Why buy a gun if the intent is not to use it?

For the vast vast majority of people who buy guns, that intended use is self-defense.

Where most go astray is they are akin to being house poor - they buy into the brand queen influencers, buy something that's overpriced or at the max of their budget and is way more than they need and simply stop there, never spending another cent on training, proper storage ect. For far too many, having the gun seems to be as far as they think they need to go to be prepared and competent with a deadly weapon.

I can't tell you how many times I've walked out of a range because a bunch of goobers show up in the lane next to me, uncase a tacticool AR (usually AR pistol) decked out with light, optics, brown furniture on a black frame with punisher skull magazines and start peppering a target 10 yards in front of them as fast as they can pull the trigger. The only positive I've ever found in it is that those are likely the idiots who think MAGA is going to go to war against Libruls and that they'll be a key player in them "winning."

Truthfully, modern gun laws in some states make this not terribly surprising to me.

For instance, one time I drove through New York with a few guns in my car and when I looked up the laws and what to do to remain as legal as possible...holy cow.

In order to remain as legal as possible while driving through NY, I had to have all guns in locked cases in the trunk (back, my car doesn't have a trunk) and the ammo not in the trunk...err...back. But I can't have it separate because there is no distinct trunk and having the ammo in a separate compartment of the car was a legal requirement. There was also the issue of having several handguns and semi auto long guns, which are heavily regulated in New York, especially those scary black rifles.

Now, the storage in locked cases wasn't a big deal because I do that anyway. But having handguns and semi auto long guns in the car that aren't registered in NY with ammo technically in the same compartment of the vehicle could have been problematic for me even though NY technically has a pass through or drive through law on the books (it's legal to be in possession of "illegal" firearms if your destination isn't within the state of New York). All of the commentary/analysis I read regarding NY gun safety laws said that I would technically be fine if I got pulled over; however, there are numerous cases of people having guns confiscating and charges brought even though they were following the letter of the law. Most eventually got the charges dropped, but then they had the issues of paying lawyer fees, getting their property back from the state after the bogus charges are dropped and the potential lost time of being jailed initially when the bogus charges are filed, vehicle impoundment ect.

The only other option is to pay what would probably be hundreds of dollars for multiple firearms to have them shipped between FFLs, which, for a long weekend, isn't really worth the cost.

The ability to simply mail my property to the address I was going to would have made it all far far easier and less worrisome because one state has draconian anti-gun laws.

"Looks like the Democrats are looking to have a war against the Republicans to keep them from taking away their slave labor"

#51 | Posted by kwrx25

Yeah, sure. I'd call that interesting.

If you're a f*&^ing idiot.

Undocumented individuals by definition already committed a crime.

#40 | Posted by oneironaut

No, you stupid pile of s*&^, they didn't.

Undocumented immigration status is a civil infract, not a criminal.

And yes, there's a reason that distinction exists before you start trying to blather some bulls*&^ that it doesn't matter.

Unfortunately, they're correct as far as the Constitution goes.

The judiciary interprets the law.

The executive enforces it.

We've hit one of those points where this administration's epiphany is crucial - our government only works if people play in good faith.

Right now, our executive is loaded with bad faith actors who can simply refuse to play along and there's absolutely nothing that can stop them.

I heard him and thought "Do you think we're all idiots, or are you really this dumb?"

#10 | Posted by YAV

Sadly, their intended audience IS that stupid.

So stupid they miss the irony in the fact that they're the supposedly patriots against intrusive, overpowerful government...

NATO is a paper tiger without the US. Your vision is filtered and what you're looking at, is potemkin village.

#13 | Posted by oneironaut

Next he'll be telling us how all the Russian arms and equipment and Chinese stolen/reverse engineered junk are far superior to anything NATO has anyway...

Greenland and current ICE activities are nothing but a temporarily successful distraction.

#9 | Posted by Angrydad

It may double as that, but I think many of these actions were going to be taken anyway.

This level of power abuse, corruption and eventual crackdown was the plan.

It has nothing to do with white.

It has everything to do with dereliction of duty by one of two major political parties in allowing this pile of s*&^ to run around unchecked and unchallenged.

Betrayed would suggests his statements were genuine to begin with.

Have you people not learned your lesson yet?

That he has absolute control of.

In other words, pay me $1 billion dollars to smell me while I use you as a photo op to do whatever I want anyway.

Does he actually think this looks like anything but a bribery scheme?