Thread: Potential Ban/Brady Bill part deux?

Originally Posted by Cangooner

I hear ya - just trying to understand what's going on next door.

Here's a start.

Originally Posted by Wullie

...
And I will go further to say that anyone who is not an American citizen has no dog in this fight.

We probably don't, that's true, but it doesn't mean we don't wanna watch. It also doesn't mean we don't have opinions - they just need to be weighted appropriately, that's all.

Besides which, all the "righttards" over here will be taking their cue from you guys, so I need to be prepared.

James.

Originally Posted by Wullie

Cangooner, I can understand your not understanding the attachment of a LOT of Americans to their gun rights. The fact that we are still guaranteed them by a piece of paper that this country was founded upon has everything to do with it.

US Constitutional History 101 continued...

Considering that the relevant bit (2nd amendment) was itself by definition the result of an amendment to the original constitution, one thing I've never understood is the absolute and complete opposition to any mention of even considering amending (even by way of clarification) that particular amendment. Have other constitutional amendments themselves been amended? I don't know if that is even possible (again, I plead ignorance on these issues), but if other amendments have themselves been amended or superseded, what exactly is it that makes the second amendment so sacred? Is it simply the association made between the right to bear arms and freedom as illustrated by Mr. Jefferson?

Thanks Professor Wullie!

Originally Posted by Jimbo

Besides which, all the "righttards" over here will be taking their cue from you guys, so I need to be prepared.

Keep your powder dry !

Originally Posted by Jimbo

We probably don't, that's true, but it doesn't mean we don't wanna watch. It also doesn't mean we don't have opinions - they just need to be weighted appropriately, that's all.

Besides which, all the "righttards" over here will be taking their cue from you guys, so I need to be prepared.

James.

I thought that was a settled issue in Oz, am I wrong?

BTW What is considered right and left in your neck of the woods?

Well, the law is fairly clear. However, there are people (like my father) who just went out the back of the farm with the tractor and buried all their semi-automatics in preparation for the day we are invaded by Indonesia.

He'd be considered a right-leaning person over here

Right and left are the same here as in the US as far as I can tell. Though our mainstream politics has shifted markedly to the right IMO in the past 20 years or so. We are certainly no longer a left-leaning socialist democracy as once was the case, though we still maintain things like the Medicare health system and a (barely) reasonable social welfare system, including old-age, disability, widows, and unemployment pensions/benefits.

James.

The problem with this issue is that it appears to be a hot button issue for many so there is generally not a lot of open-minded conversation on this subject.

There's plenty of slogans but less substance.

Gun control isn't (as has been rightly pointed out) the only issue that should be coming out of the recent school shouting however it is a reasonable subject to discuss.

It is reasonable to at least ask, discuss, consider whether smaller magazines, slower methods of firing and certain limitations on use and ownership might be appropriate.

Most other countries mentioned as having lots of guns and low violence (involving guns) generally have many more restrictions than the people mentioning these realizes.

Quotes by Jefferson are revered mainly because he is saying what the person quoting wants to hear. If another founding father believed in high taxes or for guns to be locked up except upon invasion or whatever they wouldn't be quoted nearly as often.

Most of the restrictions being talked about now and in the past (in my limited knowledge) would affect someone protecting against an intruder into their home nor would it have much to do with how a hunter uses his guns.

Until the current "craze" is over I'm sure it would be a good idea for at least a few guns to be in a school (principal, some teachers) but I'm guessing a better long-term solution to this and the gun violence in the U.S. in general would be to be able to consider some limitations without it turning into a bigger deal than it is by pushing peoples "hot-buttons".

I'm right in the middle of this debate rather than on one side or the other. I do own 2 pistols.

Originally Posted by shooter74743

Out of curiosity I checked out www.gunbroker.com where I buy a lot of parts to build AR-15's, you can't find any lowers anywhere & if you do they are literally $500 each...I usually buy them for around $110. What have you guys been hearing?

In 1996 after the semi-auto and pump action shotguns were banned here, prices on all firearms went through the roof. Prices are still relatively high, even now. Funny thing is, we can have pump action rifles and lever action shotguns ( Albeit, magazine restrictions are also in place. And we still have all the 'banned' stuff for those that have the proper excuses and the right licence for it), so I fail to see how any of the law changes did much of anything except make it more difficult for the honest gun owning citizen.


Mick

See I agree with a lot of what you've said. On the one hand ...... on the other ...... police in this country used to carry 38spl revolvers with a 6 shot capacity. Back in the days when we didn't lock the doors to our house or car , and kids could go trick or treat alone and eat the candy they got from their neighbors.

About 20 years ago swat teams became a part of police forces along with the increased firepower of glock semis and ARs. This was in response to drug gangs and gang bangers having increased their firepower.

I would gladly give up my semi autos if I knew the criminal element didn't have the firepower they have.

BTW, the afore mentioned Charles Whitman climbed up that tower in Texas and killed & wounded a whole lot of people with a bolt action rifle and a pump shotgun.

Originally Posted by gcbryan

The problem with this issue is that it appears to be a hot button issue for many so there is generally not a lot of open-minded conversation on this subject.
I have yet to hear the honest, law abiding, gun owners screaming for more restrictive legislation by distorting facts.
There's plenty of slogans but less substance.
Those wanting change are using arguments with no substance and completely ignoring the fact there are hundreds of laws forbidding the very activities they use to further their agenda of control.

Gun control isn't (as has been rightly pointed out) the only issue that should be coming out of the recent school shouting however it is a reasonable subject to discuss.
Entirely too much shouting about a shooting. Despicable and tragic as it was, that punk could have accomplished the same thing with a lever action or a single stack pistol.

It is reasonable to at least ask, discuss, consider whether smaller magazines, slower methods of firing and certain limitations on use and ownership might be appropriate.
Why? How much time does it take to swap out a magazine? Answer, very little. Have you ever seen anybody that is proficient with a bolt action? No? Here ya go.

Most other countries mentioned as having lots of guns and low violence (involving guns) generally have many more restrictions than the people mentioning these realizes.
OK, so what. In Iraq, every family is allowed an AK-47, the real deal, the full auto like is illegal to own here without a CLASS III permit, for home protection.

Quotes by Jefferson are revered mainly because he is saying what the person quoting wants to hear. If another founding father believed in high taxes or for guns to be locked up except upon invasion or whatever they wouldn't be quoted nearly as often.
Probably because the founding fathers had just fought a bloody war against an oppressive government and taxation without representation. A war that relied on the personal arms of soldiers early on. Those men provided their own weapons and ammo.

Most of the restrictions being talked about now and in the past (in my limited knowledge) would affect someone protecting against an intruder into their home nor would it have much to do with how a hunter uses his guns.
What part of the 2nd Amendment applies to hunting?

Until the current "craze" is over I'm sure it would be a good idea for at least a few guns to be in a school (principal, some teachers) but I'm guessing a better long-term solution to this and the gun violence in the U.S. in general would be to be able to consider some limitations without it turning into a bigger deal than it is by pushing peoples "hot-buttons".
I agree. The bigger problem is for making people to take responsibility for their actions and be held accountable. Less medication of these kids and maybe some serious butt busting when they step over the line. People HAVE to know where their fences are. In my opinion, raising a child and raising a dog should be similar with respect to the fact that NO means NO. Once that concept is instilled, the rest is fairly easy to bring into line.

I'm right in the middle of this debate rather than on one side or the other. I do own 2 pistols.

I'm down to two cartridge pistols myself. One SAA clone and one 9MM Hi-Powr.