This is ridiculous. There are all kinds of guns imported to the USA. Some of the them very powerful guns and powerful semi-automatic weapons. So, because Democratic politicians believe this is a real answer to uncontrolled gun violence, the NRA is censoring the USA consumer.
What?
By Adrianne Jeffries
On a recent Thursday night, (click here) Maryland gun store owner Andy Raymond set up a video camera
in front of a wall of rifles and sat down with a bottle of whiskey and a
cigarette. He rested his tattooed arms on the glass counter, which
contained more guns, and leaned toward the camera. It was time to undo
the mess he’d made. “I’m Andy from Engage Armament,” he said, tapping
his cigarette into a shot glass. “There’s been a lot of drama today
here.”
The drama was over the Armatix iP1,
a compact, .22 caliber, 10-round pistol made in Germany. The iP1 is a
“smart” gun, meaning it only fires in the hands of its owner. Or rather,
it only fires if it’s within 10 inches of its companion iW1 watch,
which is presumably on the owner’s wrist. It can also be disabled with a
timer or a PIN code.
Americans want to buy this gun and the NRA is blocking it's sale? Since when does the NRA have power over the American consumer when it comes to the availability of guns?
There are no censoring laws in the USA in regard to International Commerce and/or Interstate Commerce. That commerce is legal.
Someone needs to import these guns if they are far more safe and Americans feel more comfortable carrying a gun that only identifies them as the user. The NRA does not dictate the outcomes of what guns are available and what is not. Besides, I thought the NRA believed there was no gun outlawed from ownership and/or use.
Missouri HB 2126
Missouri bill would allow babysitters, guests to use deadly force (click here)
Posted: May 06, 2014 5:11 PM EST
Updated: May 06, 2014 6:56 PM EST
By Bonyen Lee, News Reporter
There are no censoring laws in the USA in regard to International Commerce and/or Interstate Commerce. That commerce is legal.
Someone needs to import these guns if they are far more safe and Americans feel more comfortable carrying a gun that only identifies them as the user. The NRA does not dictate the outcomes of what guns are available and what is not. Besides, I thought the NRA believed there was no gun outlawed from ownership and/or use.
Missouri HB 2126
Missouri bill would allow babysitters, guests to use deadly force (click here)
Posted: May 06, 2014 5:11 PM EST
Updated: May 06, 2014 6:56 PM EST
By Bonyen Lee, News Reporter
KANSAS CITY, MO (KCTV) -
Missouri law now allows property owners to use
deadly force, but a bill making its way through the General Assembly
would give babysitters and guests the right to use deadly force against
intruders.
Some area residents were surprised to learn that babysitters, grandparents and other guests inside a home weren't automatically given the right to use deadly force when faced with an intruder or burglar.
"It's concerning that they wouldn't be allowed to act at this point in time," said Julie Powers, a mother of two.
The Missouri House overwhelmingly passed the bill, which was sponsored by Rep. Joe Don McGaugh, R-Carrollton.
"This is a common sense extension of the law that would empower a nanny or babysitter or anyone with the owner's permission to occupy a property, to defend himself or herself against an intruder," McGaugh said....
There was a law against deadly force? What law was that? If someone is being threatened with their life they can defend themselves. Where in Missouri or otherwise does it say they can't to require a law as stupid as this one?
So, let me get this right. The NRA believes in anarchy and finds a friend in Bundy, BUT, he can't carry safe guns. Is that right?
Why don't I just state what this is. It is bullshit. The entire Gun Rights movement is bullshit. It is not about freedom or liberty or cows, it is about oppressive politics at the cost of innocent lives.
This is proof of the trustworthiness of the NRA and any other guns rights group. It is bullshit.
The NRA really blew their cover on this one. It is obvious now. Extremism and politics equates to gun sales and the NRA Treasury.
Someone needs to import these guns for sale in the USA using proper channels and sell them. If the members of the NRA are threatening the lives of those that want the guns and/or sell them, then there needs to be charges pressed. If the danger is too great, then a dealer can list them online without identifying themselves for the purpose of their own safety. Abortionists need special protections, so in this case gun dealers do. When the NRA or any other groups tries to stop the sales of "Safe Guns" then a lawsuit has to be filed against the NRA or any State regulating the Safe Guns and take it to the Supreme Court. The NRA and state regulating the sale of safe guns will be defeated.
This attitude by the gun rights movement reveals their true self and it has absolutely nothing to do with gun rights. When are 'gun rights' different for different Americans?
If the only argument against Safe Guns is they will ultimately be controlled by the government, then that my business. End of discussion. If I want to purchase a gun vulnerable to government meddling, that is my CHOICE. No one else has to purchase the gun.
Some area residents were surprised to learn that babysitters, grandparents and other guests inside a home weren't automatically given the right to use deadly force when faced with an intruder or burglar.
"It's concerning that they wouldn't be allowed to act at this point in time," said Julie Powers, a mother of two.
The Missouri House overwhelmingly passed the bill, which was sponsored by Rep. Joe Don McGaugh, R-Carrollton.
"This is a common sense extension of the law that would empower a nanny or babysitter or anyone with the owner's permission to occupy a property, to defend himself or herself against an intruder," McGaugh said....
There was a law against deadly force? What law was that? If someone is being threatened with their life they can defend themselves. Where in Missouri or otherwise does it say they can't to require a law as stupid as this one?
So, let me get this right. The NRA believes in anarchy and finds a friend in Bundy, BUT, he can't carry safe guns. Is that right?
Why don't I just state what this is. It is bullshit. The entire Gun Rights movement is bullshit. It is not about freedom or liberty or cows, it is about oppressive politics at the cost of innocent lives.
This is proof of the trustworthiness of the NRA and any other guns rights group. It is bullshit.
The NRA really blew their cover on this one. It is obvious now. Extremism and politics equates to gun sales and the NRA Treasury.
Someone needs to import these guns for sale in the USA using proper channels and sell them. If the members of the NRA are threatening the lives of those that want the guns and/or sell them, then there needs to be charges pressed. If the danger is too great, then a dealer can list them online without identifying themselves for the purpose of their own safety. Abortionists need special protections, so in this case gun dealers do. When the NRA or any other groups tries to stop the sales of "Safe Guns" then a lawsuit has to be filed against the NRA or any State regulating the Safe Guns and take it to the Supreme Court. The NRA and state regulating the sale of safe guns will be defeated.
This attitude by the gun rights movement reveals their true self and it has absolutely nothing to do with gun rights. When are 'gun rights' different for different Americans?
If the only argument against Safe Guns is they will ultimately be controlled by the government, then that my business. End of discussion. If I want to purchase a gun vulnerable to government meddling, that is my CHOICE. No one else has to purchase the gun.
