so loose that dumb blonde eaves dropping waitresses...
Or your bitchy sister in law after another family arguement red flagging you because you told her to get out of the house and leave. Its wayy to subjective and makes a mockery of the guilty until proven innocent concept of Western law.

But it would be very easy to make it much tighter. Instead of deemed a risk [by who ever]. Make it deemed a risk [by vitue of the fact they have been convicted of a violent crime].
That way it's black and white instead of subjective, and there's nothing you can say that will suddenly make you a risk.

The mental health aspect is still a minefield though. How do you quantify that.

The kids and loaded firearms thing.Applying more to idiots leaving their guns in their cars in the seat rest,or glove compartment, or at home in the sock drawer and junior finding it,than actually kids taking the deer rifle or their .22 and going int o the forest or local town free fire area and plinking a few tins. But of course that now applies to all "childeren" which is a moveable feast over there in a definition in law.:rolleyes:

I'd that the "recklessly" part would exclude an legal and safe usage.
But again the wording is important.

The universal backround check is ridicilous.There is already a backround check before you can purchase.It's called the Brady instant check.This is once your have filled in the form 4773 ,your details are typed in and it would give you a local and national yes/no/quiery answer.However what Gov Blackface now wants is that EVERY sale whether in a gunstore,bar or family member must fill in this form of firearms transfer.

Does that mean that there's no background checks at all for private sales.
Say, I'm a violent offender. Specifically exclude from holding a firearm as part of my sentence. I find a guy on Craigslist sell a gun. We meet up, I give him cash. And I'm on my way?

Requiring a check for lending somebody a gun is ridiculous. As would it be for testing a gun on a range prior to buying.

Grizzly 45

Mellor wrote: »

I think it's fair to say any reasonable person is in favour of that. Should be easy to legislate for with tight definitions rather than loose laws.

Can of worms,extra large.Because of the way the US judical system works,you could be a felon for absolutely anything under their laws.Never have harmed a fly ,and get a felony rap for somthing like not paying your property tax,or digging a pond on your property to catch rainwater. Is that justification for prohibiting you owning a gun because of that felony?

But it would be very easy to make it much tighter. Instead of deemed a risk [by who ever]. Make it deemed a risk [by vitue of the fact they have been convicted of a violent crime].
That way it's black and white instead of subjective, and there's nothing you can say that will suddenly make you a risk.

The mental health aspect is still a minefield though. How do you quantify that.

You can't.Without going into a very lengthy discussion on how appalingly bad US mental health laws ,past and present have been and are along with their treatments of patients,it wouldnt make sense.Short to say.

I'd that the "recklessly" part would exclude an legal and safe usage.
But again the wording is important.

Wording is everything,definitions more so and context of it even more so. For a parent in the US in some state,it mightn't be a big thing to let their kids head off to the local town dump,to go and plink away with their .22s at tin cans and rats.As they and their grandparents did.Lots of US town dumps/wasteland are also the local "free fire area" and everyone know this.But say they get a ride home in a friends car,who shares it with his elder brother,who left his handgun in the glove box.They get pulled over in a proable cause roadside stop and it is found.Now you as a parent of one of the kids who was in the car are also facing a charge of allowing you "child" into a dangerous situation of a "recklessly stored" firearm.Yes! it is that fubar over there.

Does that mean that there's no background checks at all for private sales.
Say, I'm a violent offender. Specifically exclude from holding a firearm as part of my sentence. I find a guy on Craigslist sell a gun. We meet up, I give him cash. And I'm on my way?

100% correct.No backround checks on private sales.Bar Class 3 firearms,but seeing they are on a Fed level of registration,thats another story.Technically said yes to the above,as there is still a presumption of guilty until proven innocent.So unless you know that your buyer is a criminal,or have grounds to suspect such to give you proable cause to deny the sale,there is nothing to stop you from selling it.Just as there is nothing stopping you from asking for the buyers drivers liscense to verify his ID and data,and making a c call to the local Sheriffs dept if you have doubts post sale You as the offender OTOH have broken plenty of laws in doing or attempting such.And why bother anyway,when you can go to "Homeboy Retail"[We have a steal for sale every day!] and get whatever you need ,with absolutely no questions asked?

Requiring a check for lending somebody a gun is ridiculous. As would it be for testing a gun on a range prior to buying

.

Yip,take that up with Gov Blackface.You can be assured of three things in this life.Death,taxes and idiots making stupid gun laws!

Grizzly 45

Well,I guess the Canadians can kiss adieu to the rest of their guns after this latest shooting in Nova Scotia,as no doubt that gunhating Tredeau will be quick to jump on this as well.:mad::mad:

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/04/19/americas/nova-scotia-shooting-mountie/index.html

tudderone

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Well,I guess the Canadians can kiss adieu to the rest of their guns after this latest shooting in Nova Scotia,as no doubt that gunhating Tredeau will be quick to jump on this as well.:mad::mad:

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/04/19/americas/nova-scotia-shooting-mountie/index.html

I follow a chap on youtube called Riflechair, he is an ex-officer in the Canadian army. He reckons Canada has gone right off the rails under Trudeau, another blackface enthusiast. Its gone extreme-pc there, and as a result the country is very split. Anyway Trudeau has all he needs to do an Ardern and ban everything. It won't do anything, but they are seen to "do something".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SOTxp9YJSXI

tudderone

I see that in addition to the pallets of cash Obama sent by plane to the Iranians, it appears he sent nearly 4 million dollars to the Wuhan lab that more than likely let this horrible covid virus loose on the world. What the hell was he thinking ? Why so lavish with taxpayers dosh ?


https://www.theblaze.com/news/obama-gave-infamous-wuhan-lab-millions-in-taxpayer-money-trump-has-vowed-to-end-further-grants

Grizzly 45

tudderone wrote: »

I follow a chap on youtube called Riflechair, he is an ex-officer in the Canadian army. He reckons Canada has gone right off the rails under Trudeau, another blackface enthusiast. Its gone extreme-pc there, and as a result the country is very split. Anyway Trudeau has all he needs to do an Ardern and ban everything. It won't do anything, but they are seen to "do something".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SOTxp9YJSXI

Very dim light at the end of this tunnel.Apprently he killed the mountie,used her issued sidearms,uniform and the police car to go and commit this atrocity.Which is actually incredibly cunnng.A figure of trust shows up at your door and shoots you and your Fam.So how will a "sensible gun law" stop that from happening???