Is It Too Late For England [Archive]

tankgeezer

12-27-2007, 09:37 PM

Actually, I'd like to get a Class IV licence and own a few machine guns. :D Class III license is for those who deal in full auto firearms as a business. If not for business there is a collectors license that affords some benefits in aquisition, of new pieces, and disposition of any you no longer want to hold. This license covers anything on the curio & relics list.It however does not relieve the burden of the transfer tax, or paperwork for live class III weapons.
If you really wanna go big time, then the destructive device dealer license is for you, but is very expensive. Aquiring de-activated(these days called unservicable) machineguns, artillery, mortars all of that sort of stuff, you really dont need any license, but the collector license is a good idea. there is no tax, and no awful paperwork .
there is no sound reason in the U.S. for any additional regulation of firearms. There are more than 20,000 separate laws on the books now, if that isnt enough, well, too bad. The U.S. constitution is very clear about this, and basically says that every state may need to raise a militia in order to secure its freedom, lands and people. In order to have a well equiped, and effective militia, Those in it must have weapons. So, that leads to the words "The rights of the people to keep, and bear arms shall not be infringed" This is pretty clear, even a third grader can understand it.
although things in the U.S. are run democratically, we are a Republic, Having the Constitution, and a body of laws to govern ourselves with. It is not allowable for Congress, and Senate to enact any law that contravenes this body of law.This prohibits anyone from signing their rights away.The Govt cannot legislate them away. And should it be attempted, and push comes to shove, It is the right, and duty of the people to correct their gov't, by means of these same weapons, and militia. This is the reason that the second amendment is in the Constitution to begin with. The ultimate power of government resides in the,citizens, the people of the United States of America.

Nickdfresh

12-27-2007, 10:06 PM

#1) Here is the list of numnuts who voted to extend the weapons ban..a yea vote means the voted to extend the ban..is this specific enough for ya?
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=108&session=2&vote=00024

Like the assault weapons ban or hate it, how does this vote in any way "ban" guns?

#2) No if you sell to any in this group or don't follow the existing gun laws when you sell a weapon, throw there ass in jail. If you have an example / facts of someone selling to this group please be sure to be specific.

#3) Its amazing what one has to believe to believe in gun control.

http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=173

What? That dangerous things like firearms, cars, chemicals should have some restrictions?

In any case, as a gun owner, I do not advocate the banning of them. But there are gun nuts that have actually attacked federal law enforcement and have in fact made it a lot tougher to enforce "the laws on the books":

...a .223-caliber semiautomatic Bushmaster XM15 rifle, which Bull's Eye received from the manufacturer on July 2 of last year. On Sept. 21, a bullet from that gun blew through the back of a liquor store manager in Montgomery, Ala. (she died in the emergency room soon after). Two days later, another bullet burrowed through the head of a beauty store manager in Baton Rouge, La., who died instantly. Between Oct. 2-3, bullets from the gun ripped through the bodies of Six people in Montgomery County, Md., killing all of them. Over the next three weeks, the gun claimed seven more victims--including a bus driver, a female FBI analyst, and a 13-year-old schoolboy--killing four of them. Finally, on Oct. 24, law enforcement authorities found the Bushmaster in the back seat of a blue CheW Caprice occupied by John Allen Muhammad and John Lee Malvo.

Exactly how the gun got into the men's hands remains something of a mystery. Muhammad was banned by federal law from purchasing any gun because of a restraining order obtained by his ex-wife; his ineligibility would have Shown up during the Brady background Check that gun stores are required to run oh potential buyers. Malvo was ineligible because he was a juvenile and an illegal immigrant. Bull's Eye has no record of selling the weapon, much less conducting a background check on Muhammad or Malvo for it. Bull's Eye employees have reported seeing Malvo at the store this summer, and later noticed the Bushmaster was not in its display case. But the store did not file the federally required theft report. When the store's owner, Brian Borgelt, was questioned by agents of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF), the federal agency charged with enforcing the nation's gun laws, he claimed not to have known the gun was missing until authorities traced it back to his store. Two weeks after the Sniper suspects' arrests, he filed the theft report with the police and ATF.
...
But there's a reason you won't see anyone investigating ATF: Its failings are the direct result of actions by the Republican politicians who now control both houses of Congress. At the behest of the National Rifle Association (NRA), GOP lawmakers (and some conservative Democrats) have saddled the bureau with so many legal restrictions that it has little practical power to deter sellers from allowing weapons to flow to criminals. ATF could have cracked down harder on Bull's Eye, but its lack of aggressiveness was precisely what GOP lawmakers had intended. Pro-gun-control Democrats could have made an issue last fall of how Muhammad obtained a sniper rifle, but they remained silent in the face of feared retribution at the polls by the NRA. Now, as the minority party, Democrats have little power to investigate anything, even if they wanted to.

Link (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1316/is_1_35/ai_97173610)

mike M.

12-27-2007, 11:07 PM

#1) Like the assault weapons ban or hate it, how does this vote in any way "ban" guns?

#2) What? That dangerous things like firearms, cars, chemicals should have some restrictions?

#1), Those liberal democrat numnuts..VOTED TO BAN those weapons. You understand what BAN means don't you? Ban (law), a decree that prohibits something, sometimes a form of censorship. This was a vote to extend the BAN when the last BAN was up, that's why I said in my first post.." We have some liberal numnuts in the USA trying to do the same thing."
The two liberal numnut democrats here in California, Feinstein and Boxer have banned these weapons in California, they are banned and there going for more.

#2) Yes they have restrictions lots of them..are you saying we need more?

Did you vote for any of the numnuts that voted Yea?

We see what is happening in England and Australia with them banning firearms and there trying to do it here too so unless your trying to help them do that ,I hope your not voting for ANYONE of those numnuts that voted yea.

Rising Sun*

12-28-2007, 02:41 AM

We see what is happening in England and Australia with them banning firearms and there trying to do it here too so unless your trying to help them do that ,I hope your not voting for ANYONE of those numnuts that voted yea.

Despite the NRA's misleading propaganda over the past decade or so about how gun control in Australia ended civilisation as we knew it http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=15322 , we can still own firearms that are more than adequate for all the lawful sporting purposes that existed before stricter gun controls came in as a result of some appalling massacres by firearms.

It's a non-issue here, apart from a very small segment of the population who think they should be allowed to have any firearm they want.
The difficulty in trying to compare Australia, and probably England, with America is that we don't have the same historical, constitutional and social attitudes to guns and gun control that exist in a very large segment of American society.

We've never had anything like the position outlined in the last paragraph of tankgeezer's post, so gun control here doesn't generate the same sort of issues about constitutional rights and government interference with rights that it does in America. We have as much right to a gun as we do to a driver's licence or recreational drugs, being exactly what the governments we elect choose to give us.

Personally, I'm in favour of the gun controls here, particularly the need for industrial strength steel gun safes which have to be inspected by police in their installed position before a permit is granted. Unlike the previous situation, it's very, very rare nowadays for children to get shot while playing with daddy's 'unloaded' gun, which when I was kid was usually kept in daddy's wardrobe, often with the ammo on the shelf above.

The only people who could be upset by our gun controls for any practical reason are those who think they need a semi or fully auto firearm for sporting purposes, because there aren't any other lawful purposes for the average citizen having one.

My view is that any decent sporting shooter should be able to kill successfully with a single shot in most cases, but maybe that's because my old man made me learn from about age seven or eight with a buggered old Winchester .22 single shot with a missing adjuster on the rear sight and a bent foresight that I could never get right with pliers, before he let me use a repeater after a few years. When I got the repeater, I found I rarely needed it. So I don't see why anyone needs a semi or fully auto weapon for civilian use, unless they're a shithouse shot, in which case they shouldn't have a gun at all.

Drake

12-28-2007, 06:08 AM

So I don't see why anyone needs a semi or fully auto weapon for civilian use, unless they're a shithouse shot, in which case they shouldn't have a gun at all.

I guess you found the reason why americans insist on full auto :D

Rising Sun*

12-28-2007, 06:37 AM

I guess you found the reason why americans insist on full auto :D

:mrgreen:

A point which hasn't gone unnoticed in the military doctrines of nations without America's endless resources.

redcoat

12-28-2007, 09:06 AM

Here is a video about the gun ban in the UK. Just curious how the English members of this forum think about this and if they agree.
The hand gun* ban in the UK is supported by a large majority of the public. There has never been a widespread ownership of guns amongst the British public so the banning had no impact on the majority of the population.
It should also be pointed out that despite the horror stories about gun crime in the UK, the total number of homocides in the UK involving guns of all types was 58, and the total number of deaths caused by guns in 2006 (including accidents, and suicides) was 210, down from the 1994 figure of 341, out of a total UK population of 60 million.

* Single shot rifles and Shotguns are not banned, though you need licenses to own them

Panzerknacker

12-28-2007, 09:36 AM

Here is a video about the gun ban in the UK. Just curious how the English members of this forum think about this and if they agree. We have some liberal numbnuts in the USA trying to do the same thing. Sad real sad.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TkS2B...eature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TkS2BRoCd2I&feature=related)

Very good Video Mike, I wonder how the politicians in almost the entire world waste resources to put the law abbiding citizen and the felons all in the same bag. After doing that they start with the bans, crazy.

And that happens in two democratic countries.

And I must add that you might not like guns or even hate them, but giving away the freedom of choice is never good..in any context, If you are allowed you can chosee to have or not a firearms but if you are deprived of that.... :rolleyes: not good at all.

The hand gun* ban in the UK is supported by a large majority of the public

The large majority of the public seems to like get f..k

Nickdfresh

12-28-2007, 09:53 AM

#1), Those liberal democrat numnuts..VOTED TO BAN those weapons. You understand what BAN means don't you? Ban (law), a decree that prohibits something, sometimes a form of censorship. This was a vote to extend the BAN when the last BAN was up, that's why I said in my first post.." We have some liberal numnuts in the USA trying to do the same thing."
The two liberal numnut democrats here in California, Feinstein and Boxer have banned these weapons in California, they are banned and there going for more.

But you said "guns." Not 'assault rifles,' which is a clear distinction and clarification, and makes your position a little less tenable. We can argue or even agree on certain semantical designations all day.

#2) Yes they have restrictions lots of them..are you saying we need more?

"Restrictions" and "laws" mean nothing if they are disjointed, redundant, and are not enforced. Especially when is seems to be the policy of a certain special interest lobbies intending to inhibit both federal and state law enforcement and to skirt laws...

Did you vote for any of the numnuts that voted Yea?

I don't know. Having assault rifles in a nonissue for me since I have a Ruger Mini-14 stored away in another state, which is made in America and is therefore not a shitty Norinco AK knockoff... :)

We see what is happening in England and Australia with them banning firearms and there trying to do it here too so unless your trying to help them do that ,I hope your not voting for ANYONE of those numnuts that voted yea.

What you see happening in England and Australia is very much politicized and exaggerated by the US gun lobby when there are few real similarities in the laws. I also notice that the NRA conveniently never mentions that most newer draconian laws in the UK and Australia are usually in response to a specific mass murder...

The assault weapons ban is over a decade old I think. Has it really prevented you from owning guns? And gun control advocates, of which I basically am not, can also point to the drastically smaller crime rate and death rate in both UK and Down-under. And that's anyway you spin it, statistically or proportionally. It's minuscule compared to ours.

And these issues have two sides, and are not as simpleminded as presented by US gun lobby propaganda...

Nickdfresh

12-28-2007, 09:55 AM

Nickdfresh

12-28-2007, 10:00 AM

:mrgreen:

A point which hasn't gone unnoticed in the military doctrines of nations without America's endless resources.

Of course, this is why they put that shitty three-round-burst on the M-16A2:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R9vfOxx63nI

32Bravo

12-28-2007, 10:08 AM

Very good Video Mike, I wonder how the politicians in almost the entire world waste resources to put the law abbiding citizen and the felons all in the same bag. After doing that they start with the bans, crazy.

And that happens in two democratic countries.

And I must add that you might not like guns or even hate them, but giving away the fredon of choice is never good..in any context, If you are allowed you can chosee to have or not a firearms but if you are deprived of that.... :rolleyes: not good at all.

The large majority of the public seems to like get f..k

Beleagured politcians (attempting to be seen to be doing something) that don't have the time to step back and look at the real problems as they're so busy juggling crises upon crises, fuelled by the press. Fire fighting becomes the norm, forward planning becomes a luxury and society loses.

pdf27

12-28-2007, 12:14 PM

What you see happening in England and Australia is very much politicized and exaggerated by the US gun lobby when there are few real similarities in the laws. I also notice that the NRA conveniently never mentions that most newer draconian laws in the UK and Australia are usually in response to a specific mass murder...
One other point about the UK handgun ban - the government in place at the time of the Dunblane massacre tried to avoid bringing in a total ban. The Labour party (current government) put a complete ban in their election manifesto - largely because they thought it would win votes - and brought it in once they were elected by a landslide.

Like it or not, the firearm bans in the UK and Australia aren't an example of big government trying to disarm and enfeeble the populace, but rather an example of democracy in action. The people have demanded laws such as these, and therefore got them.
Oh, and incidentally the NRA position that an armed populace is needed to keep corrupt governments in check has it's part in the legal history of the Anglo-Saxon countries (the Magna Carta and IIRC Charter of the Forest were signed because the Barons threatened to make war on King John if he didn't sign them). However, in the UK and quite a few Commonwealth countries like Australia it no longer applies - because the governments are effectively disarmed as well. The armed forces are directly loyal to the crown rather the government, and the police are disarmed. Therefore there is no requirement that the populace be armed to let them exercise what Abraham Lincoln termed in his first inaugural address "revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow" the government.

pdf27

12-28-2007, 12:43 PM

Oh, and if you want examples of the UK being in the brown and smelly stuff then this thread (http://www.arrse.co.uk/cpgn2/Forums/viewtopic/t=85216/postdays=0/postorder=asc/start=0.html) is likely to provide you with far more substantial support...

tankgeezer

12-28-2007, 01:37 PM

Its not a matter of what anyone thinks is enough guns for one person, if anyone doesnt want a gun, they are not required to posess one. if they want ten thousand guns, and can afford them, there is no reason to say they cant own them, as long as the sale is legal.The A.T.F. will tell you the same thing. Its really no body's business but those buying, and those selling. One person's idea of "sense" is just that, an idea,theirs alone. It does not make purchase upon other people. The reason the second ammendment is part of the constitution is to ensure the power remains with the citizenry. This means, they may need weapons of the type an army would use, in order to oppose an army intent on destroying the American way of life, even if it is the U.S. Army.
If firearms are a grave, and distressing matter for anyone, they have the right to go where ever they are more comfortable. If any nation legally decides as a people to have no firearms, that is their business.But they then must bear the consequences of their actions. For then, only their criminals will have them, No law, or act, or holding your breath till your face turns blue, can stop those who want a thing, be it drugs, alcohol, guns, or any other contrband, from getting it. Any government that strips the peoples freedoms in the name of protecting the people, is selling something brown, and bubbling.

32Bravo

12-28-2007, 03:41 PM

The irony is, that there are plenty of illegal arms available, reputedly from the former Soviet countries, and are readily acquired by criminal elements. The people that acquire arms through legal channels are not the ones that are going about using them for criminal purposes, and banning the legal sale and ownership fire arms will do nothing to reduce the growing 'gun-culture' in the United Kingdom of Great Britain.

Is it too late for Britain?...No! It is not!

mike M.

12-28-2007, 04:10 PM

But you said "guns." Not 'assault rifles,' which is a clear distinction and clarification, and makes your position a little less tenable. We can argue or even agree on certain semantical designations all day.

I don't know. Having assault rifles in a nonissue for me since I have a Ruger Mini-14 stored away in another state, which is made in America and is therefore not a shitty Norinco AK knockoff... :)

The assault weapons ban is over a decade old I think. Has it really prevented you from owning guns?

Don't let the word's "assault rifle" fool you...They are banning guns because they have two or more features. An example..an M1 carbine with a bayonet lug in a fixed stock is okay..but put that same rifle in a folding paratrooper stack and all of a sudden its an EVIL ASSAULT RIFLE THAT the numnuts are trying to ban. Any semi automatic rifle with the following two features: Folding/telescoping stock, Protruding pistol grip, Bayonet mount, Threaded muzzle or flash suppressor is an evil assault rifle.

Why do you have your Ruger Mini 14 stored in another state? Its not an assault rifle unless its a mini 14GB. Nick, if you let these numnuts start taking away guns because they have evil features..its just a matter of time before they want you mini 14, or you carbine or garand.

yes the California ban has kept me from owning guns. I cannot go out and buy a AR15 or a bushmaster or a Ruger mini 14GB, I cant even buy a 15 round magazine for my M1 carbine and those numnuts that voted Yea on the site I showed want to keep you from owning them too.

Who in this world really thinks a mini 14 is less dangerous if it does not have a bayonet lug and a flash suppressor? And..Do you think they will stop with this ban?

mike M.

12-28-2007, 04:14 PM

Very well said Tankgeezer you say things much better and eloquently than I ever could. ;)

mike M.

12-28-2007, 04:31 PM

And MikeM. Since you like to ask questions:

Do you think that guns should be allowed to be bought and sold at gun shows without background checks on the buyer?

I mean, I have to go through airport security, and some people with no real terror connections are banned from flying. But they can go buy as many guns as they want? Does that make any sense? Really?

Just one of the many inconsistencies in "Homeland Security."

Yes I do think guns should be able to be bought and sold at gun shows, this is still America isn't it? I also think they should have the background check and the waiting period is okay with me too. I am not against rules and restrictions, I'm against tax paying, law abiding citizens being banned from owning a weapon that some numnut politician says is evil. We already have plenty of gun laws on the books, lets just enforce the ones already there.
http://www.nraila.org/GunLaws/

Can you give me an example who the terror suspect was that went and bought all those weapons? Please be specific..

I agree our homeland security sucks..that's why we need to do something about the border. For gods sake, if illegal aliens can sneak across the border into this Country by the millions im sure it wouldn't be that hard to sneak illegal weapons across the border for the criminals use would it? We could start a whole new thread on this topic alone.

Rising Sun*

12-28-2007, 04:33 PM

This means, they may need weapons of the type an army would use, in order to oppose an army intent on destroying the American way of life, even if it is the U.S. Army.

The logical extension of that argument is that citizens should be able to acquire everything in the military armoury, including nukes, missiles, fighter and bomber aircraft etc, to equal the military power arrayed against them.

The basis for the argument, being fear of a government turning against its citizens, doesn't apply here, because we don't fear that. Sure, it's always a theoretical possibility, but it's just not an issue for us in any context, let alone gun control.

pdf27

12-28-2007, 04:42 PM

Don't let the word's "assault rifle" fool you...They are banning guns because they have two or more features. An example..an M1 carbine with a bayonet lug in a fixed stock is okay..but put that same rifle in a folding paratrooper stack and all of a sudden its an EVIL ASSAULT RIFLE THAT the numnuts are trying to ban. Any semi automatic rifle with the following two features: Folding/telescoping stock, Protruding pistol grip, Bayonet mount, Threaded muzzle or flash suppressor is an evil assault rifle.
Oddly, for once the law actually did what it was intended to do - the problem (once you dig through all the political cr*p) was that gangs were using "military" weapons as fashion accessories. Ban a few bits and pieces to make them look less military, and they go out of fashion with the gangs - who now appear to be using handguns instead. Given that assault rifles are a great deal easier to hit things with than handguns, this appears to be a good thing, particularly as now they're out of fashion you can bin the ban and retain the benefits.

Rising Sun*

12-28-2007, 05:07 PM

The basis for the argument, being fear of a government turning against its citizens, doesn't apply here, because we don't fear that. Sure, it's always a theoretical possibility, but it's just not an issue for us in any context, let alone gun control.

Just thinking that through, and tankgeezer's comment "It is the right, and duty of the people to correct their gov't, by means of these same weapons, and militia." at #6.

The only times there's been a risk of armed takeover in this country were anti-communist, predominantly ex-servicemen's, organisations in the 1930's and again in the late 1940's early 1950's.

Our most senior soldier and only field marshal, the WWII Commander in Chief of Land Forces, Gen Thomas Blamey, figured prominently in both, the first as Chief Commissioner of Police in the state of Victoria in the 1930's and in the second as the reputed head of the organisation. Both organisations were centred around the militia, which in the 1930's was for practical purposes the only land force we had as the regular army was just a small training cardre for the militia.

The plan in both cases was to use personal firearms (there weren't any restrictions on owning military calibre firearms then) and to sieze militia armouries, controlled by sympathetic militia members, to take over the nation.

So, in our case, the risk to us came from citizens with personal weapons and from the militia.

Rising Sun*

12-28-2007, 05:20 PM

Having the Constitution, and a body of laws to govern ourselves with. It is not allowable for Congress, and Senate to enact any law that contravenes this body of law.This prohibits anyone from signing their rights away.The Govt cannot legislate them away. And should it be attempted, and push comes to shove, It is the right, and duty of the people to correct their gov't, by means of these same weapons, and militia. This is the reason that the second amendment is in the Constitution to begin with. The ultimate power of government resides in the,citizens, the people of the United States of America.

Who really controls the National Guard if push comes to shove?

My understanding is that under the Insurrection Act of 1807 President can call out the National Guard to put down a rebellion, thus overriding the state governors' control of the militia.

There is obviously scope for both the President and a state governor, or governors, on opposing sides to be giving orders to the militia. The result then depends upon which orders the militia chooses to follow, or maybe ignore both sets.

As for not enacting laws to change constitutional provisions, it looks like that's exactly what happened with presidential control of the militia.

Friday, January 12, 2007
Governors lose in power struggle over National Guard
By Kavan Peterson, Staff Writer

A little-noticed change in federal law packs an important change in who is in charge the next time a state is devastated by a disaster such as Hurricane Katrina.

To the dismay of the nation’s governors, the White House now will be empowered to go over a governor’s head and call up National Guard troops to aid a state in time of natural disasters or other public emergencies. Up to now, governors were the sole commanders in chief of citizen soldiers in local Guard units during emergencies within the state.

A conflict over who should control Guard units arose in the days after Hurricane Katrina in 2005. President Bush sought to federalize control of Guardsmen in Louisiana in the chaos after the hurricane, but Gov. Kathleen Blanco (D) refused to relinquish command.

Over objections from all 50 governors, Congress in October tweaked the 200-year-old Insurrection Act to empower the hand of the president in future stateside emergencies. In a letter to Congress, the governors called the change "a dramatic expansion of federal authority during natural disasters that could cause confusion in the command-and-control of the National Guard and interfere with states' ability to respond to natural disasters within their borders."

The change adds to tensions between governors and the White House after more than four years of heavy federal deployment of state-based Guard forces to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan. Since the 2001 terrorist attacks, four out of five guardsmen have been sent overseas in the largest deployment of the National Guard since World War II. Shortage of the Guard’s military equipment – such as helicopters to drop hay to snow-stranded cattle in Colorado – also is a nagging issue as much of units’ heavy equipment is left overseas and unavailable in case of a natural disaster at home.

A bipartisan majority of both chambers of Congress adopted the change as part of the 439-page, $538 billion 2007 Defense Authorization Bill signed into law last October.

The nation's governors through the National Governors Association (NGA) successfully lobbied to defeat a broader proposal to give the president power to federalize Guard troops without invoking the Insurrection Act. But the passage that became law also "disappointed" governors because it expands federal power and could cause confusion between state and federal authorities trying to respond to an emergency situation, said David Quam, an NGA homeland security advisor.

"Governors need to be focused on assisting their citizens during an emergency instead of looking over their shoulders to see if the federal government is going to step in," Quam said.

Under the U.S. Constitution, each state's National Guard unit is controlled by the governor in time of peace but can be called up for federal duty by the president. The National Guard employs 444,000 part-time soldiers between its two branches: the Army and Air National Guards.

The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 forbids U.S. troops from being deployed on American soil for law enforcement. The one exception is provided by the Insurrection Act of 1807, which lets the president use the military only for the purpose of putting down rebellions or enforcing constitutional rights if state authorities fail to do so. Under that law, the president can declare an insurrection and call in the armed forces. The act has been invoked only a handful of times in the past 50 years, including in 1957 to desegregate schools and in 1992 during riots in south central Los Angeles after the acquittal of police accused of beating Rodney King.

Congress changed the Insurrection Act to list "natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident" as conditions under which the president can deploy U.S. armed forces and federalize state Guard troops if he determines that "authorities of the state or possession are incapable of maintaining public order."

Backers of the new rules, including U.S. Sens. John W. Warner (R-Va.) and Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) said the changes were needed to clarify the role of the armed forces in responding to serious domestic emergencies.

Mark Smith, spokesperson for the Louisiana Governor's Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Preparedness, said local and state emergency responders know what their communities need during a crisis better than officials in Washington.
"The president should not be able to step in and take control of the National Guard without a governor's consent. The Guard belongs to the states, has always belonged to the states and should remain a function of the states," Smith said. http://www.stateline.org/live/details/story?contentId=170453

tankgeezer

12-28-2007, 05:23 PM

The truth of the matter is that with exception of nukes, the American private citizen may indeed posess everything you mentioned. I am aquainted with many people who do own these very things. This includes explosive munitions, and though they are expensive to legally posess, it is possible here. The citizenry of The U.S. is capable of holding a regular military force, at least for a time. All the while stealing their weapons, and resources, and attriting their forces. It is alot more difficult to take a country if the citizens are right there with the tools to do business.
I do not intend that this should be a nose rub to anyone, the affairs of Australia are Her own. This is only to point out that restrictive gun control of any kind, for any reason, is at best a two edged sword that one ends up holding to their own throat. The U.S. will do as it must, to preserve our constitution, and way of life. If that means that we have more extant firearms than population, so be it. The medical profession is responsible for for more deaths each year than are gun crimes.Perhaps rampant doctor control is needed.
Many people say that drivers are licensed, why not gun owners? Lots of activities are licensed in the world, and to some licensing may sound reasonable, (there's that favored word,,,) The simple truth is that in America, there is not claim of right to drive, or practice medicine. But there is a claim of right to posessing a firearm, an uninfringeable right at that. There are no limits, any firearm is fair. As long as one is a citizen,and not a convicted felon, or dishonorably discharged from military service, adjudicated in court as not sane, or mentally deranged, along with a host of other disqualifying conditions, purchasing a firearm is their right, period. And to some Americans it is a duty, and great responsiblity to keep and bear arms for the sake of our country's security. Now, all we have to do is get them to vote, but thats another story.

tankgeezer

12-28-2007, 05:33 PM

Who really controls the National Guard if push comes to shove?

One point to clarify, the Army reserves, and the National Guard, are not the militia. Militia is a different wholly private citizen thing used in times of great need.and, they would be expected to go against the invading force be it an outsider, (Canada,,they've been lusting after our strategic bacon reserves,,,:) or a domestic threat, using what they can find.(we figure the domestic threats would co-opt any provided weaponry).
The States are in control of the National guard, regardless of any law to the contrary. The Federal Gov't has no power but that attributed to it by Constitution. The States may allow some latitude in some cases, but can deny the Fed at any time.State's rights is the term. The federal level military cannot be used against American citizens except by war powers act being invoked, but even this is subject to the States rights.
It would all be rhetorical, as if the people were to correct the Federal Gov't it would be in the course of civil war. Then, all bets are off between the States, and Federal Gov'ts.
The U.S. Army is out gunned by the population many times over.Even if it came against the citizens, most of the Army personnel would not contribute to the destruction of their own people. It was bad enough in the 1860's, i hope it never comes to that again.

Rising Sun*

12-28-2007, 05:34 PM

The simple truth is that in America, there is not claim of right to drive, or practice medicine. But there is a claim of right to posessing a firearm, an uninfringeable right at that.

That's the heart of the difference between America and most other nations.

Americans start the debate from an entirely different position to the rest of us, because you have a right to firearms which is bound up with the larger principle of preservation of constitutional rights, and strongly felt conceptions about constitutional rights. So that even Americans who might be in favour of gun control in principle can oppose it because they see the erosion of a constitutional right as a far greater evil.

The rest of us start from a position that we're entitled to whatever the governments we elect give us, because there's no separate right to anything, be it firearms, drivers' licences, or standards for registration as a doctor.

It's one of those debates that's a bit like a Christian and an atheist arguing about the existence of god. The Christian relies upon the bible for evidence and the atheist doesn't accept the bible, so there's no common ground for the debate to proceed. We end up with two separate and essentially unrelated arguments. It doesn't undermine the validity of either argument, but it's not really a debate in the sense that the opposing sides are talking about the same thing.

Rising Sun*

12-28-2007, 05:41 PM

It was bad enough in the 1860's, i hope it never comes to that again.

As a matter of interest, did the President try to control the militia in the South, and for that matter the North, before or during the Civil War?

Did the governors do anything with their militias?

Was the Union Army a militia or federal force?

tankgeezer

12-28-2007, 06:07 PM

During the war between the States, there was a federal U.S. Army, which split into the two contending forces. those who went with the South, being then the Confederate States of America Army. Jefferson Davis was made the President of the C.S.A. In the North, Honest Abe Lincoln was the President. There were many irregular forces involved, some were mercenary, hired to fill out the ranks, both Officers, and enlisted. I believe such mercs were utilized by both sides, though more in the south.
There were also civil bands of fighters involved, these were more often referred to as guerillas, but were in fact militia. I have not researched the use of militia in that war, so many enlisted in the regualar Union army, that it may have been uncommon to need any militia.Control of any mobilized militia would ultimately be held by their state gov't,Although my gut says that they were likely not controlled by anyone beyond themselves. through whatever agencies then existed.In this war, though they would have received support from the Union army, as the C.S.A militiamen would have from their regular army.We have lots of letters from long gone relatives who were in the American civil war, but they never wrote about those sorts of things, just about daily life, and the things they personally experienced, the first drink of whiskey, a pretty girl they met, getting a picture taken, things that would kep the home folks smiling.(mostly)
This whole question from the U.S. standpoint is like mixing two colors of paint together, and then trying to separate them again.
I'm not sure which President you meant, but the Union Pres, (Lincoln) had no control over any southern military or either militia.Nor did the Confederate Pres.(Davis) have any over the northern forces or militia. The truely sad thing about that war was that most all of the casualties were Americans. And at Gettysburg in 3 days ,our nation lost just fewer than we did during all of the 10 yrs.of the Viet Nam conflict.

Chevan

12-29-2007, 01:23 AM

Chevan

12-29-2007, 01:33 AM

The irony is, that there are plenty of illegal arms available, reputedly from the former Soviet countries, and are readily acquired by criminal elements.

Sure we have here a tonns of wearpons in former soviets countries.
I always have a couple of grenades and AK-74 in boot of my car .:)And one RPG-7 at top of my home .
In case if afro-americans or chechens want approach enough close at me. Who know what they plans to do?:)

Rising Sun*

12-29-2007, 02:13 AM

I always have a couple of grenades and AK-74 in boot of my car .:)

You have a car, comrade?

Why isn't a tractor good enough for you? ;) :D

tankgeezer

12-29-2007, 03:27 AM

The Brits are doing right , trying to forbid the firearms for wide public.
You american guys do not forget that the 80-90% of the victims of firearms shoots in average state- are not victims of criminals , but just victims of the simple people who lost the control and having get the firearms.
The albsolute most of them are the victims of play of manners in families.
Don't you really tired by the mass terror in the americnas school, when the kids get the Dad's firearmes , goes at school and murder his classmates and teachers?
Or when the usial families scandal finish by the murdering of one of people?

(A) The number of physicians in the
U.S. is 700,000.
(B) Accidental deaths caused by Physicians per year
are 120,000.
(C) Accidental deaths per physician is 0.171

Statistics courtesy of U.S. Dept of Health & Human
Services

Now think about this:

Guns:
(A) The number of gun owners in the U.S. is
80,000,000. (Yes, that's 80 million.)
(B) The number of accidental
gun deaths per year, all age groups, is 1,500.
(C) The number of
accidental deaths per gun owner is .000188.
Statistics courtesy of
FBI

So, statistically, doctors are
approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than gun owners.

Remember, "Guns don't kill people, doctors
do."

FACT: NOT EVERYONE HAS A GUN, BUT ALMOST EVERYONE HAS AT
LEAST ONE DOCTOR.

Please alert your friends to this alarming
threat. We must ban doctors before this gets completely out of
hand!!!!!

Out of concern for the public at large, I withheld the
statistics on Lawyers for fear the shock would cause people to panic and
seek medical attention.

how are you friend Chevan? keeping well?

Rising Sun*

12-29-2007, 03:47 AM

Nickdfresh

12-29-2007, 06:47 AM

Who really controls the National Guard if push comes to shove?

One point to clarify, the Army reserves, and the National Guard, are not the militia. ....

The Reserves are federalized, but the National Guard is indeed the modern equivalent of militia....

And the increased federal use of the ANG is indeed another instance of a "conservative" violating the ideological tenet of "state's rights" on issues where it suits them...

History of the Army National Guard

By Rod Powers, About.com (http://usmilitary.about.com/od/guardandreserve/a/anghistory_3.htm)

In 1916, another act was passed, guaranteeing the state militias' status as the Army's primary reserve force, and requiring that all states rename their militia "National Guard". The National Defense Act of 1916 prescribed qualifications for National Guard officers and allowed them to attend U.S. Army schools; required that each National Guard unit would be inspected and recognized by the War Department; and ordered that National Guard units would be organized like regular Army units. The act also specified that Guardsmen would be paid not just for annual training, but also for their drills.

The First World War

The National Defense Act of 1916 was passed while the Mexican bandit and revolutionary Pancho Villa was raiding the border towns of the Southwest. The entire National Guard was called to active duty by President Woodrow Wilson, and within four months, 158,000 Guardsmen were in place along the Mexican border.

pdf27

12-29-2007, 06:54 AM

One point on an armed populace - 600 or so years ago the entire adult male population (earning under 100 pence per year) of the UK had to be armed, and had to spend nearly a day a week practicing with these weapons. I refer of course to Longbows - the Kings of the time decided that this was sufficiently important that they even made football illegal (Edward II, 1314) to ensure people spent enough time practicing archery.

Chevan

12-29-2007, 07:07 AM

You have a car, comrade?

Why isn't a tractor good enough for you? ;) :D
Sure i have , but ... if i forget say you ....... we call the BTR-80 as a "car" and T-72 as a 'tractor" :D

32Bravo

12-29-2007, 07:21 AM

It might be 'too late' for England in the European tournament, but there's still hope for the World Cup.

Rising Sun*

12-29-2007, 07:31 AM

Sure i have , but ... if i forget say you ....... we call the BTR-80 as a "car" and T-72 as a 'tractor" :D

Mate, if you have a BTR-80 for a car, why do you need other weapons? ;)

Rising Sun*

12-29-2007, 07:33 AM

The Reserves are federalized, but the National Guard is indeed the modern equivalent of militia....

Am I right in thinking that some reserve officers are also in the NG?

If so, doesn't it create again the confusion about whose orders they follow in a difficult time?

Chevan

12-29-2007, 07:42 AM

(A) The number of physicians in the
U.S. is 700,000.
(B) Accidental deaths caused by Physicians per year
are 120,000.
(C) Accidental deaths per physician is 0.171

Statistics courtesy of U.S. Dept of Health & Human
Services

Now think about this:

Guns:
(A) The number of gun owners in the U.S. is
80,000,000. (Yes, that's 80 million.)
(B) The number of accidental
gun deaths per year, all age groups, is 1,500.
(C) The number of
accidental deaths per gun owner is .000188.
Statistics courtesy of
FBI

So, statistically, doctors are
approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than gun owners.

Mate do you really think that 1500 is too small?
And what if the great part of them are childrens?
Besides no all of victims has been killed - usially seriously wounded in several times more.

Remember, "Guns don't kill people, doctors
do."

FACT: NOT EVERYONE HAS A GUN, BUT ALMOST EVERYONE HAS AT
LEAST ONE DOCTOR.

Please alert your friends to this alarming
threat. We must ban doctors before this gets completely out of
hand!!!!!

I knew it mate.:)And my friend do clearly realise it too:)
In such state as Russia the doctors not just a killers but also a victims of state policy too:)
I try do no visit the doctors very often, only having serious troubles with health.
Ourt russian Peoples clinics are just the Camuflaged Death camps- the personal sometimes stoopid and criminally incompetented- i know few cases when mostly healthy people, after the "treatment" in clinics has been infected by quite other danger ilnees.
So i try to keep distance with our madical system as much as it possible.:)
The our UGLY reformators-democrats-criminals ( and what's a pity ,the best friends of America:)) have brought our soviet medical system till the complite degeneration.
Coz how could i call the situation whan the clinics brings more damage than the help for the peoples:)

how are you friend Chevan? keeping well?
I/m still alive mate:)Thanks for the care.
Coz our doctors celebrated New Years holidays and too drunk to "threat" anybody to the death:)
Howeve the alcohol was never not a problem for some of them to be admit for a "work".

Chevan

12-29-2007, 07:47 AM

Mate, if you have a BTR-80 for a car, why do you need other weapons? ;)
coz i drive in a car , but sleep in a home:)
Ask better our good friend tankgeezer - why he need the 20-mm anti tank rifle at home?:)
To hit the attacking tank Abrams full of criminals?:)

Rising Sun*

12-29-2007, 07:55 AM

but sleep in a home:)

You have a home, comrade?

You never cease to amaze me with your Russian riches. Next you'll be telling me that Russia is full of natural resources, and Mr Putin has only 40 billion dollars of personal wealth. ;) :D

Rising Sun*

12-29-2007, 08:00 AM

Ask better our good friend tankgeezer - why he need the 20-mm anti tank rifle at home?:)
To hit the attacking tank Abrams full of criminals?:)

Mate, unless you're going to eat the target, you can't have too much gun.

It's like choosing a Lada Niva when you could have a BTR-80. :D

bas

12-29-2007, 08:07 AM

Rising Sun, there are plenty of civilian uses for semi-autos. In fact you can still own them even in Australia if you are a farmer (for pest destruction). Hell there are even civilian uses for full-autos (like shooting matches or collecting).

What's happening in Australia has nothing to do with public safety and everything to do with the personal agenda of John Howard and the media who are stanchly anti-firearms of all kind.

Rising Sun*

12-29-2007, 08:27 AM

Rising Sun, there are plenty of civilian uses for semi-autos.

Name five necessary ones, that can't be done by single shots or repeaters.

In fact you can still own them even in Australia if you are a farmer (for pest destruction).

I've had a bit to do with pest destruction (rabbits, kangaroos, wombats, pigs), and I and the people with me did it just fine with bolt action repeaters of .22 LR. .22 Magnum. .22 Hornet, .243, . 270 and .303. Aimed single shots are more effective than sprayed semi auto shots. The discipline in using a bolt action repeater and the knowledge that you can't spray the scenery with rounds encourages accuracy.

Hell there are even civilian uses for full-autos (like shooting matches or collecting).

Having put the odd belt through an M 60, I can't imagine what worthwhile civilian shooting match is likely to benefit from full auto.

As for collecting, I'm a bit sensitive about that as someone I know got killed, and a couple of my mates bloody near went the same way, because a disturbed man had access to a handgun from a collection. Thank Christ he didn't have access to full auto weapons, or his crazy list of people to kill before he did the suicide by police would have been the worst massacre in this country.

What's happening in Australia has nothing to do with public safety and everything to do with the personal agenda of John Howard and the media who are stanchly anti-firearms of all kind.

And most of the population, which supported Howard on this in one of the few instances of overwhelming public support during his eleven years in government.

mike M.

12-29-2007, 12:11 PM

Its amazing what one has to believe to believe in Gun control:

"That it's safer with less guns, which is why lunatics shoot up schools instead of gun shows or police stations.

That outlawing the carrying of guns will stop people from doing so, just as lowering the speed limit stops reckless driving.

That the only way to end gun violence is to ban guns, just like the only way to end medical malpractice is to ban doctors.

That the dangers of guns outweigh their recreational uses, unlike alcohol and motorcycles.

That making it harder to get firearms legally will reduce their illegal use, just like making it harder to get a prescription will cut down on the illicit drug trade.

That one should judge all gun owners by the acts of a few criminals, just like one should judge all blacks by the acts of a few inner-city crack dealers.

That the same people who build illegal high-tech drug labs for less than $30,000 won't build illegal low-tech gun shops for less than $10,000.

That your mini 14 without a bayonet lug and flash suppressor is okay to own but my mini 14 with those two features is an evil assault rifle.

That the "Reasonable" uses for guns are hunting and target shooting, but not self-defense. In other words, it's acceptable to use them as toys but not as lifesaving devices."

tankgeezer

12-29-2007, 12:13 PM

Sure i have , but ... if i forget say you ....... we call the BTR-80 as a "car" and T-72 as a 'tractor" :D
HA-HAAAAAAAA, good one Chevan!

mike M.

12-29-2007, 12:18 PM

Do we outlaw the Alcohol or the vehicle or both?????? You know it will be much safer if we do..

Alcohol-related motor vehicle crashes kill someone every 31 minutes and nonfatally injure someone every two minutes (NHTSA 2006). But there are effective measures that can be taken to prevent injuries and deaths from impaired driving.

During 2005, 16,885 people in the U.S. died in alcohol-related motor vehicle crashes, representing 39% of all traffic-related deaths (NHTSA 2006).

In 2005, nearly 1.4 million drivers were arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol or narcotics (Department of Justice 2005). That’s less than one percent of the 159 million self-reported episodes of alcohol–impaired driving among U.S. adults each year (Quinlan et al. 2005).

http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/factsheets/drving.htm

tankgeezer

12-29-2007, 12:35 PM

coz i drive in a car , but sleep in a home:)
Ask better our good friend tankgeezer - why he need the 20-mm anti tank rifle at home?:)
To hit the attacking tank Abrams full of criminals?:)
The quick answer is, its my right, and responsibility as a free citizen to provide for the common defence of my country, so,,,, I must provide myself with arms to accomplish that end if the need should ever arise.Be the enemy foreign, or domestic. (I hope it doesnt) . The Abrahms Tank, or any equipped with Chabham armor would consider my Lahti's fire a mosquito bite, but any other armored vehicle is fair game.I may not be able to kill a homogenous armored tank in 1 or 2 shots, but I can certainly make their day difficult. Armored cars, and such types of vehicles, A.P.C.'s etc. I can deal out in a shot or two.Their armor is much too thin to protect the fuel, and engines from the 20x138 round.
Add to that, I have it because I wanted it, as do many Americans who posess class III, and NFA weapons. the paperwork is a pain,mug shots, finger print cards, FBI background check, and before any of that happens, a positive endorsement from one's local police chief, or county Sheriff. And, the transfer tax is not cheap, If I take it out to shoot, I must keep a certified copy of the form 4 with me, and not be out of sight of it while it is away from its storage place. (2 feet away from me next to my computer), and I can never loan, or leave it in the care of another, or move it across state lines without express written permission from the BATF.When I go to count potatos, the weapon transfers to my next of kin.(more paperwork)The time allotted for transfer is 6 weeks, but like any good gov't office, the work load is so great, that 2-3 months may be required.
So now you all have a bit of background as to what is needed to legally posess a full auto, or atrillery piece in the Grand Republic.

mike M.

12-29-2007, 12:37 PM

Name five necessary ones, that can't be done by single shots or repeaters.

Here are 6 reasons to own and shoot semi autos. Target shooting...collecting.....self protection....Hunting.....Investment and the biggie for us free Americans because the 2nd amendment on the Bill Of rights says so...

yes the above can be done with single shot's but that's like saying why does your car need to have the ability to drive faster than 25 miles per hour. Be careful next it will be any rifle SINGLE SHOT AND ABOVE with a SCOPE is a SNIPER RIFLE.

tankgeezer

12-29-2007, 12:46 PM

Quote:"The Reserves are federalized, but the National Guard is indeed the modern equivalent of militia...."

In the strict sense the Nat. Guard is not militia. Militia are comprised of civilians, who may come., and go ,as the need arises. They are not sworn to an oath, or signatory to any contract, as the Nat. Guard is. This is not to say that the Nat, Guard does not perform some functions of a Militia, but they are a constituted military organization, more along the lines of irregular forces.They are controlled at the State level, were Militia are controlled at the county, and municiple level.They are supplied by their respective agencies, and themselves.

mike M.

12-29-2007, 12:55 PM

The History of Gun Control

*Soviet Union established gun control in 1929. From 1929 to 1953, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

*Turkey established gun control in 1911. From 1915 to 1917 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

*China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1976 20 million Anti-Communists, Christians, political dissidents and pro-reform groups, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

*Germany established gun control in 1938. From 1939 to 1945 13 million Jews, Gypsies, mentally ill people and other "mongrelized peoples," unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

*Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

*Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

*Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977 1 million "educated people," unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and executed.

That amounts to more than 55 million innocent people who were slaughtered by their own governments - governments that had first rendered their citizens defenseless by restricting or confiscating their firearms.

A free man with a firearm has a fighting chance against any would-be gangster or criminal. An disarmed man does not.

Chevan

12-29-2007, 12:59 PM

In the strict sense the Nat. Guard is not militia. Militia are comprised of civilians, who may come., and go ,as the need arises. They are not sworn to an oath, or signatory to any contract, as the Nat. Guard is. This is not to say that the Nat, Guard does not perform some functions of a Militia, but they are a constituted military organization, more along the lines of irregular forces.They are controlled at the State level, were Militia are controlled at the county, and municiple level.They are supplied by their respective agencies, and themselves.
Oh mate i did not guess even that your Militia is so good as you tell:)
Usially our russian Militia do not need any contract or oath to humiliate and beat the peoples as they want and when thay want in aim the "prevent the terroristm".

Chevan

12-29-2007, 01:03 PM

The History of Gun Control

*Soviet Union established gun control in 1929. From 1929 to 1953, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Is it the stone at the my garden?;)
Well ok.
Firstly mst Mike not 20 but just about 2 were exterminated - we have been disccussed it already in other thread.
Secondary WHEN the political "dessident" HAD wearpon - this period called as CIVIL WAR much more danger stage of social life.
And were actually killed about 10 mln from a both side during that time.

Chevan

12-29-2007, 01:08 PM

Here are 6 reasons to own and shoot semi autos. Target shooting...collecting.....self protection....Hunting.....Investment and the biggie for us free Americans because the 2nd amendment on the Bill Of rights says so...

Whom are you going to defend by the semi-auto?
Are you going to defend your house from a regiment of the Taliban?;)
Or you prefer to hunt the whole flock of ducks with semi auto?

tankgeezer

12-29-2007, 01:16 PM

Chevan, I'm glad you are well my friend,its good to hear from you. Now to clear up a little thing, the bit about Dr.'s Vs. gun owners was a humorous email thats been going around. so all of you guys shouldnt take it seriously. :) Someone mention about what good would full auto be in a public shooting match, and I can answer that by having you all go to youtube, and look for anything related to the Knob Creek shoot, or Knob Creek Range, Youtube is full of video about this gathering, happens twice yearly, and while its not the only such shoot, it is the best known. All of the weapons are privately held, and legal to own. even the cannon, tanks, and helicopters.

tankgeezer

12-29-2007, 01:23 PM

Whom are you going to defend by the semi-auto?
Are you going to defend your house from a regiment of the Taliban?;)
Or you prefer to hunt the whole flock of ducks with semi auto?
Mmmm, Duck soup.

Chevan

12-29-2007, 01:27 PM

The quick answer is, its my right, and responsibility as a free citizen to provide for the common defence of my country, so,,,, I must provide myself with arms to accomplish that end if the need should ever arise.Be the enemy foreign, or domestic. (I hope it doesnt) . The Abrahms Tank, or any equipped with Chabham armor would consider my Lahti's fire a mosquito bite, but any other armored vehicle is fair game.I may not be able to kill a homogenous armored tank in 1 or 2 shots, but I can certainly make their day difficult. Armored cars, and such types of vehicles, A.P.C.'s etc. I can deal out in a shot or two.Their armor is much too thin to protect the fuel, and engines from the 20x138 round.
Add to that, I have it because I wanted it, as do many Americans who posess class III, and NFA weapons. the paperwork is a pain,mug shots, finger print cards, FBI background check, and before any of that happens, a positive endorsement from one's local police chief, or county Sheriff. And, the transfer tax is not cheap, If I take it out to shoot, I must keep a certified copy of the form 4 with me, and not be out of sight of it while it is away from its storage place. (2 feet away from me next to my computer), and I can never loan, or leave it in the care of another, or move it across state lines without express written permission from the BATF.When I go to count potatos, the weapon transfers to my next of kin.(more paperwork)The time allotted for transfer is 6 weeks, but like any good gov't office, the work load is so great, that 2-3 months may be required.
So now you all have a bit of background as to what is needed to legally posess a full auto, or atrillery piece in the Grand Republic.
Yea t so hard to own the wearpon in America.
But you still own it, righ:)?
ONCE i was going to buy the 5-charge semi auto hunting gun( coz one of my friend has tryed to involve me in a hunting), but as it has been appears - it need the special permission and safe.
So coz i a bit lazy - i just have desided to slake my hunting feeling by the buying the simple PNEVMATIC rifle with the OPTIC scope.And i soon forgot about duck hunting :)Now i a cruel sparrow killer;)
This is increadible thing - the tuned optic scope.Five little lead bullets - five sparrows.
I/m have enjoy , my cats are happy, the neighbourds are calm and Green Peace shut up:)
And all this in my back-yard:)
BTW you are very danger cool man wit you anti-tank rifle:)
I never will bring close at your house in my BTR-80:)
It could penetrate me through..

tankgeezer

12-29-2007, 01:33 PM

Yea t so hard to own the wearpon in America.
But you still own it, righ:)?
ONCE i was going to buy the 5-charge semi auto hunting gun( coz one of my friend has tryed to involve me in a hunting), but as it has been appears - it need the special permission and safe.
So coz i a bit lazy - i just have desided to slake my hunting feeling by the buying the simple PNEVMATIC rifle with the OPTIC scope.And i soon forgot about duck hunting :)Now i a cruel sparrow killer;)
This is increadible thing - the tuned optic scope.Five little lead bullets - five sparrows.
I/m have enjoy , my cats are happy, the neighbourds are calm and Green Peace shut up:)
And all this in my back-yard:)
BTW you are very danger cool man wit you anti-tank rifle:)
I never will bring close at your house in my BTR-80:)
It could penetrate me through..

Well Chevan, if you managed to make it all the way to my place in your BTR, I'd cook a fine dinner, and then you could teach me to drive and use the BTR.

mike M.

12-29-2007, 01:35 PM

#1) Whom are you going to defend by the semi-auto?

#2)Are you going to defend your house from a regiment of the Taliban?;)

#3) Or you prefer to hunt the whole flock of ducks with semi auto?

#1. I will defend my family and myself with the semi auto. During the 1992 Los Angeles riots, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Los_Angeles_riots When I left my family to go back to work to put all the fires out that these thugs were starting, I felt much safer knowing my family had a M1 carbine and an AR 15 they could use to PROTECT THEMSELVES.
Another thing...down in Korea town and south central L. A. , the private business that didn't burn or looted were the ones protected by the private business owner with his own semi auto's , believe it or not the Police were not stopping them, it was up to the private citizen to protect his own property.

#2) Back in 1992 they were called the Bloods and Crips and others.

#3) I don't hunt Duck's..What I'm saying is a semi auto can be used for hunting, even if it only takes 1 or 2 rounds to bring some big game down. Its nice to have a historical rifle that can be used for protection and hunting and just having fun.

Chevan

12-29-2007, 01:40 PM

Well Chevan, if you managed to make it all the way to my place in your BTR, I'd cook a fine dinner, and then you could teach me to drive and use the BTR.
OK mate , just right after i will have buy the Mig-29 to fly at America:)
Of couse if you will have not buy the Patriot missile in "your rcollection" till that time:)

mike M.

12-29-2007, 01:42 PM

As a side note...Do you know why the L.A. Riots stopped? I will give a few a chance to answer before I give reason they stopped.
Hint: it wasnt the police that stopped them.

tankgeezer

12-29-2007, 01:45 PM

It is a long drawn out process to aquire a legal class III weapon, but its worth the trouble, its not so difficult to purchase a regular classI handgun/rifle/shotgun though.
That requires one to be a qualified purchaser, (no police history of felonious acts, not dishonorably discharged from the military, or said by a judge to be insane, or mentally incompetent) and be of proper age,(18 yrs for rifle,or shotgun, 21yrs for any handgun) with regular State issued I.D. or drivers license.
Then its all a matter of what yo want. fill out the forms, 2 in this state, and wait the required 48 hrs.there is a background check done through the FBI computer network, and if all is well, you are cleared to purchase. pay the man, and in 48 hrs, pick up your firearm. All of the info on the papers, and in the computer check must match, and with the I.D. as well. The background check has filtered out alot of criminals, and other unqualified people who have attempted to buy guns, whether knowingly, or just mistakenly (not a resident of the state they are buying in, or visiting form a foreign land.)The cost of the check is paid by the buyer, and isnt very costly, about $10 USD.

tankgeezer

12-29-2007, 01:48 PM

OK mate , just right after i will have buy the Mig-29 to fly at America:)
Of couse if you will have not buy the Patriot missile in "your rcollection" till that time:)
mig-29? I think a fellow down the street is selling one,,:),,yeah, you can own fighter planes here too. (gotta have something to outclass the neighbor's tank,,:) )
down in Florida there are people who own fighters, and such types of aircraft, and park them in their driveways,,, an odd sight to be sure..

Chevan

12-29-2007, 01:59 PM

#1. I will defend my family and myself with the semi auto. During the 1992 Los Angeles riots, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Los_Angeles_riots When I left my family to go back to work to put all the fires out that these thugs were starting, I felt much safer knowing my family had a M1 carbine and an AR 15 they could use to PROTECT THEMSELVES.
Another thing...down in Korea town and south central L. A. , the private business that didn't burn or looted were the ones protected by the private business owner with his own semi auto's , believe it or not the Police were not stopping them, it was up to the private citizen to protect his own property.

That's true if those thugs unarmed.
But if each of them have the the semi auto - i think that even the mashingun Mg-43 in top of your house did not make you feel safer for you family.
Coz if you could have a wearpon lagally - the bandits could also have it.

#3) I don't hunt Duck's..What I'm saying is a semi auto can be used for hunting, even if it only takes 1 or 2 rounds to bring some big game down. Its nice to have a historical rifle that can be used for protection and hunting and just having fun.

Is it will so nice when somebody could use your wearpon agains the other peoples?
For instance they could steal your gun, or even attack and wound you ( save god from it) and take your gun?

Chevan

12-29-2007, 02:16 PM

It is a long drawn out process to aquire a legal class III weapon, but its worth the trouble, its not so difficult to purchase a regular classI handgun/rifle/shotgun though.

That's is bother me mate.
The classI wearpon are most used in violence above the accidental peoples.
In fact the most of crimes have been commited by the enought simple firearms - pistols and shotguns.
Sure the classIII wearpon is used relaively seldom and thus it has a no such great threat for the sociaty.
Actually - you will not use your 2O-mm gun to rob tha Bank:)
Or you son could not bring it in school and open fire.

mike M.

12-29-2007, 02:22 PM

#1)That's true if those thugs unarmed.

#2)But if each of them have the the semi auto - i think that even the mashingun Mg-43 in top of your house did not make you feel safer for you family.

#3)Coz if you could have a wearpon lagally - the bandits could also have it.

#1) You make no sense Chevan..of course the thugs may be armed all the more reason to have the GREAT EQUILIZER, are you saying I will be safer WITHOUT a semi auto????

#2) Being that they are criminals and don't play by the rules and probably wouldn't turn in their banned weapon, I would feel much safer and more apt to protect my family with a semi auto that a single shot

#3) There you have proved my point, the criminals will ALWAYS HAVE WEAPONS.

Please tell me my friend Chevan, with my L. A. Riot story that the best you can come up with? The criminals will have them too...that's my point!

Chevan

12-29-2007, 02:24 PM

As a side note...Do you know why the L.A. Riots stopped? I will give a few a chance to answer before I give reason they stopped.
Hint: it wasnt the police that stopped them.
Hey this is not fair:)
The everybody could guess with the hint:)
I knew it without hint- you stopped the thugs coz you killed them all:)
have i guessed:)

Chevan

12-29-2007, 02:34 PM

mig-29? I think a fellow down the street is selling one,,:),,yeah, you can own fighter planes here too. (gotta have something to outclass the neighbor's tank,,:) )
down in Florida there are people who own fighters, and such types of aircraft, and park them in their driveways,,, an odd sight to be sure..

Oh i love Florida for that the everybody could have the OWN army in here:)
While i.m going to fly in Florida - could you check please my friend - have somebody of the admirers of wearponry in Florida the AAA- rocket defence systems.
Not i want to say i fear- but looking like boldly mst Mike ready to shot in everything that moves and seems suspected- i would feel safer if no one hot head in Florida will not shot by the missles accdentally at my Mig-29:D;)

mike M.

12-29-2007, 02:38 PM

#1)In fact the most of crimes have been commited by the enought simple firearms - pistols and shotguns.

#2) Sure the classIII wearpon is used relaively seldom and thus it has a no such great threat for the sociaty.

#3) Actually - you will not use your 2O-mm gun to rob tha Bank:)
Or you son could not bring it in school and open fire.

#1) Yes you are right...But the politicians tell us that the assault weapon is the weapon of choice for criminals. Most assault weapons are too expensive for the average thug. All the crime scenes I have been too, cheap pistols and shotguns were used. So..after they ban the semi auto..What do you think will be NEXT?

#2) Because they are regulated, no reasonable gun owner is against rules and regulation 's regarding firearms, just do try to ban them. Although that's what they have do here in the peoples republic of kalifornia. When I go to count potatoes...my son will no be able to own my AR15 or mini 14 if he lives in Kalifornia. I will never be able to own a historical piece of history that is full auto in Kalifornia, another reason to leave when I retire in 7 years. ;)

#3) can you imagine how much damage can be caused with 5 gallons of gasoline and a couple road flairs. Let's see..fill up a 2 1/2 gallon water extinguisher with gasoline pressurize with air..that will squirt about 30 to 40 feet then light it up....
SHIT..WE BETTER BAN FIRE EXTINGUISHERS AND GASOLINE....

mike M.

12-29-2007, 02:46 PM

I knew it without hint- you stopped the thugs coz you killed them all:)
have i guessed:)

Good guess Chevan but you are showing your ignorance now. The Riots stopped because the Welfare checks were not being delivered because the Postal system would not deliver to that area because it was to dangerous. When the thugs realized their FREE MONEY was not being delivered...the riots were over..

I understand how you must feel not being free like we are here in the good ol U.S. of A. so please feel free to keep showing you ignorance.

mike M.

12-29-2007, 02:51 PM

Not i want to say i fear- but looking like boldly mst Mike ready to shot in everything that moves and seems suspected-

I would not shot everything that moves...I would be and am very polite and nice to everyone that's polite and nice to me...but make no mistake about it..I will protect my family and shot those thugs dead if needed.

Chevan

12-29-2007, 02:56 PM

#1) You make no sense Chevan..of course the thugs may be armed all the more reason to have the GREAT EQUILIZER, are you saying I will be safer WITHOUT a semi auto????

No i just wish to say you will be not safer ONLY WITH semi auto:)
Coz if you house will attack by band of insolent criminals - there is no guaranties that YOU R wife could protect themself, and there is no guaranties that YOUR firearm in the allien hands will safe for the others peoples.

#2) Being that they are criminals and don't play by the rules and probably wouldn't turn in their banned weapon, I would feel much safer and more apt to protect my family with a semi auto that a single shot

Far not all of the criminals play by don't the rulles.
Just the finished killers and maniacks who has nothing to lose.
The most rest of the criminals - thiefs and robbers are aimed only inthe money and private
property- but not in killing of peoples.
So now just imagin what if the avagare girl is robbing by the small criminals- if he armed and she open the fire from her ladyes pistols- have you the guaranty he could win?
Thus the tupical criminal incident could turned out into the drama with murdering.

#3) There you have proved my point, the criminals will ALWAYS HAVE WEAPONS.

Please tell me my friend Chevan, with my L. A. Riot story that the best you can come up with? The criminals will have them too...that's my point!

Oh now yo see we are friend already:)
Befor this thread you did not wish to notice me even whole two years:)
What could be a interesting life sometimes.
Well i do undertsnad your feelings, really.
You are just a natural hunter- you will never use the wearpon in evil aims, right.
But the other 80 mln peoples who wear or keep the wearpon could not be so hard like you right?
This is a enough really good proven statistical fact - in the countries where the firearm is forbidden for free wearing - the social violence has a lower rate.
I know in the USA there are the states where the firearms forbidden- so could you find the statistic of social violence in the different states for comparison?

mike M.

12-29-2007, 03:22 PM

Oh now yo see we are friend already:)
Befor this thread you did not wish to notice me even whole two years:)

You have not been on this site for two years. :) Im just being polite, your the one with over 2000 posts..when did you wish to notice me???

mike M.

12-29-2007, 04:06 PM

The only people who could be upset by our gun controls for any practical reason are those who think they need a semi or fully auto firearm for sporting purposes, because there aren't any other lawful purposes for the average citizen having one.

US citizens, carry weapons and own basically what we want (yes, even machine guns provided you pay the TRANSFER TAX, and you are not a felon!!!) because our history has shown us that we remain free that way. Most of the countries on the European continent have been occupied at one time or another in the recent past and the citizens (if they really even retain that title) have been slaves and prisoners in their own countries.
The second amendment to our Constitution gives us the right to carry a firearm....it certainly doesn't say for hunting, or for self defense, or target shooting, or to put it in a collection! Something that I think is important to note - there are 250,000 odd machine guns owned privately in the US, there has not been a crime committed with any legitimately owned machine gun. (these are the ATF's statistics, not mine. That says two things, one, machine guns have legitimate purposes in the hands of private individuals in the US; and two, not everyone with a gun shoots people with it.
If there are people in other Countrys that think that everyone should be disarmed GOOD then stay where your at and if there are people in the US who think the same then I invite them to live the lessons of the past IN ANOTHER COUNTRY. Perhaps they will be so lucky as to avoid criminal acts in their new country with strict firearms control or outlawing. Please let all of us know which countries those are that have disarmed the criminals in their midst so that all violent crime is takes place only with knives, baseball bats or hand-to-hand combat?!

tankgeezer

12-29-2007, 04:30 PM

If the people of Austrailia are content in their culture to have only bolt actions, and single shots, that is fine with me, every people have the right to be as they wish to be. (thats the american thought, ) But please do not tell us we should be as any other country or people are, we like our ways just fine. As was pointed out by R.S. the basis of our system of government is built on specific guarantees, rights that form the very fabric of our society.To attempt to lessen any of them is to lessen all of them, an eventuallity we as a Nation will not accept, or permit.

pdf27

12-29-2007, 04:33 PM

...because our history has shown us that we remain free that way. Most of the countries on the European continent have been occupied at one time or another in the recent past and the citizens (if they really even retain that title) have been slaves and prisoners in their own countries.
Rather a selective reading of history that. When we invaded and burned down the White House, it wasn't armed citizens who stopped us - they generally legged it at the first opportunity - but regular US military forces. Nor does an armed populace necessarily help - the various native American tribes were all armed, and they all lost badly when they came up against a regular military force.
As for the occupied parts of the European continent - the US has only ever once faced a similar thread, during the Revolutionary War. In that case, the armed citizenry were of little use - it was the trained army created by Washington and the French Army and Navy who won that war. Not even during the war of 1812 did it face a similar level of threat.

Oh, and while I think about it an armed populace didn't help France much in 1870 (whack Francs-Tireurs into google and take a look).

The second amendment to our Constitution gives us the right to carry a firearm....it certainly doesn't say for hunting, or for self defense, or target shooting, or to put it in a collection!
Agreed. If people want to ban or restrict firearms in the US, they need to get a constitutional amendment.

If there are people in other Countrys that think that everyone should be disarmed GOOD then stay where your
We're quite happy to, but unfortunately we get bombarded with ceaseless amounts of propaganda from the US about how we're all "sheeple", and somehow "not free". Dare I suggest you follow your own advice in this matter and tone it down a bit?

tankgeezer

12-29-2007, 04:35 PM

Oh i love Florida for that the everybody could have the OWN army in here:)
While i.m going to fly in Florida - could you check please my friend - have somebody of the admirers of wearponry in Florida the AAA- rocket defence systems.
Not i want to say i fear- but looking like boldly mst Mike ready to shot in everything that moves and seems suspected- i would feel safer if no one hot head in Florida will not shot by the missles accdentally at my Mig-29:D;)

Good one Chevan,,I'm sure you and your Mig will be safe as chicken on Sunday, although if you get too close to Cuba, they may shoot some missiles at you.:shock:

Rising Sun*

12-29-2007, 05:46 PM

One thing I can never understand about an attitude of many Americans, which comes out strongly in the gun debate, is how they're solidy confident about the freedoms granted by their constitution and that their government is of the people etc, and yet fearful that their government might turn on them and that they'll need to be armed to defend themselves against their government.

I can't think of a nation whose history makes that less likely to happen, or of a nation which has the same level of fear about it happening.

Conversely, I think America might have the modern long term record for some of the people getting rid of presidents by assassination, which suggests that the government ought to be more worried about the people turning on it than the other way around.

It might all be seen as a consequence of a nation being born by a war of independence, but France and other nations underwent similar or greater upheavals around the same time and subsequently, but the same attitudes don't exist there, about guns or the fear of the government.

So, what is unique about America's history that produces the current attitudes?

Drake

12-29-2007, 06:20 PM

mike M.

12-29-2007, 08:33 PM

So I guess everyone thinks the government can control guns as well as it controls drugs.

edited to add. here are 3 quotes from 3 posters from just 1 thread talking about their government and the faith they have in it.

"assuming governments don't screw things up. Anyone reckon they'll manage not to screw things up a treat?"

"Hrhr, never, they will screw up, of that I'm sure."

"They screw up everthing a treat, even screwing things up. Like this:"

Kato

12-29-2007, 08:35 PM

I’d like to point out that there is no direct connection between free possession of firearms and crime-rates. For instance crime-rates in gun-allowed Canada and Norway per 100000 inhabitants are significantly lower than in totally gun-banned Ukraine or Russia.

Kato

12-29-2007, 08:37 PM

Guess the paranoia comes from the fact that at least for the first century or so many of the migrants were actually politically persecuted by governments in other countries. That's my personal theory. The whole "defend against our government" argument is anyway stupid to bone if you really think about it. If a ruler has the backing and control of the military (which is part of the population last time I checked) he's in charge, no matter how many guns the population owns.

"Defend against our government" argument is quite sensible. Any potential dictator even with backing and control of the military will likely face resistance and high possibility of civil war in armed society. And if you mean a country with ban on firearms, such a person with backing and control of the military won’t face any complications in seizing the power and thus he is more likely to dare to usurp power.

Forming militia from the owners of firearms for "Defend against our government" purpose or in case of some foreign threat have mainly advantages. Actually there are enough cases when militia defeated regular professional troops and gained victories in the conflicts or played imprtant role in doing so.

mike M.

12-29-2007, 08:54 PM

This guy hits the nail right on the head

why the gun is civilization.

http://munchkinwrangler.blogspot.com/2007/03/why-gun-is-civilization.html

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it.

In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force. The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gangbanger, and a single gay guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat--it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed. People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser. People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level. The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weightlifter. It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.

When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation...and that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act.

Rising Sun*

12-29-2007, 09:35 PM

So I guess everyone thinks the government can control guns as well as it controls drugs.

They can control guns a lot better here, because hardly anyone wants illegal firearms while a very large slab of the population, particularly those under 25 to 30, want drugs.

edited to add. here are 3 quotes from 3 posters from just 1 thread talking about their government and the faith they have in it.

"assuming governments don't screw things up. Anyone reckon they'll manage not to screw things up a treat?"

"Hrhr, never, they will screw up, of that I'm sure."

"They screw up everthing a treat, even screwing things up. Like this:"

There's a world of difference between having an incompetent government and having a government that oppresses its citizens to the extent that the citizens need arms to protect themselves.

Down here we preserve our freedom by electing incompetent idiots who can't run the country properly, let alone oppress us to the extent we need to take up arms. It's not something we do intentionally, it's just the way things work out because of the poor quality of human being who goes into politics. They're not worth a bullet. :D

tankgeezer

12-29-2007, 10:35 PM

They can control guns a lot better here, because hardly anyone wants illegal firearms while a very large slab of the population, particularly those under 25 to 30, want drugs.

There's a world of difference between having an incompetent government and having a government that oppresses its citizens to the extent that the citizens need arms to protect themselves.

Down here we preserve our freedom by electing incompetent idiots who can't run the country properly, let alone oppress us to the extent we need to take up arms. It's not something we do intentionally, it's just the way things work out because of the poor quality of human being who goes into politics. They're not worth a bullet. :D
Well said! you may be quoted far and wide, no one can say it better, and that applies to most any governing body, anywhere. Here, Here!

tankgeezer

12-29-2007, 10:39 PM

PDF writes: "If people want to ban or restrict firearms in the US, they need to get a constitutional amendment."

We cant vote our rights away, we may add to them, but not delete any of the bill of rights. We are not a Democracy, but a Republic.the only way to have no guns in the U.S. is if no one wants to own one, we could all just scrap our guns, no law against that, but that would never happen.

mike M.

12-29-2007, 11:28 PM

Someone please tell me a Country that enacted Laws requiring the general population to be disarmed that disarmed the criminals first. I await your response.

Nickdfresh

12-30-2007, 12:14 AM

Good guess Chevan but you are showing your ignorance now. The Riots stopped because the Welfare checks were not being delivered because the Postal system would not deliver to that area because it was to dangerous. When the thugs realized their FREE MONEY was not being delivered...the riots were over..

I understand how you must feel not being free like we are here in the good ol U.S. of A. so please feel free to keep showing you ignorance.

LOL Mike, nice racism.

I mean, do you have anything to support this, or is this some Klan shit you picked up on?

Seriously...

And if you hate "kalifornia" so much, then why stay there and make your money off the tax payers?

Nickdfresh

12-30-2007, 12:16 AM

US citizens, carry weapons and own basically what we want (yes, even machine guns provided you pay the TRANSFER TAX, and you are not a felon!!!)...

Dude, weren't you just bitching that "liberal numbnuts" were trying to take your guns?

As for the rest of your post:

http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2007/04/21/weekinreview/20070422_MARSH_GRAPHIC.html

http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/2000/09.28/firearms.html

Rising Sun*

12-30-2007, 12:31 AM

Someone please tell me a Country that enacted Laws requiring the general population to be disarmed that disarmed the criminals first. I await your response.

Which countries have passed laws disarming the general population?

None of the English speaking ones.

bas

12-30-2007, 12:56 AM

Well just got back from the range today... Shot my Beretta 92FS at some falling plate, blasted some water bottles with my Type 56 and G1 rifles and got to shoot another members' M1 Garand.

Now its time to lock them away, burn some meat on the BBQ and have a beer enjoying the last hours of sunshine with my wife and son.

It's good to live in a country where men haven't been neutered (yet).

Rising Sun*

12-30-2007, 01:12 AM

Someone please tell me a Country that enacted Laws requiring the general population to be disarmed that disarmed the criminals first.

While the self defence against criminals argument is routinely made against gun control, it isn't supported by practical experience as a common reason for using a gun.

For all of the promises made on behalf of the self-defense handgun, using a handgun to kill in self-defense is a rare event.5 Looking at both men and women, over the past 20 years, on average only two percent of the homicides committed with handguns in the United States were deemed justifiable or self-defense homicides by civilians.6 To put it in perspective, more people are struck by lightning each year than use handguns to kill in self-defense.7

6. FBI Supplementary Homicide Report data, 1978-1998. In 1998,there were 191 civilian justifiable homicides in the United States according to the FBI SHR. Of these, 145 involved a handgun.

Only 0.65% of the 30,000 gun deaths annually in the US involve self defence.

About 40% of gun deaths in the US are murders, so around 11,500 people are murdered by guns each year http://www.gun-control-network.org/GF01.htm . Americans are about 60 times more likely to be murdered with a gun than to shoot someone in self defence.

Having once bailed up an unarmed intruder with a gun in circumstances where I could easily have shot him by accident (because of the circumstances where I had to go into a blind corner where he was hiding in the dark and he could reach me once I went in) and then in the struggle that developed later if I hadn't unloaded the weapon in between, I'm bloody glad I didn't shoot him because I probably would have gone to gaol for manslaughter. I didn't need the gun to control the situation. I haven't been in any situation where I needed a gun to resolve it. I don't know anybody who has.

Even if such situations occur, you still have to get to your gun, which often won't be possible. Guns are useless in such situations unless they're loaded and ready to go, which means you have to keep a loaded weapon accessible at all times. Which is why I got rid of my guns when the first kid came along, because it was much more likely that I'd lose a kid to an accident with a weapon kept for self-defence than ever have to use it in self-defence. I haven't needed a gun in that time, and neither of my kids, or anybody else's kids who came to my house, has been at risk of being hurt with my guns.

I'm not disputing that in circumstances where someone can use a gun in self defence to avert harm to themselves or others it's great to have a gun, but I took the view that on balance there was more risk to my kids by having guns in the house than by not having them.

American figures (can't find Australian ones) bear out my decision.
Center for Disease Control and Prevention and the Center to Prevent Hand Gun Violence figures: Guns kept in the home for self-protection are 22 times more likely to kill a family member or friend than to kill in self-defense. http://www.aacap.org/cs/root/facts_for_families/children_and_firearms

Rising Sun*

12-30-2007, 01:14 AM

bas

12-30-2007, 02:32 AM

You know what; i didn't need to do any of those things but I wanted to and I could, so I did.

Sorry for you that you can't, even if you wanted to.

bas

12-30-2007, 02:34 AM

Why is shooting inanimate, or animate, objects linked with masculinity?

No idea, but it's a male trate to enjoy blowing stuff up, driving fast, feel the little freedom our society allows us.

Sorry for you that you've lost this feeling. <snip, snip>

Rising Sun*

12-30-2007, 02:54 AM

You know what; i didn't need to do any of those things but I wanted to and I could, so I did.

feel the little freedom our society allows us.

Don't you think there's a degree of contradiction between those two statements?

bas

12-30-2007, 03:11 AM

Don't you think there's a degree of contradiction between those two statements?

Alas in New Zealand like most developed countries the do-gooders and know-it-alls are working over time at curtailing the simple fun things in life.

Did you know that in NZ schools the "Mommy crowd" have banned the kids game Bull-rush? It's too violent and little Johnny might stubb his toe!

So no, it's not a contradiction it is a reality of the direction society is heading.

pdf27

12-30-2007, 05:57 AM

We cant vote our rights away, we may add to them, but not delete any of the bill of rights. We are not a Democracy, but a Republic.the only way to have no guns in the U.S. is if no one wants to own one, we could all just scrap our guns, no law against that, but that would never happen.
<AHEM> Volstead Amendment?

Drake

12-30-2007, 06:39 AM

Someone please tell me a Country that enacted Laws requiring the general population to be disarmed that disarmed the criminals first. I await your response.

Where did you get the impression you will be able to defend yourself against criminals just because you got a gun. You've watched too many bad Hollywood flicks.They have all the advantages because they have the initiative so that it's indeed stupid to try. The usual result will be that you're dead or severely wounded if they have a gun which is almost a certainty in the US (thanks to the availability of guns they basically have to have them as well). An assault is not only stress for the victim, but for the criminal as well, his adrenalin levels are probably already through the roof and he'll act on the slightest provocation and he is the one who was mentally prepared for the situation. Any credible law enforcer will always tell you to give in and not to provoke or try something stupid.

Rising Sun*

12-30-2007, 07:53 AM

Where did you get the impression you will be able to defend yourself against criminals just because you got a gun. You've watched too many bad Hollywood flicks.They have all the advantages because they have the initiative so that it's indeed stupid to try. The usual result will be that you're dead or severely wounded if they have a gun which is almost a certainty in the US (thanks to the availability of guns they basically have to have them as well). An assault is not only stress for the victim, but for the criminal as well, his adrenalin levels are probably already through the roof and he'll act on the slightest provocation and he is the one who was mentally prepared for the situation. Any credible law enforcer will always tell you to give in and not to provoke or try something stupid.

Nah, it's easy to disarm someone even if you don't have a gun. :rolleyes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eM6Bpz6-dio

Of course, that plan turns out badly if (a) the crook shoots you or (b) has enough brains to stay out of range.

Oddly enough, even armed police who don't have the initiative get shot by armed crooks, for example this case where one of the two police killed by criminals was shot with his own revolver. http://www.melbournecrime.bizhosting.com/walsh.street.htm

Which rather proves your point about who has the initiative being critical.

Even if the victim is carrying concealed, the chances of dealing with a threat in the street depends upon anticipating the situation and getting in first. Once a gun is pointed at you, you're not going to be able to get your own weapon out.

Nickdfresh

12-30-2007, 09:25 AM

Very often, criminals often target homes with large weapons collections for obvious reasons. And again, the contradiction of a "home defense" argument pointed out by RS* is the impracticability of keeping a loaded weapon at the ready.

As far as banning guns in the US, there is no serious practical or realistic way too do this, since we are already inundated with weaponry. But I am very much for restrictions which prevent mentally ill assholes like the Virginia Tech shooter from acquiring weapons, and as I pointed out, wanton serial killers like the Dillons, Kleebolds, and Jon Lee Mohammads from getting guns from complete bastards using loopholes which are often knowingly skirted with the protections of the NRA. This is done, by an organization ostensibly set up to advocate firearms safety, via their incessant lobbying. And I find it almost criminal.

I see a lot of emotional, hyperbolic arguments made by their supporters. But no real substantive data or studies that related to any actual drop in crime rates tied to the possession of firearms. I think it's fine for some to own weapons legally, after facing a few hurtles and registration process no greater than obtaining a drivers licence and legally operating a motor vehicle. Unfortunately, a minority of gun nuts have put even reasonable restrictions beyond reach in much of the United States...

Nickdfresh

12-30-2007, 09:58 AM

Its amazing what one has to believe to believe in Gun control:

"That it's safer with less guns, which is why lunatics shoot up schools instead of gun shows or police stations.

Lunatics shoot up whatever their obsession is with that caused their "shame."

A completely crass over-generalization.

I could provide statistics that gunowners are many times more likely to succumb to gun violence than nonowners...

And in both cases, THERE WERE campus police and security onsight quickly, but raving gun nuts (who got their weapons via loopholes fully sanctioned by the NRA) generally inhibit supermacho gunnutters from actually facing them since a gun is hardly useful if walking into an ambush.

That outlawing the carrying of guns will stop people from doing so, just as lowering the speed limit stops reckless driving.

Speed limits and "reckless driving" are two separate and distinct categories. They are related, but certainly not the same thing as "reckless driving" involves "endangerment" and stiff fines in parts of the country. And one can make the argument that the courts are far too lenient on actual 'reckless drivers" as some of the assholes here would be in jail or would have their licence revoked in parts of Europe like Germany, whereas they get their ticket reduced to a phony parking violation here...

In any case, I could also point out that it is often harder to get a car and a licence in many parts of this society than it is to get a gun...

That the only way to end gun violence is to ban