Guns in the USA - something I read in the papers today

[georges]

Assault Weapon connotates a military gun which is fully automatic, and very frightening to most people. They are not legal without a high dollar tax stamp, hence illegal without the stamp. You won't find them in your local gun shop unless the dealer has a special permit to transfer them under those stringent conditions.

People do indeed use and shoot Colt M4's and other AR-15 variants in sport and recreation, there are competitive shoots with these and other semi automatic versions of other guns.

Unfortunately many people who are uninformed or noobs with guns, systematically think that a semi auto rifle wether it is a m1a1, a CAR 15 or a galil that is a full auto rifle when it is not the case. The lack information and basic gun knowledge is also something to blame. I was a member of the NRA for over 12 years and all my family members are NRA members, every member of my family shoots with a semi auto rifle including FALS and SIG SG 530.
You will find a lot of enthusiast at gun ranges who either fire a garand, a m1a1 or a car 15

 

[georges]

Oh god. Here they all go again.

For non Americans. This thread is Exhibit A on why you just cannot use rational logical arguments to convince many Americans to give up the part of their culture responsible for killing a hell of a lot of people, and proven a thousand times over, without which, a hell of a lot less people, would die each year.

Trust me. Forget it. You have more of a chance convincing Americans to start a revolution than to have any sort of consensus on banning guns. If I were President, maybe.

No, no, no. The PEOPLE. The government should be a tool of the people. The PEOPLE should have the right to take YOUR gun away and everyone else's, by majority vote, if and when they finally realize they are tired of their kids being shot dead, while in countries where guns are outlawed, there are basically no shootings, and lower murder rates.

Fox

You consider yourself as an American????? You are not even born and bread like a typical American. The non Americans who try to convince Americans that banning guns is the solution are for the most, a whole bunch irrealistic leftists include in those smoke the pot/crackhead dreamers who still belive that we live in the wonderful world. Way to be wrong. There are and there will always be criminals, so better be armed than dead.
America freed Europe from Nazism so I don't see how you can consider the country that welcomed you as a murdering country.

Starting a revolution à la Che Guevarra like you dream about, that won't ever work. Not a single law abiding citizen will accept to see his gun ownership to be taken from a bunch of stupid liberals (sorry but I have to express myself like this). The 2nd amendment is not negotiable, people who bitch about guns are the ones who never owned or fired one. It just remembers me what happened to Barrett Rifles when they were banned for the law enforcement in California because a stupid ass liberal female senator said it could shoot down a plane. The retardedness of some people about guns is out of proportion.

 

[BlueBalls]

Well thats a bit of a generalisation ^

 

[Imagine]

A bit? It'd be hilarious if I didn't know he was actually serious.

 

[lovejoy]

My personal experience with guns:

1. We must have the rights to bear arms not just for protection of our family but also as a tool for prevention from thugs who try to harrass any citizen.

2. The State (the Crown) have the power to bear arms through the police, thugs and can bear upon its wills on the people.

3. It is only through the right to bear arms that the people can protect themselves. Can the state (crown) protect its citizen? NO Instead it is the crown who acts as the thugs to overreact and overpower the people through the barrel of the guns and get away with murders.

4. The case in England serves as a reminder that an innocent man, a Brazilian electrician who did his daily routine to go to work and took the Tube (London subway) and was gunned down diliberately 6 times by the Crown (six head shots were fired and killed the innocent man). No one was responsible and no one was fired. The Crown got away with murder.

5. Cases after cases, the Crown through the use of excessive forces killed many innocent people without arms despite so-called external investigatons found the agents representing the Crown acted as self-defense and saw the subject held a gun (Instead in so many cases no guns were found and the people got killed by the Crown)

6. The people "have" the "Right" to protect their homes otherwise companies who act on the interests of the crown can break into the people's home and steal, plant evidence and silence or harrass any innocent people.

 

[georges]

Whenever I read the logic behind people who support banning guns it always puts my mind in a complete tail spin. I just can't fathom how people can be so willing to throw away a freedom. Just because they don't exercise a right they figure it serves no purpose. They don't think beyond themselves... although that part doesn't surprise me even a little. People in this country are selfish and self-serving. They rarely think about the long term consequences.

We have the 2nd Amendment to protect ourselves. Protect ourselves in terms of personal protection as well as protect ourselves from a government that grows beyond the control of the people it's supposed to serve.

Some people see things in pink and are not really understanding the use of the 2nd amendment because they are not thinking forward over the long run.

 

[georges]

So, was this article written just to call American gun owners a bunch of pre-dated Davey Crockett wannabes? I don't really get it. :dunno:

The whole gun control argument (in general) is getting to be a stupid and pointless one. It's just two sides of the argument that will never agree with eachother...ever.

Personally, this is how I feel...

A gun isn't dangerous until someone pulls the trigger. Since a gun can't fire itself, it's the people who own the guns who are ultimately responsible. Not every gun owner is a crazy psychopath either and I think people need to realize this.



THANK YOU!!!

IMO, it's a stupid argument to say that taking away guns in America is going to drastically decrease the murder rate. Yes, the rate of murder caused by guns would decrease, but not the actual murder rate as a whole. If the amount of guns in the US was to be decreased, people would just revert to other ways of killing eachother. There's a baseball bat in my living room and a bunch of sharp knives in my kitchen that could easily kill someone. Hell, I could just use my bare hands if I wanted to. As Facetious stated, should we take those away too? It's fucking ridiculous.

People just need to grow the fuck up and take some fucking responsibility for themselves. Quit blaming INANIMATE OBJECTS for the problems we have.

The guy who wrote the article was f*cking retarded and ignorant. Clinton thought that by banning he will reduce crime but it didn't help. I don't have guns in France but I have some very good knives and daggers for my defense. Two massive Gerbers knives: the BMF and the BOWIE (blades of these knives exceed the 21cm lenght and are 8mm thick, they are as powerful and cutting as an axe or a machete), I also have three razor sharp daggers: a Fairbairn Sykes, a Guardian II and a Linder. So yes, Banning guns is ridiculous.
p.s: I am thinking of buying a buckmaster 184 survival knife.

 

[georges]

1) And round, and round, and round, in circles. People who think guns should be legal seem to believe that without guns, we would all be hacked to pieces in our homes or shot by those that still have them. A lot of people don't have them, and they're fine. But for the most part when murders are comitted in this country they are comitted with guns. It's easy. A lot of them are heat of the moment things that, it has been shown time and again, would probably not have happened if guns were outlawed. Suburban family shootings. At the TOP of the list of non-drug-related killings.

2) It AMAZES me that in a time when we're illegally invading people, when the rich are getting richer and the rest are working harder and longer than ever, and when our government is lying to us more than ever... that we are the MOST inspired to stand up and fight, the MOST passionate, and the MOST stirred by...... guns. No wonder there's fucking 50 gun magazines on the shelves of Wegmans which tells me I can't sell my CD there cause there are girls in bikinis inside. No wonder. There is a strange microchip in the computerized brain of this country that seems to think that the people should be free to live any way they wish and choose their laws and government EXCEPT if the people decide they want guns outlawed. Then suddenly it's cough cough, lets dust off the 300 year old papers.

3) WTF? How is it that THIS topic sparks more debate than, say, our illegal invasions and our modern day imperialism? It baffles me.

4)Oh. My. God. Fox News should hire you as their #1 preacher. My god. What world do you live in. How many undocumented immigrants do you know? Those people support our way of life. They are shit on by all of us and for the most part not a whimper from them. Just trying to make that half-of-minimum-wage under the table paycheck to send back to Guadalajara for their impoverished family. They are used by the system. They are the backbone of America. Poverty leads to crime. Not immigration. Those people come to the richest country in the world to try and help the ones they love and end up being our slave labourers. Two dollars an hour in the desert heat. I will never understand where the human capacity has disappeared to, in Americans that cannot empathise with the plight of illegal immigrants. I think the years and years of Fox News have just indoctrinated half the land.

5) Absolutely fucking right. Anyone who thinks guns are untouchable should look up the meaning of democracy. Anti-gun lobbies aren't interested in silencing you or ruling over you with an iron fist. They are only interested in eliminating the #1 method for murder, which has been proven time and again, to be a CAUSE for murder. i.e. a lot of killings just would not LOGISTICALLY be able to occur, especially heat of the moment arguments and drive bys... if guns were effectively outlawed. It would take 50 years to get rid of them all. But in the richest country in the world, it could be done. And it should be up to the people of America to vote as to whether they want that or not. If it doesn't go well - the people can notice that and then, someday, vote to bring guns back. I'm damn sure once they noticed how much safer they were and how murder rates were plummeting... they'd be glad they finally woke up and smelled the civilization.

1) Do you think every gun owner will do this? If yes, you are way out of your mind. Murders are often committed with illegal or stolen guns. An who commits crimes with stolen or illegally owned guns? You know the answer so stop blaming responsible gun owners.

2) You seem to think that other people owe you something like their salary or the benefits. Remember that in U.S.A, the success is mainly relying on the individual himself so if you don't like individualistic persons or countries where individualism is dominant then U.S.A is perhaps not the right place to live for you. Guns are a part of the american culture as are Springfield, Colt and Smith & Wesson since over 200 years.

3) This topic will always be sparked when people like you will post things that they don't really know much about guns and who will eventually continue to back up the utter bullshit from Michael the fat pig Moore's movie "Bowling for Columbine".

4) No, it is not poverty who leads to crime. It is the education of a child and who are his friends as well as where he lives that will make him a criminal or not. Some people don't make single effort to accept and abide the rules in a country that has welcomed them so I see no real reason for the country to accept them.

5) Anti gun lobbies are either ruled by a bunch of fat pricks and silly conspirationnists who have no real vision of what can happen by disarming people. Guns will stay with people wether you want it or not.

 

[marquis2]

Whenever I read the logic behind people who support banning guns it always puts my mind in a complete tail spin. I just can't fathom how people can be so willing to throw away a freedom. Just because they don't exercise a right they figure it serves no purpose. They don't think beyond themselves... although that part doesn't surprise me even a little. People in this country are selfish and self-serving. They rarely think about the long term consequences.

We have the 2nd Amendment to protect ourselves. Protect ourselves in terms of personal protection as well as protect ourselves from a government that grows beyond the control of the people it's supposed to serve.

I wonder just how much protection gun ownership actually gives you bearing in mind the number of gun deaths and injuries that occur.The same rule enabling you to own a gun is the same rule enabling your enemy to have one tor your mugger,burglar ,friendly drug dealer or whatever.Protection only occurs if you have a gun and the other guy doesn't.And even then the incidences of shooting members of your own family in mistake for burglars are all too common.
I don't believe for a minute the Amendment was draughted to protect yourself from your own government.This is equivalent to building the possibility of civil war into the constitution.The guys who set up the Amendment WERE the government and I don't think they had a death wish.And to be truthful, unless there is really massive unrest and dissatisfaction the chance of prevailing against your own government are just about zero, with or without guns.
The Amendment was logically about external threat, having just removed one they didn't want it or anything like it coming back.

 

[georges]

Re: But what is a militia?

A militia ? An informal auxiliary of law abiding citizenry, loyal to such U.S Constitution. ~ Then type it in the first place, damnit ! :1orglaugh Let's go ! I'm all eyes - What does it state ? What doe it mean ? We can agree or dis . . . the latter it appears . . . and you know . . . ? That's OK !
BTW - Your argument(s) remind me of the
Hegelian Dialect - full of rhetoric and an endless labyrinth of semantic passages, infinite and ubiquitous.

I am in continuance in my campaign as to why you would invest the time you do to dwell upon our Constitution.

WADR - I've yet to venture into yours. Someday :o

What are the laws up in your area regarding basic firearms ownership ?

Can any law abiding individual own . . . say, just a plain out of the box Rem 700 / Winchester 70 pre 64 bolt action rifle ? Or is ownership somewhat suspended ?

Para Ordnance is a fine Canadian manufacturer !

McRock - You do realize that personally carry permits are extra in most states ? . Even if I lived in a "shall issue" state, I seriously doubt that I would ever carry a concealed arm. I prefer to play my street smarts, which have kept me outta peril for forty somethin' years yet.

^ The discussion, shall it continue, will erode into a rancorous - scorched earth cocktail - o - molotov . . .pushin' and shovin' ad nauseam.

I will agree to disagree with McRocket . . . and that is perfectly fine on my end. I harbor no animosity / ill will.

Well the canadian gun laws make it difficult for the average joe to buy a gun or a rifle. You can buy a gun or a rifle either for hunting or target shooting but not for self defense. You can't buy rifles like the Barrett m82 or ar15 or m1a1 in Canada. In Canada, you can buy a winchester model 70 pre 64 in 338 wich magnum or 375 holland and holland magnum but only if you have a hunting license. You can't even by a pump gun like a mossberg 590 a1 or winchester 1300 defender in Canada. I too play my street smarts that is why I carry a good blade with me when I go in not so secure places.

 

[georges]

BTW Free Clinic ! !

This Canadian , Todd Jarrett, is one bad arse sport shooter !! One of the very best in the world in fact.

He likes people too ! How 'bout that ! :1orglaugh

My cousin met him, he told me he was one of the coolest guys he ever met. And btw he shoots with a para ord gun.

 

[bodie54]

The same rule enabling you to own a gun is the same rule enabling your enemy to have one too.

No, that would be incorrect. For the umpteenth time, "the bad guys" don't play by "the rules", so by creating rules that are intended to disarm all, but in practice only disarm "the good guys", we'd eliminate a significant safeguard/deterrence against the bad guys.

I don't believe for a minute the Amendment was draughted to protect yourself from your own government.

Then it's time for a course (or a refresher course) in American history.

This is equivalent to building the possibility of civil war into the constitution.

The founding fathers stance (to simplify) was that a government governed by the consent of it's people; that a government's primary purpose was to protect certain unalienable rights of those people, and that the people not only could, but should, rebel against any govenment (including one the founders themselves might be a part of) that was unjust/unrepresentative/usurping. John Locke's theory of the right of revolution was influential. So while the "guys who set up the amendment" didn't have a death wish, they were selfless and honorable enough to demark justifiable grounds for their own potential demise.

The Amendment was logically about external threat, having just removed one they didn't want it or anything like it coming back.

No Marquis, the amendment was logically, philosophically and practically about never having to live under the heel of a tyrannical government again, whether external or internal in origin. Having just won their independence from one, they never wanted themselves, their people, or their descendants, to suffer the same again.

 

[Friday on my mind]

Let me add my 2 cents lol.
1. The 2nd anendment was added without question so that the populace would have arms to be able to keep thier own government in check.Timothy Mcveigh was wearing a T-shirt when he was arrested that had a quote from Thomas Jefferson which went something like "The tree of Liberty needs to be refreshed with blood routinely".The founding fathers had no idea the original incarnation of American govt would last so long and expected that like all other govt's it would get abusive and need to be overthrown eventually.They were revolutionaries and it has been said that after the revolution you need to get rid of the revolutionaires as they will think always in those terms and probably stir up another revolt.
2. But that said there is also little doubt that the proliferation of legal guns is what leads to there being so many illegal ones.And also I think if you do some research places where so-called legal owners are allowed to carry on their persons or in their cars handguns have higher shooting rates then ones that don't.And the truth is most shootings are not eithier by some bad guy criminal or someone defending their life and property but by folks involved in personal disputes such as family members shooting each other.

So there IMO you have the arguements for and against.I personally am still in favor of keeping the right to bear arms around due to reasons I gave in the 1st one.While we may not be armed as well comparitively as compared to the military as in the 1780's I still think the time may come when armed force or the threat of it may be needed by the people,but I also concede that the cost of that freedom is some carnage and do really see the pov that says that cost is not worth it.

 

[Imagine]

If the government has reached a point where a significant portion of the population no longer support them, they have most likely reached a point where even if a significant portion of the population is able and willing to start a civil war, it is doomed to fail. No amount of bravery, patriotism and guns is going to make a dent in a tank. If the government is bad enough to cause a revolt, they are most likely bad enough to not think twice about crushing it when it comes. The days of peasant revolts succeeding ended with the advent of modern warfare.

 

[Friday on my mind]

If the government has reached a point where a significant portion of the population no longer support them, they have most likely reached a point where even if a significant portion of the population is able and willing to start a civil war, it is doomed to fail. No amount of bravery, patriotism and guns is going to make a dent in a tank. If the government is bad enough to cause a revolt, they are most likely bad enough to not think twice about crushing it when it comes. The days of peasant revolts succeeding ended with the advent of modern warfare.

I think Fidel Castro would disagree with that assesment.

 

[Imagine]

I suppose 50 years ago still falls under modern warfare. However, in so far that I know, Cuba at the time wasn't exactly up to US standards when it came to military.

 

[ninetysixcavy]

A bit? It'd be hilarious if I didn't know he was actually serious.

He's right, you know.

4) No, it is not poverty who leads to crime. It is the education of a child and who are his friends as well as where he lives that will make him a criminal or not. Some people don't make single effort to accept and abide the rules in a country that has welcomed them so I see no real reason for the country to accept them.

.

Exactly. It's such a fucking cop out for someone to blame gun abuse (murder, robbery, etc.) on poverty. I could dig and dig and dig on the net for days to find ample examples of countries, areas, land where people are poverty stricken, but don't go around blowing themselves heads off.

(BTW, Al Quaeda losers who have nothing better to do than run around shooting Ak's all day can suck my dick.):rofl:

Well the canadian gun laws make it difficult for the average joe to buy a gun or a rifle.

I thought I read somewhere that Canada is a bit anal about their gun laws. I'm thinking about moving there in the future if the US gov doesn't deal with the illegal alien ellement that is ravashing our country, but their laws regarding gun ownership will certainly play into my decision on that.

If the government has reached a point where a significant portion of the population no longer support them, they have most likely reached a point where even if a significant portion of the population is able and willing to start a civil war, it is doomed to fail.

Maybe. Maybe not. I can tell you this treasonous, filthy ,criminal US government has reached a point that no one trust them anymore. I can also tell you I know PLEANTY of people that are fed up and on the verge. Another civial war...I doubt it, but this world is so crazy I guess you never know. :dunno:

 

[Imagine]

He's right, you know.

The broad and fairly insulting generalizations, baseless assumptions and the savior complex (where do people get the idea that the US was solely responsible for the victory in WW2 anyway)? Please. I don't pretend to know whether banning guns is beneficial or not, but he certainly didn't make his case very convincing with that post.

I can also tell you I know PLEANTY of people that are fed up and on the verge. Another civial war...I doubt it, but this world is so crazy I guess you never know.

On the verge of what? Complaining more? Perhaps I'm wrong, but I'd guess very few are currently willing to start a civil war. In order for enough people to participate or support an armed conflict, I'm quite sure the government would have to do quite a bit worse than they are now. But unless the opposition get the military on their side, any civil war is going to be very short, or very inefficient.

 

[Roughneck]

If the government has reached a point where a significant portion of the population no longer support them, they have most likely reached a point where even if a significant portion of the population is able and willing to start a civil war, it is doomed to fail. No amount of bravery, patriotism and guns is going to make a dent in a tank. If the government is bad enough to cause a revolt, they are most likely bad enough to not think twice about crushing it when it comes. The days of peasant revolts succeeding ended with the advent of modern warfare.

You're assuming that those folks driving them tanks will indeed shoot upon their neighbors and friends.

Tanks and guns don't operate themselves. Iron clad guarantees to weather National Guard troops will band with the standing army and massacre their own brethren they've sworn to protect?

The last time this assumption was put to the test was the so called "Civil War" - and as history shows, plenty of folks disagreed with the federal gummint on that one.... and damned near pulled it off too. That end of that conflict was nowhere close to "brutally crushed" - it was a long, hard (and America's most costly) war.

cheers,

PS: The American Revolutionaries took on the world's super-power at that time, and won. Put things into perspective and context - yes there were no tanks back then, but the Revolutionaries didn't posses gunboats, proper military training or superior artillery either. Any good military textbook will tell you that materiel is nice, but without the proper attitude, it's completely useless.

 

[Imagine]

You're assuming that those folks driving them tanks will indeed shoot upon their neighbors and friends.
Tanks and guns don't operate themselves. Iron clad guarantees to weather National Guard troops will band with the standing army and massacre their own brethren they've sworn to protect?

I also said you'd need to get the military on your side. Anyhow, you can be quite sure that a totalitarian government will make sure they have people loyal to them in command. It doesn't take a lot to make people do things they wouldn't normally do (Nazism is a prime example, where they did indeed kill or turn in their neighbors and friends). Propaganda is the key, and a totalitarian government is sure to have quite a bit of control over communication.

The last time this assumption was put to the test was the so called "Civil War" - and as history shows, plenty of folks disagreed with the federal gummint on that one.... and damned near pulled it off too. That end of that conflict was nowhere close to "brutally crushed" - it was a long, hard (and America's most costly) war.

The American civil war had far more similarities to a war between two states than a civil war. In so far that the south was concerned, they were a country of their own. As I recall, the war was started because the north didn't agree with that sentiment. Both sides were fairly equal in terms of technology, if not quite in capacity.

The American Revolutionaries took on the world's super-power at that time, and won. Put things into perspective and context - yes there were no tanks back then, but the Revolutionaries didn't posses gunboats, proper military training or superior artillery either. Any good military textbook will tell you that materiel is nice, but without the proper attitude, it's completely useless.

The difference in technology and training now are far greater than they were then. The further back you go, the less would equipment matter. Any peasant can crush the skull of a knight who has trained warfare his entire life with a stone and a bit of luck (in fact, the crossbow was banned by the pope for this reason). Taking on a tank or bomber with a pistol is a bit harder though.
The revolutionaries had other advantages though. They knew the terrain, they had a reason to fight, and of course, didn't have to get reinforcements from Europe (superior numbers as well I think, but feel free to correct me if I'm wrong). Training and equipment was compensated with guerrilla warfare. Further so later when the French intervened. No, equipment isn't everything, but it is certainly not irrelevant when the gaps are as large as between modern army and civilian. Hell, the Iraqi army was better armed and organized than I would expect most civilians to be, and they didn't fair too well against the US invasion.