LeviF

I thought that gunfire and bald eagle screeches were the sound of freedom. On the 4th of July Toby Keith gets added in too.

Guess I'm lucky I'm not an average person then! I'm taller than average!

He's Canadian and therefore is better? Idk I couldn't hear him over the sound of all my freedom.

You're the only one who's brought him up. And again, if you weren't too lazy to, you'd be able to find the grayed out names on old posts of users who came here, espoused white supremacist nonsense, were promptly mocked mercilessly and eventually banned (once Darin woke up from a nap).

Yeah and I'm sure he was chanting the 14 words and heil Hitler while he went around and got those signatures.

By what, exactly? Making another law for state officials to ignore? Put pressure on states and municipalities and courts to do their !@#$ing jobs and suddenly it gets "tightened up." The Air Force suddenly started adding names to the database after their !@#$up was put on national TV.

Assuming he was involuntarily institutionalized, your gripe is with the state of Florida, not with the background check. The background check will always catch the institutionalization...if the state officials do their jobs and enter the info into the database. Same issue with the former Air Force guy who shot up the church in Texas; if the AF officials responsible for entering the information into the database had done their jobs, the background check would have picked up his DV charge.

There are ways in some states to get your 2nd Amendment rights back if you've been involuntarily committed in the past, but as a general rule an involuntary commitment or an adjudication as mentally defective works the same as a felony: they strip you of your 2A rights. It still comes up in your background check too. I don't run backgrounds for FFLs but there must be an addendum or something for the ones who have gone through the process.

...you cannot possess a firearm legally if you've been involuntarily institutionalized for any amount of time.

In large part this is because the GOP hasn't resembled anything remotely close to "conservative" since Reagan took office.

Must have been the US Army's new sidearm

Exactly. We hear the calls for banning "assault weapons" because they're low-hanging fruit. It was the same with SBR's and full autos back when the NFA was passed. It's easy to ban "assault weapons" because they're scary looking, on the "edge" of gun ownership, and look like what you see soldiers carrying. In a few years everyone forgets that this concession was made and then gun-grabbers go after the next "edge" weapons, maybe handguns or semi-autos generally. The middle then gets smaller. Rinse and repeat until only criminals and the government have guns and it's illegal to defend yourself. At some point gun owners have to take a non-negotiable stance or we might as well toss out the rest of the Constitution too. If we can be that liberal about the phrase "shall not be infringed" then why pretend we have any rights at all?

My bank account and I know that feeling well, brother

I would be furious if the NRA came to the table. They've wasted enough of our money. The bump stock thing after Vegas was the last straw, and I don't even own (or want) a bump stock. My money goes to GOA now.

Here's my point: discussions with gun-grabbers are completely fruitless and no longer an option for someone who actually cares about their 2nd amendment rights.

It wasn't poorly worded at all; the fact that you can't understand plain English that's only <250 years old doesn't make you smarter than the founders. But if you really think you are, then change it. There's an avenue to change the Constitution, use it and stop being coy about it.

Ignorant? No. Condescending? Yes, because you're just another in a long line of fudds who have no real interest in 2nd amendment rights as long as they can shoot durr and try to zero in their .30-06 for 6 hours taking up 3 benches at the range.

Oh good, another fudd. So in order for a rifle to be an assault rifle, it has to be selective fire. How difficult is it to obtain a selective fire weapon? "Assault weapon" is still a term invented by politicians. Hence why it's different in different jurisdictions.

See, here's the problem. "Assault weapon" is a leftist media/politician creation. As is "extended clip" and "armor piercing ammo." They're terms used to scare people into complying with gun-grabbing.

To properly clean an AR-15, you must field strip it. This goes for virtually every gun. You can do a quick clean (just the barrel and a couple other parts) by simply taking the upper part away from the lower part of the gun.

I have a full size for home defense as well as my "oh ****" gun for work. Granted, I'm a 6'4" tall man, but with minimal range time you can get a smaller person comfortable with it since it's relatively lightweight. Some modifications are probably necessary to make it super effective for home defense (a front hand grip, for instance) but the fact that it's so customizable and can be built around several different calibers allows pretty much anyone to put together an AR that works for them. In a perfect world? Sure. Here? Not so much. This is a boring strawman and I'm bored

Then make one. End of story.

I don't even bother with that anymore, because it just turns into "well that Brady bill seems pretty good" and then I bang my head on my desk. Forget the fact that the AR chambered in 5.56 is arguably the best home defense weapon in existence.

Skipping the fact that these are all infringements for now. Who does the psych e v a l? What are the criteria? Who decides what social media (free speech) keeps you from gun ownership? You can show yourself out now, Fudd.

Care to share the details of these school shootings? Hint: one is a negligent discharge. And it's not the only one of its kind.