Same here in Colorado. I actually found out that they wouldn't really care if you had an artillery cannon. You just have to have to make sure no one gets hurt.TK421 said:
Poll: gun rights but how much is too much?
- Thread starter Worgen
- Start date
Recommended Videos
The poll options display a remarkable lack of awareness of the issues of gun control. I don't have any problem with allowing people to own a rifle after taking a safety course, but I am considerably more hesitant to allow handguns to be handed out to just anyone.
Either me or people in my close family own a combination of rifles, shotguns, and handguns. I think the limit should stop at full-auto weapons (Unless you somehow manage to get a type-three license; if you do, then you fucking deserve it. Takes years to get approved for that, and you can be denied for having so much as a parking ticket.) However, I do own a box of "cop killer" rounds. All they are are Teflon-coated bullets, and I certainly never plan on using them against cops.
fair enoughsneakypenguin said:
still seems too dangerous to allow most people access to guns, but then again im british
Guns are for babies. Real men use their fists, or the fists of their enemies to beat them.
On a serious note. I have nothing against the ownership of guns. I just believe better education and training is needed (a licence system wont hurt either, want too keep guns away from idiots? Give them a test!). For example there is no way in hell i support the ownership of firearms for self defense unless the person is well trained and can recognize when it would be better to simply not use it. There is a reason police need to have training and no excuse can justify civilians getting away with none.
On a serious note. I have nothing against the ownership of guns. I just believe better education and training is needed (a licence system wont hurt either, want too keep guns away from idiots? Give them a test!). For example there is no way in hell i support the ownership of firearms for self defense unless the person is well trained and can recognize when it would be better to simply not use it. There is a reason police need to have training and no excuse can justify civilians getting away with none.
For practical purposes, we should stop at semi-automatic pistols. I'm very doubtful about shotguns and hunting rifles. Have to have a wide selection of non-lethal weapons available for sale, though - that way, people will have a possibility for self-defense without killing anyone.
But to be completely honest? I'm not gonna be happy unless i can have 20 nuclear warheads, battleship the size of Yamato, my very own Kill-Sat, and RYNO V for close encounters.
But to be completely honest? I'm not gonna be happy unless i can have 20 nuclear warheads, battleship the size of Yamato, my very own Kill-Sat, and RYNO V for close encounters.
you ahven't lived until you've hunted wild pigs with 17th century flintlocks whilst wearing a top hat, tuxedo and monocle and speaking only in faux old timey british accents. i'll have to find the pics.
i also hate these debates, since you get so many retards weighing in from the extreme "everybody should be able to have any gun with no training or familiarization course" to the "guns are inherently evil tools..somehow.. everything would be donuts and sunshine if they were gone" side of the spectrum.
i also hate these debates, since you get so many retards weighing in from the extreme "everybody should be able to have any gun with no training or familiarization course" to the "guns are inherently evil tools..somehow.. everything would be donuts and sunshine if they were gone" side of the spectrum.
I am aware of federal statutes that prohibit all explosives of that nature. Even if a state statute tried to contradict the federal statute, it would be invalid. You cannot legally own those kinds of explosives.Berethond said:
If you don't want to believe me, fine. When you or someone else goes to jail on your misinformation, its no skin off my back.