The Right To Bear Arms

[muscogeemike]

@tankgeezer

There was a time in the U.S. (maybe other countries as well)when There was the danger of stray bullets from drive by shootings. I have done some looking but cant retrieve specifics, but some body armor company(s) were producing a line of children’s outerwear with Kevlar panels built into them to protect the kids from stray rounds. They were expensive, but parents did buy the jackets, coats etc. I dont know if these items are yet offered, but when soft armor came to the market all sorts of folks wanted to buy it. Those who did the bank drop after closing, or worked in a business that had a higher than average incidence of robbery.Jewelry stores, pawn shops, liquor stores etc. Even those who just lived in places that were dodgy, and unsafe. I wore a Point blank vest for years at my gun shop, and sold them to military people, some post carriers, and a few bus drivers, even a crossing guard. (body armor can lessen the trauma of being struck by a car ) If I would sell a person a firearm, I would generally sell them a vest if they wanted one. Dont know about now, but at the time, there was no regulation prohibiting the practice.

Thanks, I welcome informed opionions and I am always ready to be “educated”.

[tankgeezer]

I’m pretty much just gleaning from memory, 25 yrs or so ago. Things were different then.

[Rising_Sun]

@muscogeemike

Just as I find it hard to justify unlimited owning of true assault weapons and large capacity magazines in most weapons.

We’re agreed on that.

The thrust of our current gun control laws, which came about after a series of mass murders by firearm ending with a particularly nasty massacre which sparked public outrage http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Bryant, was to limit access to high powered rifles; high capacity magazines; semi-automatic weapons (we didn’t allow access to fully automatic weapons beforehand); and pump action shotguns. The intention was to reduce the ability to throw large quantities of heavy lead around. I don’t have a problem with it as people with a genuine need for heavier calibre weapons can usually get a licence for them.

Unavoidably, the criminals still have guns, including military machine guns and even RPGs sold to them by a rogue army officer, but at least the average nut case contemplating a massacre won’t be able to get his or her hands on much more than a .22 or double barrel shotgun.

@muscogeemike

It is truly asinine that a returning combat veteran cannot buy a handgun in most states if he is under 21 years of age (they can’t drink alcohol or smoke either).

Somewhere around 1970 I had to be interviewed by a police licensing inspector (first officer rank, above senior sergeant) because I wanted the awesome firepower of a Savage .22 magnum / .410 over and under. It wasn’t age based but related to the weapon someone wanted. The magnum qualified as a high powered firearm at a time when we didn’t have any gun or shooter licensing laws for .22 and shotguns, which could be bought over the counter without a licence or identification in any number of gun, sports and department (like your WalMart) stores. The inspector was a condescending ***** who asked me, looking down his nose, what experience I had with high powered weapons. I replied that, among other things, I’d fired .22 magnum, .22 Hornet, .243, .270, .303, and 7.62mm. He gave me a smartarse look and asked where I’d fired 7.62mm and what sort. I replied along the lines “In the army. SLR and M60. I’m a machine gunner.” That ended the interview and I got my licence.

[tankgeezer]

I’ve got too many M-60’s here ( can’t pass up a sale ) using one for a doorstop, I’ll pop it in the mail for you.