Thread: Whats your opinion on automatic weapons?

Originally Posted by parkerskouson

One of the safest countries in the world. Switzerland. What to know why? Because every adult over 18 has spent a mandatory tour of duty in the military. After their service, each goes on inactive reserve. Each is required to keep and maintain both a Fully Automatic rifle and a sidearm. Its hard to commit a crime when every one has the arms. The govt can mandate healthcare with a tax penalty. I believe it is time to mandate the second amendment and FORCE gun ownership. That will put people like a Mr. Holmes in his place.

Your aregument is rediculous and I will tell you why.

As a reservist in the swiss militia you are required to maintain a service rifle. However you don't get any ammo for it. In fact it is so restricted that there is a requirement that you use said gun at firing ranges where you purchase ammo that must be used there.

On top of this, unless you are a hunter or game keeper in order to carry a private firearm you require a permit and a bonafide reason for applying.

Almost full gun ownership is not the reason for low gun crime. Sensible restrictions and possibly lower social issues are the key.

I am not for the removal of guns from public. I am however fully in favour of who has what and what they have. Also violent crime has less to do woth availability of weapons and more to do with social issues, maybe you should look there.

Geek

Originally Posted by TheGeek

...possibly lower social issues are the key...Geek

Exactly, what are the key issues here? Attack the reason you get the common cold; not the symptoms...

Originally Posted by TheGeek

Your aregument is rediculous and I will tell you why.

As a reservist in the swiss militia you are required to maintain a service rifle. However you don't get any ammo for it. In fact it is so restricted that there is a requirement that you use said gun at firing ranges where you purchase ammo that must be used there.

On top of this, unless you are a hunter or game keeper in order to carry a private firearm you require a permit and a bonafide reason for applying.

Almost full gun ownership is not the reason for low gun crime. Sensible restrictions and possibly lower social issues are the key.

I am not for the removal of guns from public. I am however fully in favour of who has what and what they have. Also violent crime has less to do woth availability of weapons and more to do with social issues, maybe you should look there.

Geek

First of all, In a country of people where they all have guns, don't you think ammunition would be inherently cheaper? It sure does make sense. Also, the poverty rate is only 6.9 percent. Not that high.

Second, I don't see why the government should control who is getting the guns, because criminals will get guns either way, so the only people you are limiting are the people who want to buy guns legally.

Parker

Originally Posted by nun2sharp

The true shame in this fiasco is that Colorado is a right to carry state, so why did no one stop this madman, because the theater had a no guns allowed policy. They insured that their patrons would be victims, one armed citizen could have put quick end to the "Massacre" but instead of "an armed society being a polite society", many in our society insist on disarmament of the lawful citizen in favor of them being prey for the ruthless and insane. How many dead and how many wounded for the sake of someone elses whimsical view of a perfect world?

The theatre had a no guns policy. Also, the guy dumped a canister of tear gas and it took a while for people to realize what was really happening. The only possibility would have been an attack from behind assuming guns were allowed in the theatre.

Originally Posted by straightrazorheaven

"The government will get their lives before their freedom."

I think this kind of says it all. Is taking away their guns really taking away their freedom. Think of the masses that won't go out at night for fear of being killed in the inner cities. Surely those people have had their freedom taken away by the government already. Freedom is a term I see banded around a lot by Americans. From an outsiders perspective, there are greater things to fight over than the "freedom" to carry weapons.

Americans overthrew tyranny and formed their own society. I am not a big fan of that society as I see it as a different kind of tyranny but at least regular citizens had the ability to take action and throw off the yoke. They are still better able to do the same than most countries in the world. Even in my lifetime, I have seen people with hunting rifles and service sidearms protecting the polls from corrupt cops and other goons in ridings not covered by foreign observers. Why do you think the dictatorship in question won the "fair and impartial" elections in all rural ridings other than those where the citizens banded together and protected the polls? (by the way, the dictatorship lost most of the urban ridings too as they were swarmed by foreign observers, but they Gerrymandered their way into making 80% of the popular vote irrelevant)

Originally Posted by straightrazorheaven

Let's face facts, bombs are difficult to make, require prior knowledge or training and take a heck of a lot of effort.

Buddy, Uncle Sam's Terrorist and Fascist Guerilla Training Manual (Improvised Munitions Handbook) is in public domain and easily accessible for download. It teaches you all about making explosives from common household items and you can even use stuff like chickpeas in water as a timing device. It's not that difficult. The difference is, that law abiding citizens won't make any of that stuff where illegal to do so and will only find safe and productive uses for it, where it's legal (blowing tree stumps or excavating or even just for entertainment, as long as they do it safely).

Originally Posted by carlmaloschneider

Yeah, it makes sense to monitor these sorts of purchases, and fertiliser, etc. We have all suffered too much with terrorist bombings, etc.

Yeah, listening in on our phone conversations, routine reading of our e-mails, social media crawlers, vans xraying our houses are not enough.. We need more government surveillance Where there is a will, there is a way and a security theater won't prevent it. Law abiding citizens will keep obeying the laws and criminals/wackoids will keep trying to hurt other people.

Originally Posted by carlmaloschneider

Yeah? Do you get searched?

Why would you get searched? A law-abiding gun owner will respect the property rights of the theater owner. A criminal will find a way to get a gun in there regardless of the search policy.

Edit: Just a note on my political leanings.. I'm a socialist in a true sense (meaning that I consider the initiative that private enterprise brings to the society indispensable - I just don't think they should be allowed to run the country and/or replace key public institutions) and a liberal. I just believe that law-abiding citizens should be allowed to protect themselves, go hunting or get involved in shooting sports. Criminals willing to commit armed robbery, rape and murder don't care if there are gun laws in place.

While this discussion pertains to the incident in Colorado, I feel that I must mention the incident that took place in Norway.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anders_Behring_Breivik

ALL of the regulations in place will not stop a determined individual.

I've also lost count of the rising death toll in the "drug wars" along our Southern border. In case you're unaware, Mexico has very restrictive firearms laws, yet there are a LOT of full auto weapons in play down there.

Everyone worries about the criminals getting guns. Make stiffer laws that address this. If a guy commits a crime with an ilegeal weapon than he rides the bus straight to the gas chamber... Desperate measures during desperate times.. When there is a cancer, the doctor must cut it out for the body to survive... People need to convey that to their politicians. .. If not, the cancer will continue to infect the rest of the body... It's not rocket gynocology....Sorry for the mispellings i am on the ipad..

I just wanna make an additional point. I'm on the fence (maybe leaning slightly toward permitting) on the full auto issue. No problems with high cap mags or black/red rifles being in law-abiding citizens' hands, but I would institute a proper licensing program - safety training, background checks for both history of violent crimes and certain types of mental illnesses.

Full auto can be had in the US ( legally ) with a CLASS III license.

I've no problems with full auto, other than the fact that it is EXPENSIVE if your uncle isn't paying for the ammo.

Originally Posted by Wullie

Full auto can be had in the US ( legally ) with a CLASS III license.

I've no problems with full auto, other than the fact that it is EXPENSIVE if your uncle isn't paying for the ammo.

Yea, that type of legal hobby is self limiting/restricting by it's cost. It was here too at the time it was banned. At least I still got to fire an MG-34 once, not an every day occurrence now.

Bob

Yeah, select fire firearms would mostly be fired in semi-auto mode, with the occasional 3rd burst just to scratch the itch without breaking the bank

Realistically, placing too many restrictions on gun ownership by law-abiding citizens won't prevent criminals from having guns. They are already way outside the law, so breaking another is not an issue for them.