flintlock tom
Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
imported post
Tomahawk wrote:
He was pointing out the stupidity of trying to eliminate the illegal use of a weapon by banning it's possession.
Tomahawk wrote:
Come on guys, even I recognize tongue-in-cheek when I see it.HankT wrote:Actually, CV, when a state "bans" an object, i.e. a .50 cal. gun, they just make it illegal to buy, sell, or own.
But a person can still illegally obtain such a gun within the state, or get one from another state--then simply go into the state that "bans" the item.
After a state "bans" an object it does NOT stop every person coming into the state to check their belongings for possession of the "banned" object.
So a person, very easily in some cases, can still bring a "banned" object into a state where it is illegal. In the instant case, Woodson probably just drove up Virginia.
Not a big feat, really.
Why thank you for the explanation, Professor Hank, I guess no one could've figure that out. Maybe you should go teach that to the antis who tell us these bans make us safer.
Or, here's an idea, why doesn't NJ close its borders and require a passport to enter, and search every person and vehicle that crosses the state line. After all, you want the ban to be effective, doncha? It's just a little bit of liberty, ya know, you're still free to travel, you just have to wait a few minutes for thenice man to make sure you didn't smuggle any of those evil guns from that awful place Virginia.
He was pointing out the stupidity of trying to eliminate the illegal use of a weapon by banning it's possession.