m16ty

It's a big difference in being a UK conservative and a US conservative. Most people that would be called a "conservative" in the UK would still be considered quite liberal here in the US.

Trump isn't the establishment, and is wanting to get scale back government power and regulation, he's not the typical republican party. Unless Jesus himself is on the ballot, you'll always be voting for "the lesser of two evils". I will agree that more local elections do matter a whole lot, federal elections are also very important. Are you ready to loose your rights to at least the 1st, 2nd, and 5th amendments? That's what the Democrats are aiming for, and if they pack the court like they say they will be able to accomplish it. Not to mention turning this country into the 3rd world by uncontrolled immigration. That's what you get by "throwing you vote away". Now the argument could be made that we would be better off to go ahead and get it over with (civil war) to get this country back on track, but to think you can vote 3rd party or independent to "vote your conscience" and actually accomplish good is naive. Yes, God is in control, and he can get this country back on track if he wishes, but he is also content to sit back and watch us destroy ourselves and give us exactly what we deserve. Just look in the Bible at what he did to his own chosen people, he allowed them to be destroyed as a nation.

Just the other day I was in line behind a guy at Lowe’s OCing, and was thinking how easy it would be for me to grab that gun and shoot him in the back before he even knew what happened. He wasn’t very aware either, I don’t think he even knew I was behind him.

One good thing about open carrying being allowed is if you gun is “printing” or inadvertently exposed, you don’t have to worry about being charged. I carry concealed, but not deep concealment, for comfort only (I just can’t do IWB holsters). I also visit FL often, and one of my main concerns is me accidentally exposing my gun and somebody calling the cops or a cop sees me. In TN you don’t have to worry about that.

We need to watch this, but it probably won't even pass the Senate, and pretty sure won't pass the House. As a side note, I wondered when the Lefties would go after ammo. I'm even hesitant to say it for fear that some of the banners would see it, but if you have no ammo you could have a safe as big as Ft Knox full of guns and they wouldn't be worth anything without ammo.

Yes, but that still doesn't mean you won't get charged and prosecuted in Memphis. The problem lies with the fact that liberal police departments and DAs pretty much do what they want, regardless of what State law says, and nobody has the backbone on the state level to make them behave.

I don't doubt that. We are lucky enough to have a DA that has some common sense.

i know of several self defense shootings where the person claiming self defense didn't get arrested at the scene. Now admittedly some were arrested later on after the investigation. I know of a guy personally that shot a guy and never was arrested, and it wasn't even a very good shoot. with the circumstances involved I was actually worried he might get charged but he never was. He pulls into his driveway with his grandkids in the car and this guy approaches him off the street. The guy said something angrily in Spanish as he approached the car, and he just got out of the car and shot him. He is a older fellow, and the bad guy was pretty built, and the DA said that because he was apt to be overpowered by the bad guy and he was protecting his grandkids in the car it was justified. Also, right or wrong the bad guy was an illegal and had no family pushing for charges or to file a civil suit. As for the incident in question, I hate the guy was arrested but he also shouldn't be firing a weapon if he can't keep his eyes open while doing so. If he had shot a family across the street he would have a lot more charges and there would be innocent people dead. This is what worries me about a lot of well meaning people armed, they don't have the training to actually handle the firearm when called to do so. Looks like they only thing that saved him was the robbers were as bad of a shot as he was.

I don't think so. Demand really wouldn't change, I mean they are available now if you're willing to pay. Also, even though guns like the MG42 was already out of production, there are still a bunch of them that are post-1986 guns (built after the ban). Only MG42 I've ever shot was a post-sample, SOT I was friends with got a police demo letter for it, lol. All that being said, I think prices would likely hold for original guns. I've got a couple of MGs that I've had for a long time, I wish I had bought more at the time. I guess a MP5 and M249 would be on my list. Any belt gun is still going to hold a pretty good price though, I could actually turn my M16 into basically a M249 now with the right upper, but I choose not to. Then of course there is the M134. Everybody wants one, but very few can afford to feed it, and even post guns are still expensive. I mean, you've got to have 10k rounds just to have a little range time. Aside from MGs, I'd probably pickup a few cans and SBR almost everything. I currently don't own a single can, I'd like to have one if I could just go to the local gun store and pick one up, but don't want one bad enough to go though the paperwork hassle and pay a $200 tax to own one.

I understand times change, but it's a little different with things like technology changing and your moral values changing. For instance, I don't want a electric vehicle, but the current trend is to eventually do away with ICE vehicles. I won't like it but I suspect if I live long enough I could very well be driving a EV. I will not change or adapt my moral values, and I will submit anybody willing to do so didn't have very good values to start with. It's also up to us older people to instill our moral values into the younger people. I just can't buy into the notion that we should just accept changing times and jump on board or get left behind. Like has been said "you've got to stand for something or you'll fall for anything".

I don't think that's how it works nowadays. What you now have is these liberal groups that threaten them if they don't take certain stances on certain social issues. Yes, they do these things in a calculated manner, but these Soros funded groups are threatening to make all out war against them if they don't do their bidding. Look at the whole Bud Light deal. They aren't stupid, they knew they were going to get some backlash by having a trans in their advertising, but they calculated that it wouldn't be as bad as if they had told Soros no. I think they miscalculated pushback, but they are really in a no win situation money wise. This same thing has happened to NASCAR, the NFL, banks, and all other sorts of big corporations. There is a whole lot more to this than just some association and corporation executives deciding they want to "go woke". Most associations and corporations had rather just stay out of politics, and concentrate on what they make or otherwise offer the consumer, but their hand is being forced by these Soros funded groups. These woke groups have a lot more power than we do, they have the media on their side and have to power to completely destroy even the biggest corporations. About all i can do is spread the word and just not give them any of my money.

Believe it or not, I've had some positive results from people we would consider "anti-gun" on Facebook with that argument in the last few days. People are just running on emotion (as almost all liberals do), but when you force them to look at the facts it can make them think a little. I think we have a real chance at least softening some of these ignorant sheep if presented with hard facts, and most of these numbers I posted can be found on liberal sites (giving them credibility in their eyes). The people that really concern me are the people that know the facts I presented above, but choose to hide them or twist them. They are the ones trying to completely disarm us by any means necessary. They know that banning "assault weapons" won't do anything to prevent killings, and know that gives them a open door to ban other firearms. Now what their final plan is when we are completely disarmed I don't know, but I know it will be very bad.

I have yet to find statistics on how many people are killed each year with "assault weapons". You would think with all the talk of banning them somebody would have compiled the statistics. I will submit they have, but they didn't like the results, so they don't release them. Only thing I can find is for 2019 and it list a total of 13,922 homicides, of which 364 were committed with rifles. Now if you break that down to homicides committed by "assault rifles", I'd say the number would be a fraction of 364. Since we don't have the data on what they call "assault weapons", lets go ahead and give them the 364 number and assume every rifle murder was from the barrel of a AR-15. Ask your gun grabbing "friends", lets say we get rid of every gun you call a "assault weapon" from the whole U.S., ok you've prevented 364 deaths, but what are you going to do about the other 13,558? When confronted about a new "assault weapon ban", I have never got a answer to the question and that will shut them up, because they don't have an answer. This also goes to show you that banning what they call "assault weapons" will do nothing to stop murders. Even if you stopped every murder committed my all rifles, you would only decrease murders by less than 0.03%. The reality is though, the actual murders by "assault weapons" are much less than that 364 number, and most people that did commit murders by what they call "assault weapons" would just use something else. Then you add the fact that by banning them you'll never actually get rid of them, it's a non issue that will change nothing.

We all complain about TN gun laws, but it could be much worse. It's really not all that bad. Seems just about every state has some strange firearms laws. The thing that always bugged me about FL was the concealed part, and not allowing open carry. While I don't open carry, I still have to worry about my shirt or something riding up and revealing my gun, which can put me in violation of the law.

First we need some peespecirve. While very tragic, the odds of somebody getting killed in a mass shooting are very very slim. I get that everybody wants to end these shootings, but completely ignore other things that are more likely to kill you. You’ll hear “if it will save just one child”, but if we banned everything that would save at least one child they would live their lives in a padded room. All that being said, these school shootings is a problem we need to deal with. I’m not sure it will ever happen though, because it is a society problem. When I was in school in the ‘80s a lot of the kids carried guns on school grounds daily, but there were no shootings. Guns were more accessible to everybody back then, but there were no school shootings. You have to ask yourself what has changed. I think a lot of it is the breakdown of the nuclear family, the internet, and video games. When I say video games, I don’t think they affect everybody, but I do think somebody that is a little unstable can be greatly influenced by them and de-sensitized to killing. I’ve personally met people that had trouble telling the difference between video game play and reality. My kids play them, but they are also exposed to real guns and know the responsibility you need to handle them and the real damage they can do. Also all this work agenda forced on kids at a very young age lends itself to emotional problems. It really all boils down people turning farther and farther away from God. That’s what it will take to solve it, but I bet there are some on this very thread aren’t willing to do what it takes, and it has nothing to do with taking away anybody’s gun. If I’m wrong, I’d love somebody to explain to me what has changed from 40 years ago until now.

I've been trying to find the data but I've been having a hard time finding it, I think on purpose. What I've been trying to find is the actual numbers of kids being innocently murdered. Everything is lumped together to make a higher number. Once you take out suicides, accidents, and gang activity, the actual number of kids murdered by firearms each year is pretty low. I'm trying to compare those numbers, or the numbers of kids killed by "assault weapons" to the amount kids killed by drunk drivers. Once I find this data I'm going to point out the fact to my anti or on the fence "friends" that nobody seems to care or talk about banning alcohol, because we know that it wasn't the Budweiser that did it, it was the guy that decided to drink and drive. There were 5 other kids and 1 adult also killed in TN recently, a car wreck on I24. Nobody wants to talk about things like that much. Gang activity is also a big killer in places like Chicago. I think this is why they group 18-19 year old in the children statistics, because it inflates the number a bunch due to gang activity. Also look at abortions. There were over 600,000 children killed legally killed though abortion last year, the number one killer of children by a long shot. A argument can be made that the only thing different in abortions and the kids killed at Covenant is the ones at Covenant were wanted.

Double post

Well I do have a M11/9 with a Lage Max-31. It's about the size of a MP5, but a little longer than the K.

In my opinion the days of carrying sub-compacts and pocket pistols are past. At one time you could likely get by with these smaller firearms, because you were most likely to encounter a single bad guy (or girl in this situation) at very close quarters. Now I won't carry anything but a full size 9mm minimum. I'm on our church security team and I've been trying to figure out how to carry a AR without freaking some of the members out.

All I've heard the news mention is the AR, I guess because it sounds the most evil. I saw the video released so far, and in it she's carrying the Keltec.

It my personal opinion, it was a good shoot. Sadly I'm not authority on this though. Legally speaking, I'd say it would be hard to justify deadly force over just a punch, but there could be factors we don't know. At the end of the day, a lot of these cases boil down to how well of a defense you can afford. Never tell the police "I made a mistake".

I watched it and that was somewhat a cluster. I wish the proponents of the bill knew a little more about firearms, especially when machine gun regulations came up. They were trying to convey that it isn’t easy to buy a machine gun, but it’s actually a lot harder than they made out.

I honestly don’t know what I’d do, but I hope I would just give him the car if that ended the threat. You are right, the goal is to end the threat, and if that means giving up your property without somebody getting hurt, then so be it.

Too many people do that and the ATF will start regulating what "accessories" you can have on your bulldozers. You'll have to register your "assault bulldozer", and then another registration for the muffler (suppressor), and then will come a ban for fuel tanks that hold over 9 gallons, nobody needs over 9 gallons to push over a tree.

In theory you would be correct. Federal agents are everywhere in the State though, and some state or local LEOs will still report you to the feds, they won't "officially" report you, but they can call up the ATF just like any citizen can. All that being said, most (especially away from the big cities) state and local officers don't care what you have in the way of firearms, as long as you aren't doing something stupid with them. If you do decide to ignore an ATF ruling, I would either be very private about it, or go ahead and draw that line in the sand and prepare to defend the line, either though the judicial system or other means.