Thread: Firearms and you: wotcha got?

Originally Posted by Bruno

Not to be annoying, but what's wrong with that?
My best friend has firearms, and I have had this debate with him before.
If people are permitted to have firearms, then they should at least have demonstrated knowledge of the relevant laws, safety and proper handling.
I don't mind people owning guns, as long as they follow the laws.

After last year's tragedy in Antwerp (some racist bought a gun and bullets, and walked out the store to shoot colored people) all guns are now required to be licensed, whether you got them from your grandfather or from ebay. Previously it was only handguns, shotguns and certain types of rifles. now it is everything.

Couple of weeks ago, the first batch of applicants was tested, and a number of them was disqualified. A lot of them failed even the most basic braindead things like not pointing at bystanders with a loaded rifle.
People like that should not own a gun. ever.

Bruno,

In the US, owning a firearm is right, not a privilege. There can be reasonable limitations on this right, like denying convicted felons the right to own a firearm. In order to carry concelled, at least in most states, you have to take a test which I believe would be similar to the one you described. You also have to be an appropriate age to own a gun. However, this nation was founded on the gun, and lives by the gun, and gun control is a very bad thing.

I quote:
Mao Tse Tung: "All political power comes from the barrel of a gun. The communist party must command all the guns, that way, no guns can ever be used to command the party." (Problems of War and Strategy, Nov 6 1938, published in "Selected Works of Mao Zedong," 1965)

George Orwell: "That rifle on the wall of the labourer's cottage or working class flat is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there."

John F. Kennedy: "By calling attention to 'a well regulated militia,' 'the security of the nation,' and the right of each citizen 'to keep and bear arms,' our founding fathers recognized the essentially civilian nature of our economy... The Second Amendment still remains an important declaration of our basic civilian-military relationships in which every citizen must be ready to participate in the defense of his country. For that reason I believe the Second Amendment will always be important." John F. Kennedy, Junior Senator of MA in a 1959 letter to E.B. Mann [From the 1974 Gun Digest, article titled Gun Laws]

I could go on, but you get the point. I, for one, am proud to live in a nation where the government does not tell the people what they can do, but the people tell the government just how much power it is, and is not, going to have.

Originally Posted by mhailey

Bruno,

In the US, owning a firearm is right, not a privilege....the people tell the government just how much power it is, and is not, going to have.

Here Here! I just wish the people would remember that freedom is a fragile and fleeting concept and that we must be ever vigilant to insure that the government does indeed stay limited to proscribed constitutionally sound levels.

Originally Posted by Bruno

Not to be annoying, but what's wrong with that?
My best friend has firearms, and I have had this debate with him before.
If people are permitted to have firearms, then they should at least have demonstrated knowledge of the relevant laws, safety and proper handling.
I don't mind people owning guns, as long as they follow the laws.

To kind of build on what the others have said, it's not that that isn't a bad idea. In fact, it's a great idea. The problem is that like many political issues, it's taken in baby steps. First it's a little regulation, then a little more, then one day, 50 years from now, only a few people can have them.

I'm pretty much in agreement with the laws already in place. You have a background check on the spot, and that's it. If you want to hunt, then you have to take a class and get a license. Other than that, the only legal way to use it is at a range and self-defense. It's simple and effective for the government's purpose and ours.

Hey Dwarven, those are some mean looking guns!

I your point(s) everyone, but the constitution has 1 grave weakness: it can be changed by 2/3 majority vote (at least over here).
Therefore, if someone would have enough influence in congress, they could simply rip out the 2nd amendment and suddenly, everyone with a gun would be a criminal.

I know this is unlikely to happen, but the theory is sound.

Btw, I know it is in your constitution, but is the idea of a militia still useful?
After all, the defense of a country falls to the military and national garde. If you believe in the lawfullness of the government, militias should be unnecessary.
If you don't believe in the lawfullness of the government as an armed militia, you are labeled terrorist and removed. And even if you aren't detained, shooting at the army with rifles isn't going to do you any good if you are againste apache helicopters and abrams tanks.

I don't write these words to troll or insult the US citizens here. I am genuinly trying to understand this issue because it is completely foreign to europeans.
If it is more apropriate to have this discussion elsewhere, could a moderator please move it to a separate thread because I don't want to cause bad feelings.

12..... I think.

Are we counting air rifles and paintball guns?

16

no... just 12

maybe next year

I've applied for my Curio and Relic which will allow me to buy 59/66 SKS rifles for around $95 each.

I'm getting 7 or 12.

Hey, the Democrats are coming

Yo can also pick up "fair" Mauser 98K rifles for around $70, sometimes less.
Makes a decent rifle to smear in engine assembly lube and throw behind the seat of the truck and just leave there.

bruno, I'm not going to touch that one right now but I will say that FL has a law preventing gun registration

No problem GW.
Out of curiosity: are there things you are not allowed to have?
I seem to remember that e.g. full-automatic rifles are not allowed.
Is this decided at federal level or at state level?

Both.

Federal law controls automatic weapons but it is possible to own them after jumping through the proper hoops.

Other things can be had as well.
ie. I met a man once with a 30mm anti tank rifle that the Fins made to fight the Russians.

It was classified as a destructive device and there were other requirements as far as I know.

states and cities can enact their own controls.
An example of a city is NY, NY.

no firearms

here is a decent (omg this shit can be confusing) link
http://forums.impactguns.com/archive...php/t-293.html

as you may have figured out, much of the control comes from it just being such a damn pain in the ass.

Originally Posted by Bruno

I your point(s) everyone, but the constitution has 1 grave weakness: it can be changed by 2/3 majority vote (at least over here).
Therefore, if someone would have enough influence in congress, they could simply rip out the 2nd amendment and suddenly, everyone with a gun would be a criminal.

I know this is unlikely to happen, but the theory is sound.

Btw, I know it is in your constitution, but is the idea of a militia still useful?
After all, the defense of a country falls to the military and national garde. If you believe in the lawfullness of the government, militias should be unnecessary.
If you don't believe in the lawfullness of the government as an armed militia, you are labeled terrorist and removed. And even if you aren't detained, shooting at the army with rifles isn't going to do you any good if you are againste apache helicopters and abrams tanks.

I don't write these words to troll or insult the US citizens here. I am genuinly trying to understand this issue because it is completely foreign to europeans.
If it is more apropriate to have this discussion elsewhere, could a moderator please move it to a separate thread because I don't want to cause bad feelings.

Your point is valid, and our constitution can be changed in two ways. By a Constitutional Convention of the states, and through a 2/3 majority of the legislature, that is both house and senate. If this occurs then they could remove the 2nd amendment. However, I do not feel that this would change the right to own a gun. The 9th amendment specifically states

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

This means that simply because a right is not enumerated, does not automatically mean that the government has the right to infringe upon it. It would also follow, that if there was a right enumerated (i.e. the 2nd amendment), then removing the specific enumeration does not automatically grant to government the right to infringe upon it. if the 2nd amendment is removed, I feel that an additional amendment would have to be introduced to grant the Government the power to infringe upon this right. This is what I meant by my statement that the people tell the government just how much power it will, and will not, have.


Also, how is a militia not useful? You say that shooting at the military with a rifle would be futile, given the advanced weaponry possessed by the military. The people of Afghanistan did just that when the Soviets invaded, and they beat them back, all be it with our help through the provision of Stinger missiles. If they did not have their guns, there would have been no opportunity for us to help them. Further, if the populace is familiar with firearms, then all the better for the military when it comes time to defend the country. Shorter training for the recruits/draftees and they would tend to make better soldiers.

Like I said, America was founded upon the gun, and the Revolution was started when the British attempted to seize the guns held by the colonies. See the battle of concord. Europe was not founded upon the gun, and I feel there is a completely different sense of personal freedom felt by Americans than Europeans. IMHO. Americans tend to want government out of their life, so that they can pursue their dreams. Europeans want government in their lives so they don't have to worry about certain issues, and they can relax. (see the prevalence of socialism in Europe)

Originally Posted by gratewhitehuntr

Both.

Federal law controls automatic weapons but it is possible to own them after jumping through the proper hoops.

Other things can be had as well.
ie. I met a man once with a 30mm anti tank rifle that the Fins made to fight the Russians.

It was classified as a destructive device and there were other requirements as far as I know.

states and cities can enact their own controls.
An example of a city is NY, NY.

no firearms

here is a decent (omg this shit can be confusing) link
http://forums.impactguns.com/archive...php/t-293.html

as you may have figured out, much of the control comes from it just being such a damn pain in the ass.

Thanks. I just read it and I get your point. Basically they make it as confusing, cumbersome and expensive as possible without explicitly banning DD's.
And to think that for some types of weapon you have to do this whole process per round of ammo as well...

The good stuff:

.40 flintlock Ohio style squirrel rifle
.50 flintlock Lacaster style longrifle
.62 flintlock Jaeger stlye short rifle
20 ga flintlock single barrel "trade gun"
12 ga flintlock double barrel upland game gun

The "transisterized" (modern cartridge) stuff:

half dozen pistols
dozen rifles and shotguns