Thread: Potential Ban/Brady Bill part deux?

Took the grandson out shooting again (second day he has owned a .22 lr) and decided to go by walmart and get a couple boxes of 22 shells. I just thought there was a run on NATO rounds...nope, not a .22 shell in the place. Thank goodness I was prepared or the little fellow would have been disappointed.

Use your imagination a bit on the BATF proposal I posted earlier.

The calibers that come to mind first are .223 (5.56x49), 308 (7.62X51), 9MM (9X19), 7.62X39, 5.45X39. Then they'll reach out and touch every other obsolete ex military caliber that was ever used anywhere on the planet.

I still shoot some NORMA ammo in my 6.5X55. It's imported. 7.62X54, 30-06, 30 M1 Carbine, 8X57, 7X57, 6.5Jap, 7.7Jap, 7.5SWISS, 6.5 Carcano are a few that come to mind that are still fairly popular calibers here in the US. There are several ammo companies in Russia, and Eastern Europe that are making quality ammo at much lower prices than the BIG companies here in the US.

The BATF ruling, if enforced, would dry up everything but commercially manufactured stuff here in the US and shut off any importation of surplus or commercially made ammo.

The way I see it is a "back door" way to get at our guns.

Originally Posted by Birnando

Then again, not many Europeans would consider Poland as a part of Western Europe...

I find that statement somewhat disconcerting.

Was it meant to diminish the facts surrounding Poland's demise at the beginning of WWII or the demise of the Jews in Poland and the rest of Eastern Europe? Just curious and NOT pointing a finger.

I will go so far as to say that if the rate of private gun ownership at that point in time was the same as what it is in the US today,



that the results might (but most likely not eventually) have been different.

I will go so far as to say that the conflict would have been a LOT more expensive for the Reich.

Originally Posted by Wullie

I find that statement somewhat disconcerting.

Was it meant to diminish the facts surrounding Poland's demise at the beginning of WWII or the demise of the Jews in Poland and the rest of Eastern Europe? Just curious and NOT pointing a finger.

Whoa, relax mate.
The comment was pretty clear.
Poland is not generally regarded as a western European country.
Nothing more than that.
Bruno's comment did specify most western European countries, of which Poland is not part.

Originally Posted by Birnando

Whoa, relax mate.
The comment was pretty clear.
Poland is not generally regarded as a western European country.
Nothing more than that.
Bruno's comment did specify most western European countries, of which Poland is not part.

Thanks for the clarification.

Originally Posted by Birnando

Whoa, relax mate.
The comment was pretty clear.
Poland is not generally regarded as a western European country.
Nothing more than that.
Bruno's comment did specify most western European countries, of which Poland is not part.

Geographically Poland is middle European, although during the times of the iron curtain (only) it was considered politically eastern. During WW2 it still was still in the middle, divided by Soviet and Germany.

Anyways, beautiful and interesting country with a lot to see. Always nice to visit. Only 1 hr flight from here.

Originally Posted by Sailor

...
Anyways, beautiful and interesting country with a lot to see. Always nice to visit. Only 1 hr flight from here.

Very much so
My first visit was with the white buses, back in my teens.
Seeing Auschwitz first hand made an impact to say the least.
Later in life I have visited Poland on two occasions, both splendid trips to a beautiful country.
The people I've met have been the sweetest possible, with a genuine hospitality not easily found elsewhere.

Originally Posted by 10Pups

Sent my note to the BATF. Crap, I'm probably back on their list now but, what the heck.

If you're anything like me, I'm all over their list(s).
Oh well. Being it! Lol

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.

I disagree with your statement. The more they erode your constitutional rights, the more they'll erode our "concessions to those gun-toting wackoids". While nothing will happen while we have the hard right in power (funny thing is that they swing left of the Democrats), our gun rights won't be put in jeopardy, but we were hoping for a few more concessions like unneutering mags, castle doctrine, reclassifying AR's to be non-restricted (treated as hunting rifles) and decriminalizing certain storage and transport legislation. When the hard right gets kicked out of Ottawa, we'll either be ruled by the moderate right or the moderate left and they're both anti-gun. I don't want them to say "look how the Americans saw the light due to all those poor babies being killed!" and clamp down on us even harder than before. That's why I donated to the NRA - while I recognize the fact that they haven't always properly represented the rights of American gun owners, they're the big dog and the loudest voice for your constitutional rights. Your laws affect ours!

Originally Posted by Jimbo

Right and left are the same here as in the US as far as I can tell.

The "2 party" system south of the border is a joke. Both will pursue same general policies, benefiting the same small group of people, with very minor cosmetic differences, mostly meant to extract maximum support from their support bases.

Originally Posted by Double0757

It's all feel good legislation! That doesn't do much of anything, but a peace the masses. About the only thing I'm in favor of restricting, is the straw hats sales (private citizen sales of guns), we need back grounds checks on those.

I disagree.. As long as someone is a licensed gun owner, he should have the right to purchase arms without involving the government or the business community.

Originally Posted by Wullie

I agree and ONLY the Po-LEESE and the military would have guns.

Appears to me that SOME ex-police types think that should be the natural order of things. I disagree.

Didn't the po-leese run security for Slobodan Milosevic's thugs while they were tampering with the ballots in unsupervised rural ridings? I also remember a couple of ridings where licensed gun owners got together and kept them away until elections officials came and picked up the ballot boxes. Those were the only unsupervised rural ridings where the opposition to Milosevic's party won.

Originally Posted by Wullie

Use your imagination a bit on the BATF proposal I posted earlier.

The calibers that come to mind first are .223 (5.56x49), 308 (7.62X51), 9MM (9X19), 7.62X39, 5.45X39. Then they'll reach out and touch every other obsolete ex military caliber that was ever used anywhere on the planet.

I still shoot some NORMA ammo in my 6.5X55. It's imported. 7.62X54, 30-06, 30 M1 Carbine, 8X57, 7X57, 6.5Jap, 7.7Jap, 7.5SWISS, 6.5 Carcano are a few that come to mind that are still fairly popular calibers here in the US. There are several ammo companies in Russia, and Eastern Europe that are making quality ammo at much lower prices than the BIG companies here in the US.

The BATF ruling, if enforced, would dry up everything but commercially manufactured stuff here in the US and shut off any importation of surplus or commercially made ammo.

The way I see it is a "back door" way to get at our guns.

That would be the only positive for Canada.. A lot of that milsurp ammo would just make it our way and lower the prices. We already benefit a lot from some of your ammo restrictions (especially the 7.62x25 ammo) and gun restrictions (Norinco ftw). With that being said, that's a short-sighted benefit. Your market shrinks and the supply will also dry up, turning our market into something like Chile, where a Mk II G costs $600

Originally Posted by scap99

If you're anything like me, I'm all over their list(s).
Oh well. Being it! Lol

Yes you are, Comrade.. That's the problem if you allow for your society to go to any extreme, right or left.. Moderate citizens are suddenly watched a heck of a lot more and they make it to various "lists".. Gulags are next.

Originally Posted by redrover66

Part of the issue with low gun violence is that in a country of people that has existed for thousands of years the population make up is 99.5% Sweeds(sp) or Finn's. Much the same as Japan( with very low gun violence) in being nearly 100% of the original people. You have thousands of years to work for a low violence country. The US is a melting pot, less than 500 years from the beginning, with only a few thousand years more to reach a less violent state.

What about Switzerland where you have multiple ethnic groups in large numbers and they haven't turned on each other. And if you start saying "bbbut they're all one race", TBS has a good reply to you..

Originally Posted by thebigspendur

That's ridiculous.

Go to any country in Europe with homogeneous populations and you will find the folks there divide themselves up by regions or dialects or the way they speak or dress or a hundred other reasons and have very strong feelings about who is better than another. Humans need no real reason to kill each other. It's the one constant through history.

Look at the civil wars in ex Yugoslavia. 2 groups of white Christians, speaking the same language, divided themselves along the lines of "Roman Catholics" and "Orthodox Catholics" and went at each other just as hard as they were going at white Muslims speaking the same language.

On a side-note, Serbia is #2 in gun ownership, has twice as many guns per capita sa Canada and a 33% lower homicide rate.. No school shootings yet, but I have to admit that in some Eastern cultures, children are valued more than they are here in North America after the "me me me" Baby Boomers came to power.