Gun control, gun registration, gun licenses.

[Samantha]

Of course when something like this happens, and 32 people have been murdered at a school, the left starts calling for gun control and the right and the NRA start calling for the left to shut the fuck up.

I support the constitution, therefore I support the right for law abiding citizens with no criminal record to own guns. I support the constitution, therefore I protest Gonzales and Bush for their torture policy, their removing habeus corpus, their illegal wiretaps. I hold the constitution as sacred to our freedom and liberty.

I don't know much about gun laws.


So I ask the folks here, who have guns, do we have strong enough laws to prevent guns from being sold to people without the proper background checks?

Do you have to pass a test to buy a gun?

Do you have to have a license to buy a gun?

Is there a background check?

If a person is found with a gun, without it being registered, is it a federal offense?

Do we need tougher gun laws?

If you are a law abiding citizen, why would you be against tougher laws so that someone not as upstanding as you would be prevented from buying a gun?

[manu1959]

Of course when something like this happens, and 32 people have been murdered at a school, the left starts calling for gun control and the right and the NRA start calling for the left to shut the fuck up.

I support the constitution, therefore I support the right for law abiding citizens with no criminal record to own guns. I support the constitution, therefore I protest Gonzales and Bush for their torture policy, their removing habeus corpus, their illegal wiretaps. I hold the constitution as sacred to our freedom and liberty.

I don't know much about gun laws.


So I ask the folks here, who have guns, do we have strong enough laws to prevent guns from being sold to people without the proper background checks?

Do you have to pass a test to buy a gun?

Do you have to have a license to buy a gun?

Is there a background check?

If a person is found with a gun, without it being registered, is it a federal offense?

Do we need tougher gun laws?

If you are a law abiding citizen, why would you be against tougher laws so that someone not as upstanding as you would be prevented from buying a gun?



the part in bold was not necessary....

laws vary in different states...even different cites....virgina laws are pretty lax

[Samantha]

the part in bold was not necessary....

laws vary in different states...even different cites....virgina laws are pretty lax
It was necessary to explain how much I respect the constitution.

I think we should have a federal law then, to make it very difficult for psychotic maniac killers to get their hands on guns in any city and any state in the USA.

Why are law abiding citizen, gun owners against such a thing?

[manu1959]

It was necessary to explain how much I respect the constitution.

I think we should have a federal law then, to make it very difficult for psychotic maniac killers to get their hands on guns in any city and any state in the USA.

Why are law abiding citizen, gun owners against such a thing?

no it wasn't....i thought your post and questions were teriffic the partisan shot wasn't necessary....anyway...a fedreal law on guns is not a good idea....in therory they could pass a law preventing a state from having any guns at all....i think virginas laws are a bit lax, i belive i heard no background check and no waiting period....i would think the sate should pass strickter laws than that....the dude had two 9 mil and a 22 pretty standard stuff...

i think people should be able to own guns....i just think it should be a bit harder to get one than walking into a target (not literally)....i think this dude would have gotten his hands on a gun even if guns were illegal....he seemed rather motivated to kill...

[Samantha]

Yes, it was, as I said, to show how much I value the constitution.

In theory? What does theory have to do with it? Is it all or nothing with the NRA? Don't they compromise at all?

Why would anyone be against a nationwide law that there must be background checks, licenses issued, and strict laws against unregistered gun owners?

Only criminals would be against this, IMHO.

[manu1959]

Yes, it was, as I said, to show how much I value the constitution.

In theory? What does theory have to do with it? Is it all or nothing with the NRA? Don't they compromise at all?

Why would anyone be against a nationwide law that there must be background checks, licenses issued, and strict laws against unregistered gun owners?

Only criminals would be against this, IMHO.


in therory is one of my fav phrases.....i think the states rights folks would be against a federal law re guns....nra is against anything that erods rights to a gun...you can always move to SF the voted to outlaw guns....it passed...they also voted to impeach bush...it passed...they vote lots of cool lib stuff into law....place is super expensive to live in though....not a bad place to visit though

[Gaffer]

Of course when something like this happens, and 32 people have been murdered at a school, the left starts calling for gun control and the right and the NRA start calling for the left to shut the fuck up.

I support the constitution, therefore I support the right for law abiding citizens with no criminal record to own guns. I support the constitution, therefore I protest Gonzales and Bush for their torture policy, their removing habeus corpus, their illegal wiretaps. I hold the constitution as sacred to our freedom and liberty.

I don't know much about gun laws.


So I ask the folks here, who have guns, do we have strong enough laws to prevent guns from being sold to people without the proper background checks?

Do you have to pass a test to buy a gun? No

Do you have to have a license to buy a gun? Only if your a dealer or collector.

Is there a background check? Yes, no convicted felon can own a gun.

If a person is found with a gun, without it being registered, is it a federal offense? No, its a state matter.

Do we need tougher gun laws? Some states do, most just need to enforce what they have.

If you are a law abiding citizen, why would you be against tougher laws so that someone not as upstanding as you would be prevented from buying a gun?


There are plenty of existing laws that are not enforced. More laws don't solve the problem, enforcement does. States and cities all have different laws involving guns. A federal law that covers all of them could be used to take away the right to bear arms which is the first step to a totalitarian state.

[Nuc]

There is no constitutional right to "own guns" as you phrase it. The correct term is "bear arms". Then the question is "What are 'arms'?" . You might make an argument that the constitution allows us to own bazookas, anti-aircraft missiles, grenades, etc. You could just as easily argue that we only have the right to bear muskets, flintlocks, etc. because that's what existed when the constitution was drafted. Even the nuttiest NRA jerks would probably admit that we shouldn't be allowed to have personal atomic bombs although that would certainly be "bearing arms". Even the wackiest left winger would probably think it's OK to own a BB gun. So it's a question of where to draw the line.

Clearly the United States has done a miserable job of drawing the line. :pee: :salute: :fu:

[Dilloduck]

There is no constitutional right to "own guns" as you phrase it. The correct term is "bear arms". Then the question is "What are 'arms'?" . You might make an argument that the constitution allows us to own bazookas, anti-aircraft missiles, grenades, etc. You could just as easily argue that we only have the right to bear muskets, flintlocks, etc. because that's what existed when the constitution was drafted. Even the nuttiest NRA jerks would probably admit that we shouldn't be allowed to have personal atomic bombs although that would certainly be "bearing arms". Even the wackiest left winger would probably think it's OK to own a BB gun. So it's a question of where to draw the line.

Clearly the United States has done a miserable job of drawing the line. :pee: :salute: :fu:

Considering all of the variables involved, how can you possibly come to this conclusion ?

[darin]

I support the constitution, therefore I protest Gonzales and Bush for their torture policy, their removing habeus corpus, their illegal wiretaps. I hold the constitution as sacred to our freedom and liberty.


None of those accusations are based in reality.
I'd bet LOTS OF MONEY on a wager the Gunman acquired those guns ILLEGALLY.

[Gunny]

It was necessary to explain how much I respect the constitution.

I think we should have a federal law then, to make it very difficult for psychotic maniac killers to get their hands on guns in any city and any state in the USA.

Why are law abiding citizen, gun owners against such a thing?

Here's the problem with your thinking....

Most criminals do not commit crimes with legally purchased firearms.

And you cannot call psychotic maniac killers psychotic maniac killers in this nation until they actually become psychotic manic killers. Kind of like you can't call an Arab an Arab, a black a black ...etc.

[Gunny]

None of those accusations are based in reality.
I'd bet LOTS OF MONEY on a wager the Gunman acquired those guns ILLEGALLY.

He was a South Korean here in a resident alien visa. I am not aware that such persons are allowed to purchase and/or posess firearms in the US. That would preclude a legally-owned weapon.

[krisy]

It was necessary to explain how much I respect the constitution.

I think we should have a federal law then, to make it very difficult for psychotic maniac killers to get their hands on guns in any city and any state in the USA.

Why are law abiding citizen, gun owners against such a thing?


Part of the problem with this is....how do you know who the maniacs are? Sure,a background check will show an obvious criminal. What about people who have no records,but go out and do things like this guy one day becaused they cracked? Any person could loose it and not show any sign.

[krisy]

Here's the problem with your thinking....

Most criminals do not commit crimes with legally purchased firearms.

And you cannot call psychotic maniac killers psychotic maniac killers in this nation until they actually become psychotic manic killers. Kind of like you can't call an Arab an Arab, a black a black ...etc.

Exactly

[Gaffer]

There is no constitutional right to "own guns" as you phrase it. The correct term is "bear arms". Then the question is "What are 'arms'?" . You might make an argument that the constitution allows us to own bazookas, anti-aircraft missiles, grenades, etc. You could just as easily argue that we only have the right to bear muskets, flintlocks, etc. because that's what existed when the constitution was drafted. Even the nuttiest NRA jerks would probably admit that we shouldn't be allowed to have personal atomic bombs although that would certainly be "bearing arms". Even the wackiest left winger would probably think it's OK to own a BB gun. So it's a question of where to draw the line.

Clearly the United States has done a miserable job of drawing the line. :pee: :salute: :fu:

right to bear arms is what I said. I never mentioned owning arms. But at the same time you can't bear arms if you don't own them. That is the only way to control who has what kind of arm. The laws specify what constitutes a firearm and what can be carried by individuals. The interpretation was done long ago. The lines are draw with the laws of the states and in some cases the feds.

[Missileman]

He was a South Korean here in a resident alien visa. I am not aware that such persons are allowed to purchase and/or posess firearms in the US. That would preclude a legally-owned weapon.

He probably had both a Social Security card and a state issued drivers license...wouldn't those be sufficient ID to legally acquire?

[Gunny]

He probably had both a Social Security card and a state issued drivers license...wouldn't those be sufficient ID to legally acquire?

When you buy a gun, you have to fill out a BATF form. Under current Fedral law, that BATF check has to be done and cleared PRIOR to the purchaser taking posession of the weapon. His name should pop as a foreign national ona Federal agency check.

[Missileman]

Answering my own question: from http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa010200a.htm

Persons who would be prohibited from purchasing a firearm as a result of data obtained from the NICS background check include:

-Convicted felons and people under indictment for a felony
-Fugitives from justice
-Unlawful drug users or drug addicts
-Individuals who have been involuntarily committed to a mental institution or determined to be mentally incompetent
-Illegal aliens and legal aliens admitted under a non-immigrant visa
-Individuals who have been dishonorably discharged from the military
-Persons who have renounced their American citizenship
-Persons subject to certain domestic violence restraining orders
-Persons convicted of misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence

From: http://japan.usembassy.gov/e/visa/tvisa-nivgeneral.html

Non-immigrant visas are issued to persons wishing to travel to the United States temporarily who are not eligible for the Visa Waiver Program (VWP).

So yes, if this guy had no criminal record, he could have legally obtained a gun.

[Gaffer]

You can bet part of the investigation is centered on where he got the guns. Someone is in deep shit unless he stole them from somewhere.

[krisy]

Geese. Fox news just said that after the first two shootings,the guy went back to his dorm room to reload his weapon. I could have sworn that yesterday they said that there were two hours between shootings and they thought he was off campus and possibly leaving the state. What would give them that idea when he was in his dorm room?!!!!

[Gunny]

Answering my own question: from http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa010200a.htm

Persons who would be prohibited from purchasing a firearm as a result of data obtained from the NICS background check include:

-Convicted felons and people under indictment for a felony
-Fugitives from justice
-Unlawful drug users or drug addicts
-Individuals who have been involuntarily committed to a mental institution or determined to be mentally incompetent
-Illegal aliens and legal aliens admitted under a non-immigrant visa
-Individuals who have been dishonorably discharged from the military
-Persons who have renounced their American citizenship
-Persons subject to certain domestic violence restraining orders
-Persons convicted of misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence

From: http://japan.usembassy.gov/e/visa/tvisa-nivgeneral.html

Non-immigrant visas are issued to persons wishing to travel to the United States temporarily who are not eligible for the Visa Waiver Program (VWP).

So yes, if this guy had no criminal record, he could have legally obtained a gun.

I disagree with that law. Not with the fact you are correct. The law itself. Anyone less than a naturalized citizen should not be allowed to own a firearm, IMO.

[Gunny]

You can bet part of the investigation is centered on where he got the guns. Someone is in deep shit unless he stole them from somewhere.

ITA. The investigation will be a given.

[CockySOB]

The bold text section was unnecessary and irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Stick with one topic at a time and the ensuing discussion can be more focused.

Of course when something like this happens, and 32 people have been murdered at a school, the left starts calling for gun control and the right and the NRA start calling for the left to shut the fuck up.

I support the constitution, therefore I support the right for law abiding citizens with no criminal record to own guns. I support the constitution, therefore I protest Gonzales and Bush for their torture policy, their removing habeus corpus, their illegal wiretaps. I hold the constitution as sacred to our freedom and liberty.

I don't know much about gun laws.


So I ask the folks here, who have guns, do we have strong enough laws to prevent guns from being sold to people without the proper background checks?
We have the proper laws and regulations in place, but the problem is effective enforcement. Moreover, the problem is not simply a matter of firearm-specific legislation, but of a whole-nation security issue. Our porous borders allow not simply illegal immigration, but they facilitate trafficking of all manner of contraband including firearms.

Do you have to pass a test to buy a gun?

Do you have to have a license to buy a gun?

Is there a background check?
Typically you are required to present a Firearm Owner's ID (FOID) card which is managed by your local state police. The state police perform background checks before issuing the FOID, as part of the methodology to prevent convicted felons from legally owning a firearm. (I say typically because I don't know of any state which allows the purchase of a firearm without such identification.)


If a person is found with a gun, without it being registered, is it a federal offense?
Always a good source of information, the NRA-ILA website (http://www.nraila.org/GunLaws/Federal/Read.aspx?id=63). Section 922 covers "Unlawful Acts" including unlawful transactions including firearms and munitions.

Do we need tougher gun laws?
No, we need proper enforcement of existing laws across the board.


If you are a law abiding citizen, why would you be against tougher laws so that someone not as upstanding as you would be prevented from buying a gun?
Passing legislation without enforcing existing legislation is nothing but a shallow, feel-good effort. Action is required, and firm action at that. All that is achieved with "passing more, tougher laws" is that the "activists" can feel good about doing something, without actually doing anything. Goes back to an old addage about "words without action...."

[CockySOB]

You can bet part of the investigation is centered on where he got the guns. Someone is in deep shit unless he stole them from somewhere.

Agreed. Whoever sold him the weapons should be a candidate for the death penalty.

Unless he had the legal documentation for such a purpose.

[Missileman]

I disagree with that law. Not with the fact you are correct. The law itself. Anyone less than a naturalized citizen should not be allowed to own a firearm, IMO.

If they've made a commitment to live, work, raise a family, PAY TAXES, and abide by the law, I see no problem with a resident alien owning a gun.

[Gaffer]

Geese. Fox news just said that after the first two shootings,the guy went back to his dorm room to reload his weapon. I could have sworn that yesterday they said that there were two hours between shootings and they thought he was off campus and possibly leaving the state. What would give them that idea when he was in his dorm room?!!!!

Lots of speculation going on with the media at this point. That's what they do.

[Gunny]

Answering my own question: from http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa010200a.htm

Persons who would be prohibited from purchasing a firearm as a result of data obtained from the NICS background check include:

-Convicted felons and people under indictment for a felony
-Fugitives from justice
-Unlawful drug users or drug addicts
-Individuals who have been involuntarily committed to a mental institution or determined to be mentally incompetent
-Illegal aliens and legal aliens admitted under a non-immigrant visa
-Individuals who have been dishonorably discharged from the military
-Persons who have renounced their American citizenship
-Persons subject to certain domestic violence restraining orders
-Persons convicted of misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence

From: http://japan.usembassy.gov/e/visa/tvisa-nivgeneral.html

Non-immigrant visas are issued to persons wishing to travel to the United States temporarily who are not eligible for the Visa Waiver Program (VWP).

So yes, if this guy had no criminal record, he could have legally obtained a gun.

Something else I find interesting .... the news keeps saying they found a receipt in his bag for a Glock from about a month or so ago.

The picture they showed on TV that they said were the guns recovered, was of a Sig-Sauer, and some .22 I didn't recognize, but not a Glock.

[Gunny]

Lots of speculation going on with the media at this point. That's what they do.

Greta van Susteren was on last night when I went to bed. I have never understood what exactly her function is. She gets on one story, and then goes obsessive-compulsive on it, but never really cove anything anyone wants to know.

I thought she was going to interview some squirrels last night to get their perspective.

[Missileman]

Something else I find interesting .... the news keeps saying they found a receipt in his bag for a Glock from about a month or so ago.

The picture they showed on TV that they said were the guns recovered, was of a Sig-Sauer, and some .22 I didn't recognize, but not a Glock.

I saw the same thing...also that the guns had the serial numbers filed off.

[krisy]

Greta van Susteren was on last night when I went to bed. I have never understood what exactly her function is. She gets on one story, and then goes obsessive-compulsive on it, but never really cove anything anyone wants to know.

I thought she was going to interview some squirrels last night to get their perspective.


:laugh2: :clap:

That sounds like Greta allright!!! Her show can be very....tabloidy...not a word,I know.

[Gaffer]

I saw the same thing...also that the guns had the serial numbers filed off.

well that makes you go hmmmmmm.

[Mr. P]

I disagree with that law. Not with the fact you are correct. The law itself. Anyone less than a naturalized citizen should not be allowed to own a firearm, IMO.

Off topic for one post...
Heck that ain't nothin, the left wants em to vote now. They also want our guns.
These two items really validate my sig line on gun control being about control.IMO

[Missileman]

well that makes you go hmmmmmm.

There's probably a lot of bad info coming out with the truth at this point...

[Gaffer]

Greta van Susteren was on last night when I went to bed. I have never understood what exactly her function is. She gets on one story, and then goes obsessive-compulsive on it, but never really cove anything anyone wants to know.

I thought she was going to interview some squirrels last night to get their perspective.

I have never cared to watch her show. I don't like hannity and colmes either. But will occasionally watch it for something special. But always turn off gretta, she's a waste of time and nothing but a gossip columnist. Hannity is a wuss and colmes needs to be bitch slapped every time he opens his mouth.

[Gunny]

I saw the same thing...also that the guns had the serial numbers filed off.

Yeah, I guess I left that out about the serial numbers.

I'm just wondering if there's a missing Glock, and hoping the police aren't so dumb they don't the difference between Glock and Sig-Sauer.

[Gunny]

Off topic for one post...
Heck that ain't nothin, the left wants em to vote now. They also want our guns.
These two items really validate my sig line on gun control being about control.IMO

It couldn't be about much else given the fact the gun control argument is illogical, punctuated by incidents like this.

[Gunny]

There's probably a lot of bad info coming out with the truth at this point...

Now they're saying the receipt was for the gun shown; which, was the Sig-Sauer again.

If the numbers are filed off, how would they know that?

Dumbasses. How about something novel like say ...some FACTS?:laugh2:

[Gunny]

I have never cared to watch her show. I don't like hannity and colmes either. But will occasionally watch it for something special. But always turn off gretta, she's a waste of time and nothing but a gossip columnist. Hannity is a wuss and colmes needs to be bitch slapped every time he opens his mouth.

You can't convince me colmes isn't dead, or a puppet. He looks like a cadaver.

And he's REALLY dumb.

I don't watch Hannity & Colmes either.

[Gaffer]

You can't convince me colmes isn't dead, or a puppet. He looks like a cadaver.

And he's REALLY dumb.

I don't watch Hannity & Colmes either.

skeletor.

I sometimes wonder if he doesn't mouth the silly shit just to make hannity look good. I just can't believe anyone can be as stupid as that man is without it being scripted.

[Gunny]

skeletor.

I sometimes wonder if he doesn't mouth the silly shit just to make hannity look good. I just can't believe anyone can be as stupid as that man is without it being scripted.

LOL ... just what I was thinking. I guess it'd be justifiable if he actually could make Hannity look good. Hannity, IMO, is just a mouthpiece for the current crop of spineless neocons who can't even control Congress when they have a majority.

[Gaffer]

LOL ... just what I was thinking. I guess it'd be justifiable if he actually could make Hannity look good. Hannity, IMO, is just a mouthpiece for the current crop of spineless neocons who can't even control Congress when they have a majority.

So true.

[Mr. P]

Now they're saying the receipt was for the gun shown; which, was the Sig-Sauer again.

If the numbers are filed off, how would they know that?

Dumbasses. How about something novel like say ...some FACTS?:laugh2:

My guess would be the serial number was on the receipt along with the dealer info. His records would show he ran a background check on this guy on xxx day and sold xxx weapon to him.

[Birdzeye]

Off topic for one post...
Heck that ain't nothin, the left wants em to vote now. They also want our guns.
These two items really validate my sig line on gun control being about control.IMO

This lefty doesn't want to take your guns away, even after yesterday.

There are some people who, IMO, should not be allowed near a firearm: the mentally deranged and the mentally retarded. How to accomplish that without infringing on the 2nd amendment rights of everyone else is something I don't know how to do, so I won't be calling for any laws to do that.

The shooter was, for sure, a nutcase.

[Mr. P]

This lefty doesn't want to take your guns away, even after yesterday.

There are some people who, IMO, should not be allowed near a firearm: the mentally deranged and the mentally retarded. How to accomplish that without infringing on the 2nd amendment rights of everyone else is something I don't know how to do, so I won't be calling for any laws to do that.

The shooter was, for sure, a nutcase.

Glad to hear that..I know all lefties are NOT the same.
I hate generalization, but I'm guilty of doing it. I really try not to do it in an honest one on one discussion.

[Gaffer]

This lefty doesn't want to take your guns away, even after yesterday.

There are some people who, IMO, should not be allowed near a firearm: the mentally deranged and the mentally retarded. How to accomplish that without infringing on the 2nd amendment rights of everyone else is something I don't know how to do, so I won't be calling for any laws to do that.

The shooter was, for sure, a nutcase.

Those that you mentioned don't get access to guns, and there are laws that restrict sale of guns to certain people. The laws are already on the books. And when applied they work very well.

Good to hear your not following the crowd on this.

[Birdzeye]

Why, thank you, Mr. P. :salute:

I grew up in a family where my father had two working guns in the house: one rifle and one German Luger pistol that was a WWII souvenir that he took away from a German POW.

JFK's assassination triggered a renewed push for "gun control," and I learned the "pro-gun" POV from my father.

Later on in life, I was posting on another forum where a passionate and eloquent defender of 2nd amendment rights convinced me that most of the "reasonable restrictions" proposed by gun control advocates were not reasonable at all and downright dangerous.

I was also robbed at gunpoint once in Washington DC, a city that has a virtual ban on gun possession (though there's been a recent court ruling against that). Go figure.

[Mr. P]

Why, thank you, Mr. P. :salute:

I grew up in a family where my father had two working guns in the house: one rifle and one German Luger pistol that was a WWII souvenir that he took away from a German POW.

JFK's assassination triggered a renewed push for "gun control," and I learned the "pro-gun" POV from my father.

Later on in life, I was posting on another forum where a passionate and eloquent defender of 2nd amendment rights convinced me that most of the "reasonable restrictions" proposed by gun control advocates were not reasonable at all and downright dangerous.

I was also robbed at gunpoint once in Washington DC, a city that has a virtual ban on gun possession (though there's been a recent court ruling against that). Go figure.

I'd need to know what the posters definition of "reasonable restrictions" were. I may agree or disagree. Donno.

[Birdzeye]

I've heard all kinds of proposals to control guns. Some have been pretty draconian while others didn't go beyond something like registration and waiting period.

Personally, I'm not interested in having a gun.

[Gunny]

This lefty doesn't want to take your guns away, even after yesterday.

There are some people who, IMO, should not be allowed near a firearm: the mentally deranged and the mentally retarded. How to accomplish that without infringing on the 2nd amendment rights of everyone else is something I don't know how to do, so I won't be calling for any laws to do that.

The shooter was, for sure, a nutcase.

I agree with Mr P on this. We all generalize, but I try to not do it in one on one conversations. I know plenty of liberals who would shoot as quick as an conservative if you tried to take their guns.

The problem arises, IMO, because the gun control lobbyists such as Hanguns Control Inc have attached themselves to the Democrat party. It's guilt ny association.

There is also the fact that when someone professes to support someone like Hilalry Clinton, who was instrumental in having Bill push the Brady Bill, that is tacit approval of their stance on the issue because that is what they are going to support. (And I 'm not saying you support Hillary ... I don't know)

The current requirements are supposed to weed out the nuts. It's not a perfect system. If there wasn't a single handgun, a nut with a cause will find a way.

[Roomy]

The other night, someone came into my back yard and stole my cockatiels and budgies from my avery, in America, would I have been within my rights to have shot and killed him if I caught him? If I had a legal gun of course.

[glockmail]

The other night, someone came into my back yard and stole my cockatiels and budgies from my avery, in America, would I have been within my rights to have shot and killed him if I caught him? If I had a legal gun of course. Nope. Can't shoot someone for stealing.

[Gaffer]

The other night, someone came into my back yard and stole my cockatiels and budgies from my avery, in America, would I have been within my rights to have shot and killed him if I caught him? If I had a legal gun of course.

Only in certain states in America.

[Roomy]

Nope. Can't shoot someone for stealing.

Couldn't I say I thought he had a gun but it was only a cockatiel?:cool:

[Roomy]

Cos' if I had caught him I think I might have beaten the bastard to death wth my bare hands.

[glockmail]

Couldn't I say I thought he had a gun but it was only a cockatiel?:cool: You would be proven wrong and jailed for murder.

[Gaffer]

Cos' if I had caught him I think I might have beaten the bastard to death wth my bare hands.

You could definately do there here too. And it would be much more satisfying.

[CockySOB]

The other night, someone came into my back yard and stole my cockatiels and budgies from my avery, in America, would I have been within my rights to have shot and killed him if I caught him? If I had a legal gun of course.

Depends on the location of your residence (state).