Gun owners BEWARE of the AHSA [Archive]

scooter_the_shooter

11-12-2005, 16:02

I think every pro gun American needs to know about these wolves in sheeps clothing, called the American hunters and shooters association I have proof this time (its not like the clinton thread)!

from the NRA

Sometimes The Enemy Wears Camouflage

Sunday, August 14, 2005

You might have recently heard of a new organization claiming to represent hunters and gun owners. The new group calls itself the American Hunters and Shooters Association, a friendly sounding name designed to earn the trust of gun owners and hunters. The reality is that AHSA is nothing more than the enemy in camouflage.

At first glance, everything about AHSA sounds just fine. They even have one useful tool on the website, a history of wildlife conservation laws in America--strange thing is it was lifted nearly word for word from www.NRAILA.org.

In their "Firearms Safety and Training" section we begin to see some curious remarks. For instance in the "Range Safety" section they never once mention that firearms should always be pointed downrange, the first rule in range safety. Another section recommends that shooters use steel wool to clean the barrels of their guns, an idea that makes most gunsmiths cringe. The rest of their safety tips appear to be written by someone who has never hunted. Never once do they mention the three basic rules of safe gun handling by which all shooters know and abide.

A look deeper into the AHSA website quickly reveals that this is no hunters' rights group. You quickly realize that they want to allow the FBI to keep records on law-abiding citizens who buy guns and put an end to gun shows as we know them. Not to mention the fact that they want to regulate .50 caliber rifles in the same way that machine guns are regulated.

The most telling thing about AHSA is its leadership. A quick look at their website shows that Bob Ricker is listed as AHSA Executive Director. Readers will remember that Ricker is a former NRA employee who switched sides and has actively worked for gun control groups for many years now. A few years ago, Ricker was part of an attempt to sell out your rights by brokering a deal with the most anti-gun administration in history. He then appeared with Bill Clinton in a White House photo-op. Most recently Ricker was paid by a Virginia based anti-gun group, where he lobbied to shut down gun shows and put further restrictions on gun owners.

A little further down in the leadership section John Rosenthal is listed as President of the AHSA Foundation. Rosenthal is one of the founders of the Massachusetts based group Stop Handgun Violence, a group that has been a major force in passing some of the most Draconian state gun laws in the nation. Gun laws that Rosenthal would like to see exported to other states.

With leadership like that, there is no doubt about the true goals of AHSA. They are trying to fool hunters and gun owners with a soft sell--a la John Kerry--while working behind the scenes to end the sport that we all love. I fully expect that in the 2006 elections we will see anti-gun Congressional candidates boasting about their AHSA endorsements. Unfortunately, some gun owners will be fooled by this ploy, so help us spread the word that AHSA isn't what it claims to be.

The steel wool thing is shocking that WILL DESTROY the barrel....they are trying to sabotage us!

I sent them an email

You seem less extreme then the NRA GOA etc. Where do you stand on the assault weapon ban and the 1986 import ban? What types of guns do you think should be legal? All of them, or just bolt action rifles and over and under shot guns?

Is it true that you have a multitude of anti gun politicians giving donations to you?

The reason I ask this is I want to join all the pro gun organizations I can but many of my friends say you are the Brady Campaign in disguise.

I will post a response if/when I get one.

here is the site http://www.huntersandshooters.org/

Dîn-Heru

11-12-2005, 17:19

You quickly realize that they want to allow the FBI to keep records on law-abiding citizens who buy guns and put an end to gun shows as we know them. Not to mention the fact that they want to regulate .50 caliber rifles in the same way that machine guns are regulated.

I think I saw a story on these gun-shows on 60 minutes some time ago. The details escape me at the moment, but I seem to recall that you could buy more or less anything without form of background check. Is this true?

Now, I am not anti-gun, rifles, shotguns, handguns are fine if you are a hunter or member of a gun-club or need it for work (and I guess home defense), but why does a private citizen need an assault rifle? And from what I have seen of the .50 cal, why should it be widely available, you can not exactly use it on a standard shooting range, can you?

As for federal records of gun ownership, what exactly is wrong with that? If you are a law abiding citizen you have nothing to worry about, right? Furthermore, if the gun is stolen you have someone to tell so that you don't get charged if the gun is used in a crime..?

What are the general rules for gun ownership in the US?

Oh, and one final question, (yes, I know, I have asked far too many already, but it is a fascinating topic), is gun ownership a free for all or outright ban issue in the states?

~:)

Redleg

11-12-2005, 17:25

Dîn-Heru

11-12-2005, 17:41

To answer your question in one sentence - and very simply express for the complex problem of gun laws.

Gun laws are a free for all in every state except for the laws that the Federal government has established.

Yes, I gathered as much from the link in the article. But is it such a bipolar issue? (think that is the right word). Because when ever this topic comes up, it seems as though you are either for having access to all sorts of guns, or no guns at all, so is there no middle ground in the debate?

scooter_the_shooter

11-12-2005, 17:42

I think I saw a story on these gun-shows on 60 minutes some time ago. The details escape me at the moment, but I seem to recall that you could buy more or less anything without form of background check. Is this true?

Now, I am not anti-gun, rifles, shotguns, handguns are fine if you are a hunter or member of a gun-club or need it for work (and I guess home defense), but why does a private citizen need an assault rifle? And from what I have seen of the .50 cal, why should it be widely available, you can not exactly use it on a standard shooting range, can you?

As for federal records of gun ownership, what exactly is wrong with that? If you are a law abiding citizen you have nothing to worry about, right? Furthermore, if the gun is stolen you have someone to tell so that you don't get charged if the gun is used in a crime..?

What are the general rules for gun ownership in the US?

Oh, and one final question, (yes, I know, I have asked far too many already, but it is a fascinating topic), is gun ownership a free for all or outright ban issue in the states?

~:)

The back round check depends on which state. Now when you buy a new gun you have to fill out a 4473 which I don't agree with.

Why do I need an assault rifle....they are fun and I am not going to kill any one with out a good reason; why do people think they need to take it away? Plus Assault rifles' are used in less then one percent of gun crimes.

A 50bmg has NEVER I repeat NEVER been used in a crime in the USA...why ban them your average thug can't afford one.

I don't want the federal gov knowing what guns I own because then they can track you down and take them.

If the gun is stolen... you give the serial number to the police, if they find it you get it back. If not well...that what insurance is for!

scooter_the_shooter

11-12-2005, 17:50

These are the rules.

No felonies(I don't agree with this, If you cant trust them with a gun why the heck are they out of jail?)

Must be over 18 for rifles and shot guns(this includes ak47s and that sort of thing)

Must be over 21 for hand guns.

You can buy a rifle/shot gun in any state and take it home

To buy a hand gun in a different state it must be sent to a ffl(federal firearms license) holder in your state.

To hold a class 3 item you must get a license and it can't be made after 1986

These are the basics, some wacky state like california won't let you have hi-cap mags and things like that though.

Alexander the Pretty Good

11-12-2005, 18:04

No felonies(I don't agree with this, If you cant trust them with a gun why the heck are they out of jail?)
You plan on commiting a felony?

I'm 99% certain that you may not get an AK-47 EVER. It - and other automatic weapons - are banned by a Federal law dating back to the 1920's.

Certainly without a whole load of paperwork and liscensing.

As long as it remains legal to get an M1, I don't really give a darn. :bow:

Beirut

11-12-2005, 18:10

The steel wool thing is shocking that WILL DESTROY the barrel....they are trying to sabotage us!

The only reference I saw to steel wool was to "fine steel wool to remove rust". I don't think that's wrong. The rest of the cleaning instructions looked spot on.

The range safety regulations looked good but did omit having all guns pointed downrange. More than likely a typo. Pobodie's nerfect.

So far I haven't seen anything out of place on that site. I'll look some more.

scooter_the_shooter

11-12-2005, 18:22

You plan on commiting a felony?

I'm 99% certain that you may not get an AK-47 EVER. It - and other automatic weapons - are banned by a Federal law dating back to the 1920's.

Certainly without a whole load of paperwork and liscensing.

As long as it remains legal to get an M1, I don't really give a darn. :bow:

BS I have an ak47 you can get one in semi auto for $300. Same thing with every full auto gun out there...they make it semi auto and sometimes they change the name IE M1A in stead of M14.

Ya want proof go here http://gunbroker.com/ type in ak47, ar15, uzi etc

In 1934 they made people register full auto fire arms and pay to get a class 3 license. They are not banned and that is after the 20s~:rolleyes:

in 1986 they made it illegal to import NFA items full auto guns, silencers, grenades that sort of thing. Therefore making the price go through the roof so average joe can't get one.

also

If I can't trust a felon with a gun WHY is he out of jail?

Beirut

11-12-2005, 18:29

BS I have an ak47 you can get one in semi auto for $300. Same thing with every full auto gun out there...they make it semi auto and sometimes they change the name IE M1A in stead of M14.
\

What model exactly and from what country is your "AK-47"?

For what it's worth, I had a Valmet M77 which was a heavy barrel .223 (AK action) rifle from Finland, and a Galil .308 (AK action) rifle from Israel.

I think the person asking you was saying you cannot buy a true Russian made AK-47, at least not without a lot of trouble, but I could be wrong.

Kralizec

11-12-2005, 18:31

Are you saying it's perfectly fine to trust ex cons, because they're not in jail anymore?

Why do I need an assault rifle....they are fun and I am not going to kill any one with out a good reason

~D ~D ~D ~D ~D ~:joker:

scooter_the_shooter

11-12-2005, 18:31

All I wanted was to plink so I bought the cheap WASR_10 from romania

The normal wasr10 only holds 10 rounds but most of the companies that import them opened up the magwell to take the high caps(I got a high cap one)

http://www.atlanticfirearms.com/programming/expand.asp?Prodid=2

germannese..... What I meant was self defence or something like that. I won't shoot some kid that egged my house that is just stupid.

Dîn-Heru

11-12-2005, 18:37

Regarding the .50 cal, yes I am aware that it has not been used in a crime in the US, (kinda too big for easy use). But it is not impossible that it could cause havoc, http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/18/60minutes/main681562.shtml .
I am sure it is fun to shot with, same with assault weapons, but I would not like every Tom, Dick and Harry to have one.

As for the rules you give they seem reasonable enough to me.

Can the government actually take your guns away unless you have done something criminal? Or is this just some scare tactic scenario? I know that the government, (state, town, federal?) can expropriate your property if they see fit to do so, but can they do the same with guns, save in an emergency like the aftermath of Katarina?

If the gun is stolen and you report it to the police, does it end up in a federal database or is it only your town/state police that has the information? Because my point about the FBI lists was that you could then track weapons across state lines if it was stolen.

As for your point about felons, well, the repeat offending rate might be high for certain crimes or people, but you can not easily say in advance who will offend again so it is better to an have a general rule than processing each individual's case, and you cannot keep them in jail longer than they have been sentenced (even if you are the biggest scumbag on earth).

scooter_the_shooter

11-12-2005, 18:47

The USA is not the best place to get a gun. There are places where you can buy a full auto ak47 no question asked for less then a semi here!

scooter_the_shooter

11-12-2005, 18:51

What model exactly and from what country is your "AK-47"?

For what it's worth, I had a Valmet M77 which was a heavy barrel .223 (AK action) rifle from Finland, and a Galil .308 (AK action) rifle from Israel.

I think the person asking you was saying you cannot buy a true Russian made AK-47, at least not without a lot of trouble, but I could be wrong.

Well no you can't get a rusky one over here with out paper work. But whats the diiference if it is from saiga, vepr, or century arms they all work pretty good.

Beirut

11-12-2005, 18:59

Well no you can't get a rusky one over here with out paper work. But whats the diiference if it is from saiga, vepr, or century arms they all work pretty good.

The difference, to a great degree is semantics, which is all too often used as a tool in the gun control debate.

The point is that a true AK-47 is fully automatic and people will assume when you say you have an AK-47 that you have a real AK-47 and not a semi-auto copy.

Kaiser of Arabia

11-12-2005, 19:00

Beirut

11-12-2005, 19:04

Most assault rifle makers make a civilian semi-Auto or 3-round-burst variant of their weapons so Civilians can buy them, AFAIK.

I don't think so. Three-round bursts with one trigger pull are still considered full auto.

scooter_the_shooter

11-12-2005, 19:09

Most assault rifle makers make a civilian semi-Auto or 3-round-burst variant of their weapons so Civilians can buy them, AFAIK.

Though I just want an SVD, I doubt that'll happen anytime soon.

kaiser 3 rd burst is class 3 also sadly(sorry to destroy your hope of bursting away.)

You missed your chance to get an svd from cdnn they had them from saiga for $999 (which is good) don't go get one of those cheap long barreled Ak clones that claim to be svds.

You should look at an m1a 308 and very accurate! Cost alot though~:rolleyes:

If you are into guns kaiser go here

http://cdnninvestments.com/ (guess where I am doing my xmas shopping~:cheers: ) They have other stuff besides guns. Good deals on scopes, knives, mags, holsters and more!

Load up the catolauge FN hi powers for $400, Lots of police trade ins also.

Kralizec

11-12-2005, 19:09

germannese..... What I meant was self defence or something like that. I won't shoot some kid that egged my house that is just stupid.

Fair enough, but I never fully swallowed the self defense argument when it comes to anything bigger then handguns.
Do people carry them to work, to malls, have them in the backseat of the car just in case somebody might mug them in public?
Do you keep them under your pillow so you have them handy when somebody enters your house?

Why isn't a handgun enough to defend yourself? Are assault rifle owners worried they might get attacked by the North Korean army in their backyard ~:confused:

Finally, what sounds better:
A) A guy broke into my house and I saw myself forced to shoot him 3 times with my 6-shot revolver
B) A guy broke into my house and I saw myself forced to perforate him with my M-16 with night vision, 72-round drum magazine and laser pointer

?

scooter_the_shooter

11-12-2005, 19:14

The revolver obviously but Assualt rifles are great fun to shoot. Go to a 3 gun match some time!

Kralizec

11-12-2005, 19:17

Well, I think that shooting could be real fun. Call me a hypocrite, but I can see myself signing up for a shooting range when I'm older (though not for automatics, even if they're later allowed)

Till then, paintball is pretty damn fun even if it's a rather silly substitute. Plus, you get to shoot your friends :knight:

Kaiser of Arabia

11-12-2005, 19:30

I don't think so. Three-round bursts with one trigger pull are still considered full auto.
Really? I didn't know that. Then it's just Semi-Auto. :bow:

Though I have to say, I perfer accuracy over RoF. That's why I love the MG-42, has both pretty much. But I'll always love Sniper Rifles.

Anyone know how much a Mauser KAR-98k goes for these days?

Kaiser of Arabia

11-12-2005, 19:35

scooter_the_shooter

11-12-2005, 19:36

Really? I didn't know that. Then it's just Semi-Auto. :bow:

Though I have to say, I perfer accuracy over RoF. That's why I love the MG-42, has both pretty much. But I'll always love Sniper Rifles.

Anyone know how much a Mauser KAR-98k goes for these days?

3-400 $$$(for german) You can get a yugoslavian mauser which is the same thing...still in the cosmoline for 1-200 dollars! get the YUGO and you can get 75 8mm mauser rounds for 5-7 dollars! (they are corrosive though) or better yet get a mosin nagant for 70 dollars~D

go to any local gun show and you will see all the stuff I listed and more, They will probably have enfields and k31s also. Don't buy the enfield though they bolts are pretty strange on the earlier ones.(not enough metal behind them)

Kaiser xmas is coming get your self a nice sks.

Kaiser of Arabia

11-12-2005, 19:43

Beirut

11-12-2005, 19:50

3-400 $$$(for german) You can get a yugoslavian mauser which is the same thing...still in the cosmoline for 1-200 dollars! get the YUGO and you can get 75 8mm mauser rounds for 5-7 dollars! (they are corrosive though) or better yet get a mosin nagant for 70 dollars~D

go to any local gun show and you will see all the stuff I listed and more, They will probably have enfields and k31s also. Don't buy the enfield though they bolts are pretty strange on the earlier ones.(not enough metal behind them)

Kaiser xmas is coming get your self a nice sks.

A Mosin-Nagant over a KAR-98? Gah! (I think you were kidding though. You were kidding though, weren't you?) You do have to watch out for people faking Nazi markings on them and driving up the price. I'll have to dig out my book about German sniper rifles by Peter Senich, he was the curator for the firearms display at the Smithsonian. This book has all the info.

Are you talking about the Lee-Enfields? I've owned a few and they are great rifles. I had a 1917 issue MKIII and it was a very solid rifle.

I owned an SKS once. Completely reliable, solid, very, very inexpensive and as aesthetically pleasing as a pimple. As far as semi-autos go, you would be hard pressed to find a better deal. Mine even had the fold out triangular bayonet. Cost me $200 with a cleaning kit and a couple of boxes of ammo.

scooter_the_shooter

11-12-2005, 19:53

No that is just to order them online you need a c&r license for that. To go buy them at the local gunshow all you need is the cash and some one old enough to buy it.

See if the dealer running the table will give you a bayonet too (alot of them throw that sort of thing in with the rifle)

Also if you get a new one there will be this icky grease stuff on it called cosmoline, It is sort of like vasoline and a pain to get off. But it is all worth it!

scooter_the_shooter

11-12-2005, 19:58

A Mosin-Nagant over a KAR-98? Gah! (I think you were kidding though. You were kidding though, weren't you?) You do have to watch out for people faking Nazi markings on them and driving up the price. I'll have to dig out my book about German sniper rifles by Peter Senich, he was the curator for the firearms display at the Smithsonian. This book has all the info.

Are you talking about the Lee-Enfields? I've owned a few and they are great rifles. I had a 1917 issue MKIII and it was a very solid rifle.

I owned an SKS once. Completely reliable, solid, very, very inexpensive and as aesthetically pleasing as a pimple. As far as semi-autos go, you would be hard pressed to find a better deal. Mine even had the fold out triangular bayonet. Cost me $200 with a cleaning kit and a couple of boxes of ammo.

I have had 3 ww2 vets(at the gun show) tell me about enfields bolt. They said after awhile it gets weak and when you shoot it will unlock and smack you in the eye. If its true or not I don't know but I sure do not want to find out~;)

They were also trying to sell their mausers so....

I was joking about the mosin. As far as I am concerned it is a spear that throws bullets~:rolleyes:

The funniest thing I ever saw at the gun show was a guy who put a swatstika on a mosin and tried to pass it off as a ww2 mauser from a concnetration camp~D

A 70 dollar gun for 700~:joker:

Alexander the Pretty Good

11-12-2005, 20:04

Ceasar - I thought you meant a full auto AK-47, which sure as hell are not readily available general public.

Kaiser of Arabia

11-12-2005, 20:07

Ceasar - I thought you meant a full auto AK-47, which sure as hell are not readily available general public.
You *could* always *try* to steal one ~D

Beirut

11-12-2005, 20:21

I have had 3 ww2 vets(at the gun show) tell me about enfields bolt. They said after awhile it gets weak and when you shoot it will unlock and smack you in the eye. If its true or not I don't know but I sure do not want to find out~;)

They were also trying to sell their mausers so....

What those guys were talking about is surplus Enfields that, when decomissioned, the bolts were removed and thrown into one pile and the rifles into another. It happened that post-war surplus Enfields sometimes were sold with mismatched bolts.

Personally, I have never come across one, but it has happened. You do have to check the serial numbers on the bolts and make sure they match the serial number on the rifle.

The Lee-Enfield was in frontline sevrice for decades and Canadian closets are brimming with sporterized models used for deer hunting. They are utterly solid and fast as lightning. Hell, the greatness of the Lee-Enfield is the one thing Gawain and I agree upon. ~:cheers:

I will never, ever forgive myself for selling a gorgeous Lee-Enfield MKV. Shmuck that I am.

Crazed Rabbit

11-12-2005, 20:33

Fair enough, but I never fully swallowed the self defense argument when it comes to anything bigger then handguns.
Do people carry them to work, to malls, have them in the backseat of the car just in case somebody might mug them in public?

Do you keep them under your pillow so you have them handy when somebody enters your house?

Why isn't a handgun enough to defend yourself? Are assault rifle owners worried they might get attacked by the North Korean army in their backyard

Finally, what sounds better:
A) A guy broke into my house and I saw myself forced to shoot him 3 times with my 6-shot revolver
B) A guy broke into my house and I saw myself forced to perforate him with my M-16 with night vision, 72-round drum magazine and laser pointer

?
Perhaps you saw what happened in New Orleans: people defending themselves from roving gangs with shotguns and other long guns.

Long guns are much more effective than handguns at pretty much anything other than carrying concealed in your normal life. So why not have them at your house?

As for the American Hunters and Shooters Association, it is most definately a front group for gun control. It was started by a group that does PR compaigns for-and almost exclusively for- democrats in congress, and is located in the same building as the democrat committee for something or other. Here's a wiki link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Hunters_and_Shooters_Association

A casual surf of their website reveals where there true feelings lie:
1)Their position on the bill immunizing gun makers from frivolous lawsuits:

Specifically, the current provisions of H.R. 800 would make it extremely difficult for the Attorney General to enforce key provisions of the Gun Control Act of 1968. (Chapter 44 of title 18 or chapter 53 of title 26, United States Code.) Specifically, H.R.800 would hamper efforts by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to revoke the licenses of gun manufacturers or dealers that violate federal or state gun laws.
They're worried because the gun control act of 1968 might not be suitibly enforced! Or that the jerks at the BATF, which like to resort to conniving and trickery to take guns from gun owners, would be hampered! No true gun-rights advocate would say those things.

2)The language pervading the site; the words 'responsible', 'common sense', etc., which are used all the time by gun-banners calling for 'responsible/common sense gun laws'.

3) Their position on the FBI checking national firearms records: they want it to happen, and try to bring up the old 'terrorists will come here and buy assault weapons'. Again, the position of the gun-banners.
Here's some gay (literally) commentary on this:http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=165454&\

4) The president (also found of an anti-gun group) won't even encourage people to keep a gun in the home for self defense, and talks about the "the responsibility to safely store firearms" i.e. they want guns locked away in safes. They then say:

There are certain factors that weigh heavily against keeping a gun in the home for self-protection. One of the most widely quoted statements about guns is that a firearm kept in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than an intruder.
A study that has been ripped apart and its author acknowledges the flaws.

5) Going down the page we see:

Realistically speaking, in order to safely keep a firearm in the home for self-protection, one must create a situation in which the firearm is readily available when needed, yet inaccessible or inoperative to others.

Quick release trigger locks, chamber/cylinder locks or special locked cases that can be instantly opened by authorized individuals are options that should be considered.
Was I right or was I right when I said they wanted safes for guns? (I know, in this case its just trigger locks, which would make it much harder to get the gun ready in time, or for one's SO to use.)

The American Hunting and Shooting Association emphasizes that keeping a firearm for home protection is not appropriate for all homes or all individuals.
They probably wouldn't like that city that passed a law requiring a gun in each home, and this is most definately not a gun-rights position.

6) They follow the Brady anti-gun campaign playbook step by step in saying we need 'background checks at gunshows' and to 'close the loophole'.

7) They come out against .50 caliber rifles, using the old 'this weapon is really powerful and has no use, ban it!' line. I won't bother refuting all the silly charges they list, but read the gay link above for some funny commentary on this. EDIT: They actually believe these rifles should be regulated as strictly as machine guns! (i.e. Almost noone could buy them.)

In conclusion, this is most definately not a pro-gun organization.

Crazed Rabbit

Meneldil

11-12-2005, 20:37

Kagemusha

11-12-2005, 20:49

I think people should be allowed to have hand guns,shotguns and hunting rifles. But please somebody explain why it is so disgusting for Americans to register your guns?~:confused:

Crazed Rabbit

11-12-2005, 20:54

Ceasar010, don't take my comment as an insult, cause that's not meant to be one, but I find your attraction for firearm trully disturbing, and well, sickening.
If France, all other teenagers and all your classmates you laught at someone like you, and well, you'd have no friends, except a few extreme-right or gang member nutjobs.
Are you representative of an important part of the American youth ? of the american people ?
I'm not trying to be insulting, I'm just wondering.

He wouldn't be out of the ordinary here. (Or in Switzerland for that matter, though the Swiss can get better guns, for now at least). It's the american gun culture, bub.

But please somebody explain why it is so disgusting for Americans to register your guns?

Registration will not help at all in criminal investigations, and for recovering stolen items you should keep a list of registration numbers somewhere in case one of your guns is stolen.
Most importantly, registration is always a precursor to confiscation. It's been said by Attorney General Janet Reno (durring Clinton's terms), anti-gun Senators who want to ban all guns, and has happened in several states where the state required registration and said they wouldn't confiscate, but several years later they did.

Crazed Rabbit

Meneldil

11-12-2005, 21:03

He wouldn't be out of the ordinary here. (Or in Switzerland for that matter, though the Swiss can get better guns, for now at least). It's the american gun culture, bub.

I guess that either your comment was meant as a sarcasm, or that you never went to Switzerland ^^.

Crazed Rabbit

11-12-2005, 21:05

I guess that either your comment was meant as a sarcasm, or that you never went to Switzerland ^^.

Hmmm. I haven't been to Switzerland, but I was under the impression that they could own full-auto rifles if they wanted to and many people participated in target shooting.

Crazed Rabbit

scooter_the_shooter

11-12-2005, 21:21

Ceasar010, don't take my comment as an insult, cause that's not meant to be one, but I find your attraction for firearm trully disturbing, and well, sickening.
If France, all other teenagers and all your classmates you laught at someone like you, and well, you'd have no friends, except a few extreme-right or gang member nutjobs.
Are you representative of an important part of the American youth ? of the american people ?
I'm not trying to be insulting, I'm just wondering.

LoL I have had many a discussion about hunting and shooting before class starts.

Many american youth go shooting and hunting, many are not into it as much as me.

When some one wants a new slug gun(for deer) they almost always ask me what to get, and class mates will often come up and ask me about a certain gun what I think of it etc. Every deer season we all swap stories before class starts. Guns don't interfere with my social life that much at all really.

The only time it interfered was when I went to a pin shoot instead of a party. (people did think that was kind of crazy but I don't care I came in 3rd)

Part of my obsession can be explained by my career choice.

I want to be a gun smith(for hand guns mostly) and well you can't be a gun smith if you don't know your stuff... you think I really care about the proper way to polish the feed ramp, or how to remove the mag disconnect from a p35. But those are all things I will need to know.

Kagemusha

11-12-2005, 21:31

Posted by Grazed rabbit:
Registration will not help at all in criminal investigations, and for recovering stolen items you should keep a list of registration numbers somewhere in case one of your guns is stolen.
Most importantly, registration is always a precursor to confiscation. It's been said by Attorney General Janet Reno (durring Clinton's terms), anti-gun Senators who want to ban all guns, and has happened in several states where the state required registration and said they wouldn't confiscate, but several years later they did.

I dont see the logig in there but maybe its a cultural thing. Here in Finland we have a hunting rifle or Shotgun in almost all households. But those are registered and we know where are guns are. Hell i have a friend whos hobby is target practicing and he owns many guns including fully automatic reservist rifle and a russian dragunov sniper rifle, but those are registered. Our guns are registered and there have been not ever even a talk here about confiscating fire arms.~:confused:

scooter_the_shooter

11-12-2005, 21:32

Rabbit I did not know you were a high roader. I don't go there but I am at TFL.

scooter_the_shooter

11-12-2005, 21:41

Crazed Rabbit

11-12-2005, 21:55

I dont see the logig in there but maybe its a cultural thing. Here in Finland we have a hunting rifle or Shotgun in almost all households. But those are registered and we know where are guns are. Hell i have a friend whos hobby is target practicing and he owns many guns including fully automatic reservist rifle and a russian dragunov sniper rifle, but those are registered. Our guns are registered and there have been not ever even a talk here about confiscating fire arms.~:confused:

Well, its different in America. Its a prime tactic for the gun-banners to get guns registered and then confiscated. It hasn't only happened in some states, but in other countries as well:

New Zealand has had some form of firearms registration since 1921. In 1974, all revolvers lawfully held for personal security were confiscated. (Same source as previous paragraph)

In May of 1995, Canada's Bill C-68 prohibited previously legal and registered small-caliber handguns. Current owners of such guns were "grandfathered," which means the guns are to be forfeited upon death of the owner. Bill C-68 also authorizes the Canadian government to enact future weapons prohibitions.

On 10 May 1996, Australia banned most semi-automatic rifles and semi-automatic and pump shotguns. Prior to this law, many Australian states and territories had firearms registration. Owners of these newly outlawed firearms were required to surrender them (with some monetary compensation). All such firearms are to be confiscated and destroyed after a 12-month amnesty program. Roughly 600,000 of an estimated 4 million Australian guns have been surrendered to authorities and destroyed.

"Since 1921, all lawfully-owned handguns in Great Britain are registered with the government, so handgun owners have little choice but to surrender their guns in exchange for payment according to government schedule...The handgun ban by no means has satiated the anti-gun appetite in Great Britain." (All the Way Down the Slippery Slope: Gun Prohibition in England and Some Lessons for Civil Liberties in America", Hamline Law Review, 1999)

Even in the United States, registration has been used to outlaw and confiscate firearms. In New York City, a registration system enacted in 1967 for long guns, was used in the early 1990s to confiscate lawfully owned semiautomatic rifles and shotguns. (Same source as previous paragraph) The New York City Council banned firearms that had been classified by the city as "assault weapons." This was done despite the testimony of Police Commissioner Lee Brown that no registered "assault weapon" had been used in a violent crime in the city. The 2,340 New Yorkers who had registered their firearms were notified that these firearms had to be surrendered, rendered inoperable, or taken out of the city. (NRA/ILA Fact Sheet: Firearms Registration: New York City's Lesson)

More recently, California revoked a grace period for the registration of certain rifles (SKS Sporters) and declared that any such weapons registered during that period were illegal. (California Penal Code, Chapter 2.3, Roberti-Ross Assault Weapons Control Act of 1989 section 12281(f) ) In addition, California has prohibited certain semi-automatic long-rifles and pistols. Those guns currently owned, must be registered, and upon the death of the owner, either surrendered or moved out of state. (FAQ #13 from the California DOJ Firearms Division Page)

Even where guns not in danger of confiscation, I wouldn't support registration, due to its uselessness at solving crime and the fact that, if I have done nothing wrong, I shouldn't have to report my activities to the government.

EDIT: Yeah, I lurk occasionally at THR and TFL. And to Kagemusha; since when am I a "Grazed Rabbit? ~;p

Crazed Rabbit

Kagemusha

11-12-2005, 22:05

Sorry m8! Little typo.~;)

Kaiser of Arabia

11-12-2005, 22:29

scooter_the_shooter

11-12-2005, 22:32

Heck send in my town and we could put those riots down in a day!

Alexander the Pretty Good

11-12-2005, 22:54

"High roader"?

~:confused:

scooter_the_shooter

11-12-2005, 22:57

I call the people here "high roaders" http://thehighroad.org/forumdisplay.php?f=2

Like when I am at tfl I will go "I saw this posted by a high roader"

Beirut

11-12-2005, 23:05

or how to remove the mag disconnect from a p35.

Can't you disengage the magazine disconnect on a P35 by taking the slack off the trigger then popping the mag?

Granted, it's a ridiculous way to do things, but I think it works.

What a masterpiece of ergonomics though. The P35 is absolutely my first choice. I had a hot rod Colt Series 70 with all the bells and whistles, Pachmayr grips, custom sights, complete action job, Bar-Sto barrel, Magnaported, Wilson magazines, the works! But I never felt as comfortable with it as with my old man's WWII army issue P35.

Then again, I had a WWII army issue revolver, I think it was a Colt, but it could have been a S&W, and this thing had the finest trigger I have ever seen on any gun. Broke like the proverbial icicle. Smooth as a glass of milk.

scooter_the_shooter

11-13-2005, 00:10

Well If you remove the mag disconnect the trigger gets smoother.

The p35 will soon be gone. FN is phasing it out...they make the parts for brownings p35 so.....hopefully spring field or para ordnance take over.

I plan to buy a p35 (aka hi power) from cdnn the 450 dollar one. I will take the disconnect out on it.

The revolver was probably a colt police positive or s&w model 10. It was a 38 special right?

Was it one of these

http://gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.asp?Item=39841702

http://gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.asp?Item=39867656

The p35 is my second fave, the ruger service six beats all!

Beirut

11-13-2005, 00:25

It was the Colt. As soon as I saw the Colt cylinder release in your pic I remembered. Yep, 38 Special. Had that gun back in the early '90s I think. Didn't have it long, a buddy ended up with it.

Never knew removing the mag disconnect would improve the trigger. That's a new one on me. After 20+ years of reading Guns + Ammo, Shooting Times, The American Handgunner and all the other mags I thought I knew it all. ~;) Mind you, I've been out of the circle for years now. I'm pretty rusty.

scooter_the_shooter

11-13-2005, 00:36

It's to bad about the 935 I always hoped the 1911 died first~:mecry:

What do you think of glocks and khars and all that other polymer stuff coming out lately?

Beirut

11-13-2005, 01:28

I put about fifty rounds through a 9mm Glock at a gun shop/indoor range in Tampa. We always spent an expensive day there while on vacation. They had a great selection of guns to try.

It worked perfectly (for all of fifty rounds~:rolleyes: ) and felt good, but I found the trigger felt like an elastic band. It's obviously a great handgun, but I'm not sure how it would fare for serious target work. I tried the Ruger semi-auto 9mm. It worked and felt ok, but nothing special.

I haven't heard many bad things about any of the new pistols. In reality, you don't hear much negative about any pistols. It's not like the major manufacturers are going to release crappy handguns. The lawsuits would destroy them in minutes. The only seriously bad press I've read is about the 9mm Major pistols. Every review I read said they were inherently dangerous.

There were bad reports about the 92F at the start, slides cracking and shearing off, but they say most of that was caused by firing ammo built specifically for open-bolt submachine guns that used heavy primers and high pressure loads. The 92F I had worked perfectly. Might have stovepiped once, but that was it. The gun is a bit too beefy in the hands though.

For my money, you can't beat the old stuff. A P35 or a 1911 or a good old fashioned S&W will handle anything. It's the shooter, not the shot. Mind you, some of the new ammo is just downright nasty. A P35 full of Black Talons is a serious thing.

scooter_the_shooter

11-13-2005, 04:05

I hate glocks with a passion. I saw one of these wonder nines jam 4 times in one outing.

I dont have 92f but I have a taurus pt92 which is an inexpensive (but good) clone, never jammed yet(about 2000 rounds through it so far). I have shot the 92f and I have yet to see a difference in the 2 except for the safety.

I plan to have my folks get me a p35 blued with wood grips for xmas.(I will try and remove the disconnect my self) I will probably give my dad a 22 of some sort he loves them...probably a walther p22 or ruger mark 3.

scooter_the_shooter

11-13-2005, 19:44

Well antis what do you think of the AHSA?

BDC

11-13-2005, 21:46

And that's EXACTLY why the good French people (did Kaiser just say that? Why yes he did...) cannot put down the riots....THEY DON'T HAVE THE FIREPOWER.
That's such rubbish.

The entire cause of the riots is a complete failure to deal with social issues. It's not even that violent. There's been what? One death? I'm sure having people gunning each other down would have really helped ease tensions and put the riots down.

Strike For The South

11-14-2005, 04:26

Hey Ceaser you gone hunting yet this year

ichi

11-14-2005, 05:46

There were bad reports about the 92F at the start, slides cracking and shearing off, but they say most of that was caused by firing ammo built specifically for open-bolt submachine guns that used heavy primers and high pressure loads. The 92F I had worked perfectly. Might have stovepiped once, but that was it. The gun is a bit too beefy in the hands though.

I own the 92S, the precursor of the F. The clip ejector is at the bottom instead of by the thumb, and it lacks the snazzy cock n lock of the 92F, but its a smooth piece that has never failed me. I put the best and the worst ammo through it, a wide range of loads, still works everytime. I've got a 30 rd clip for it cause I'm a horrible marksmen. With Pachmeyer grips its a wide body so I agree about the beefiness.

Easy to clean too. By far my favorite auto, but I wonder about the stopping power of the 9mm Luger rounds. But when you shoot like I do 7 rounds ain't enough.

ichi:bow:

Redleg

11-14-2005, 15:22

The stopping power of a hand gun is in the foot pounds of force created at impact. One of the best handguns for stopping an individual in his tracks is the Colt 45 - any variance - I myself perfer the 1911 model. It has a slight accuracy problem but one that is easily identified and corrected. The .38 calbier handguns are also good for this the bullet travels at a lower velocity and has more mass.

The Browning 9mm I shot in the military had better range and accuracy - but the bullet travels at a greater velocity then the .45. Several times I hit the man size targets and the round did not knock down the popup. THe .45 always knocked it down.

BTW I qualified expert everytime I fired a pistol in the military be it the 1911 or the Browning.

If I was ever going to own a hand gun for self protection - it would be the 1911. A great weapon, easy to care for, always reliable, and packs plenty of stopping power in its 7 shot magizine.

English assassin

11-14-2005, 15:42

"Since 1921, all lawfully-owned handguns in Great Britain are registered with the government, so handgun owners have little choice but to surrender their guns in exchange for payment according to government schedule...

IIRC they did not in fact get compensation. Whatever you feel about the ban that was wrong.

I'm struggling a bit with the concept of buying people guns as christmas presents but there you go.

I still don't see the problem with registration. The argument that it will be used to confiscate "legally owned" guns is wrong, since if they are being lawfully confiscated they aren't legally owned and if they are being unlawfully confiscated you will get them back. It seems to me someone who opposes registration is saying, in effect, if some of the guns I own become illegal in the future I want to carry on owning them illegally.

Being charitable this may all depend on the rather odd American attitude to thweir own government, but I'm not too sure someone thinking like that should be given any firearms licence.

Beirut

11-14-2005, 16:14

But when you shoot like I do 7 rounds ain't enough.

ichi:bow:

But Lord Ichi, where did those seven rounds go if not in the target?

:surrender: "Ichi! Stop! This is the bathroom - The range is over there!"

Crazed Rabbit

11-14-2005, 16:19

I still don't see the problem with registration. The argument that it will be used to confiscate "legally owned" guns is wrong, since if they are being lawfully confiscated they aren't legally owned and if they are being unlawfully confiscated you will get them back.

The problem with registeration is that it makes it easier for the gov't. to confiscate guns if they decide to ban a certain type of gun. Some states are eager to ban guns, even after they've promised they won't.

It seems to me someone who opposes registration is saying, in effect, if some of the guns I own become illegal in the future I want to carry on owning them illegally.

Darn right. Of course, if there's no register in the first place, it is much less likely guns will be banned.

Being charitable this may all depend on the rather odd American attitude to thweir own government, but I'm not too sure someone thinking like that should be given any firearms licence.

Yeah those pesky Americans and that pesky constitution, what with people wanting to be free and standing up for themselves.

Crazed Rabbit

English assassin

11-14-2005, 16:31

Yeah those pesky Americans and that pesky constitution, what with people wanting to be free and standing up for themselves.

It's just this strange definition of freedom you have. IMHO the rule of law is an essential part of free society, and people running around saying we would rather not register our guns because if we do a democratically mandated body following due legal process might try to take them away, just is not contributing to "freedom".

My two cents anyway.

Crazed Rabbit

11-14-2005, 18:09

It's just this strange definition of freedom you have. IMHO the rule of law is an essential part of free society, and people running around saying we would rather not register our guns because if we do a democratically mandated body following due legal process might try to take them away, just is not contributing to "freedom".

I think it a very strange definition of freedom that you have, if you let the government decide what freedom is.

A democracy, after all, can take away freedoms just like a dictatorship. FDR was following due process when he interned the Japanese, Lincoln was when he suspended habeas corpus, the south was when it took almost all rights from blacks. Was the civil rights movement 'not contributing to freedom' when they protested against that due process of law in the south?

Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.

Crazed Rabbit

English assassin

11-14-2005, 18:28

I think I would describe it as the people rather than the government deciding.

Some, at least, of the example you give are what is know as the "tyranny of the majority", and it is generally accepted, I think, that the mere fact that a view is a majority view does not necessarily make it right, even in a democracy.

Of course it doesn't make it wrong, either.

I do, though, struggle to equate what happened when my (Iranian) father in law was turned away from a whites only hospital in the South in the early sixties with a suggestion that if you choose to own a semi automatic rifle you might care to register it. I'm just not going to buy the idea that the civil rights movement raised the same issues as possession of military spec firearms, sorry.

scooter_the_shooter

11-14-2005, 19:10

Hey Ceaser you gone hunting yet this year

Yep And I am going deer hunting this week end.

Crazed Rabbit

11-14-2005, 21:27

I do, though, struggle to equate what happened when my (Iranian) father in law was turned away from a whites only hospital in the South in the early sixties with a suggestion that if you choose to own a semi automatic rifle you might care to register it. I'm just not going to buy the idea that the civil rights movement raised the same issues as possession of military spec firearms, sorry.

They did in that they both demonstrate how the democracy doesn't always do the best thing.

For reasons already discussed, registeration doesn't help with criminal cases, and the gun owner gets nothing out of registering his gun. He is forced to do something though he has harmed noone, in an action that will bring no benefit to society, and that could easily be used to take his freedoms.

In the end, why register? Are there any good reasons? And don't list any of that old 'if you've done nothing wrong...' line, which Stalin probably told the Soviets when he got to power.

Crazed Rabbit

English assassin

11-15-2005, 10:40

They did in that they both demonstrate how the democracy doesn't always do the best thing.

That's begging the question. My point is everyone would agree that turning someone away from a hospital because of his skin colour is wrong, and not something a democratic vote can legitimate. Asking someone to register his guns is a rather more marginal call. Its the difference between having a cancer and having a nosebleed.

On the other question, assuming that there are some controls on gun ownership (and IIRC correctly there are,) then registration enables you to check they are being complied with. If Bubba registers his AK47 and a check shows Bubba is a felon, you can go and visit Bubba. (Because Bubba has an AK 47 the taxpayer will sadly have to pay a lot more for the highly trained and equiped SWAT team that is needed for the visit, instead of the one cop who could otherwise have done it, but hey, if you want to pay higher taxes that's your right.)

Now you may say that gun shops or local police are supposed to do this, to which I will say that people are supposed to do lots of things that they don't. Or you may say well, Bubba will just get the same gun illegally, but I hope you won't, because the fact that criminals will commit crimes anyway isn't much of an argument against the existance of criminal law.

Crazed Rabbit

11-15-2005, 17:26

That's begging the question. My point is everyone would agree that turning someone away from a hospital because of his skin colour is wrong, and not something a democratic vote can legitimate. Asking someone to register his guns is a rather more marginal call. Its the difference between having a cancer and having a nosebleed.

On the other question, assuming that there are some controls on gun ownership (and IIRC correctly there are,) then registration enables you to check they are being complied with. If Bubba registers his AK47 and a check shows Bubba is a felon, you can go and visit Bubba. (Because Bubba has an AK 47 the taxpayer will sadly have to pay a lot more for the highly trained and equiped SWAT team that is needed for the visit, instead of the one cop who could otherwise have done it, but hey, if you want to pay higher taxes that's your right.)

Now you may say that gun shops or local police are supposed to do this, to which I will say that people are supposed to do lots of things that they don't. Or you may say well, Bubba will just get the same gun illegally, but I hope you won't, because the fact that criminals will commit crimes anyway isn't much of an argument against the existance of criminal law.

Firstly, 'assualt weapons' are used in less than 3% of all crimes, so this is mainly just a academic excercise.

We already have instant background checks on gun purchases. So he wouldn't be able to legally get an AK-47 in the first place. And when he got his gun (90%+ chance of him getting it illegally), why would he be so amazingly stupid as to register it? You're making the mind-boggling assumption that he'd obey the law.

You're right in saying that the fact that crimes will always happen shouldn't discourage us making laws against crimes. But the legal possession of an unregistered weapon doesn't hurt anybody, unlike a mugging or robbery. Registeration laws are aimed at illegalizing an activity that doesn't harm anybody in an alledged* attempt to make crime more difficult for criminals. But criminals don't follow the law, and its unenforceable since they police won't know they have weapons if they don't register! So all that happens is a perfectly harmless activity is deemed illegal, the law abiding are beset with more burdens and it has no effect on reducing crime.

*Alledged because usually its just the anti-gunners trying to make confiscation easier.

Crazed Rabbit

master of the puppets

11-15-2005, 17:42

Firstly, 'assualt weapons' are used in less than 3% of all crimes, so this is mainly just a academic excercise.

You're right in saying that the fact that crimes will always happen shouldn't discourage us making laws against crimes. But the legal possession of an unregistered weapon doesn't hurt anybody, unlike a mugging or robbery. Registeration laws are aimed at illegalizing an activity that doesn't harm anybody in an alledged* attempt to make crime more difficult for criminals. But criminals don't follow the law, and its unenforceable since they police won't know they have weapons if they don't register! So all that happens is a perfectly harmless activity is deemed illegal, the law abiding are beset with more burdens and it has no effect on reducing crime.

*Alledged because usually its just the anti-gunners trying to make confiscation easier.

Crazed Rabbit

your right on most accounts but youre views are aimed almost copmpletely twards rifles and larger scale weapons (i think) while they are to conspicuos to use in a crime. but there are always those idiots who have no right yet still carry the concealable pistol. regulations on rifles can be limited as they are at less risk of being used in vicios assault but let thiose handguns be monitered at all times lest they fall into the wrong hands fore unfortunatly many will.

Wardo

11-15-2005, 19:19

@English assassin,

It seems you cannot think outside your own perspective? It seems you are a little stuck on yourself there. :bow:

Sadly, registering stuff can be used as a first step to "illegalizing" something, it shouldn't right? It should be used only for good, rational, logic purposes, like you like to think it should, but that's not always the case and certainly not how politics can be driven.

This procedure was used to ban Airsoft guns around here, instead of fighting crime, fighting the causes of crime, and fighting the criminals, the State decided to fight Toy Guns because every now and then a petty thief manages to rob someone with a cheap water pistol, since nobody reads or searches the internet to learn how a real Firearm looks like, they fall on this trick, and it is much easier to tell you are "fighting crime" by banning something instead of actually moving one finger.

The ban on Airsoft Guns was completely collateral, the semantics used in the law prohibit highly expensive Airsoft guns which cost a fortune because they look like real guns but leaves out BB guns which are not "realistic enough" but are actually far more dangerous and much more usefull in an actual robbery.

For the record, petty thieves continue to rob people with crappy cheap toy guns from time to time.

I'd like to remember you the world is larger than your own neighborhood ~:grouphug: , what looks normal to you may not be acceptable somewhere else, for instance, I would never eat at an English restaurant, I think English cousine is pure crap, if you ask me I wouldn't serve it to my dog, if I had a dog that is. But to you it may be perfectly natural and logic to eat British food. ~D

So, erhm, remember there is more to it than natural logic and think about the collateral damage. ~:cool: ~;)

Goofball

11-16-2005, 00:15

@English assassin,

It seems you cannot think outside your own perspective? It seems you are a little stuck on yourself there. :bow:

Sadly, registering stuff can be used as a first step to "illegalizing" something, it shouldn't right? It should be used only for good, rational, logic purposes, like you like to think it should, but that's not always the case and certainly not how politics can be driven.

This procedure was used to ban Airsoft guns around here, instead of fighting crime, fighting the causes of crime, and fighting the criminals, the State decided to fight Toy Guns because every now and then a petty thief manages to rob someone with a cheap water pistol, since nobody reads or searches the internet to learn how a real Firearm looks like, they fall on this trick, and it is much easier to tell you are "fighting crime" by banning something instead of actually moving one finger.

The ban on Airsoft Guns was completely collateral, the semantics used in the law prohibit highly expensive Airsoft guns which cost a fortune because they look like real guns but leaves out BB guns which are not "realistic enough" but are actually far more dangerous and much more usefull in an actual robbery.

For the record, petty thieves continue to rob people with crappy cheap toy guns from time to time.

And for the record, idiots like this continue to make people like me more and more anxious to have very strict controls on who is allowed to buy a gun:

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1132008612023&call_pageid=968332188492&col=968793972154

scooter_the_shooter

11-16-2005, 00:22

It says you have to register....can you give a brief summary please?

Goofball

11-16-2005, 00:28

It says you have to register....can you give a brief summary please?

Sorry about that:

NEIGHBOURHOOD FEUD TURNS DEADLY
Nov. 15, 2005. 06:53 AM
HENRY STANCU
STAFF REPORTER

A man was shot to death and two of his brothers were also hit by bullets yesterday in what friends say was an ongoing feud between neighbourhood groups.

It was one of two separate shootings within 90 minutes in Toronto.

Police and paramedics arrived at the second shooting scene to find three brothers hit by bullets in the city's west end.

Two of the victims were sprawled in the laneway off Turnberry Ave., near Old Weston and Rogers Rds., at about 5:45 p.m.

"My brother is out there. Laying there. I can't believe this happened," said Paul Pereira, 31, after learning his brother Mario, 29, was dead.

The victim died instantly from a gunshot wound to the chest.

His brothers — Pedro, 22, who was shot in the stomach, and Louis, 17, who was hit in the leg — were both taken to hospital with serious but non life-threatening injuries.

One of the brothers staggered to a nearby home where a resident called 911.

"I heard about eight shots. One at first, then three and then some more," said Pereira, the oldest of five brothers and three sisters whose family lives in a home backing onto the laneway.

Friends gathered outside the home said there was a dispute in the same spot involving two large groups of area residents two evenings ago, but they dispersed when police arrived.

The victim, who lived with his mother, had a 2-year-old child.

About 90 minutes earlier, Carlene Blackwood heard gunfire and people shouting before a wounded man burst into her Driftwood Crt. townhouse, near Jane St. and Finch Ave. W. in North York.

"Save me! Save me! They gonna kill me," cried the victim, who was shot in the back after fleeing a hail of bullets.

Blackwood's 20-year-old daughter slammed the door shut just before a man started pounding on it, swearing and demanding to get at the 40-something victim.

"Let me kill him," Blackwood heard one man shout before he ran around to her unit's backdoor and began pounding on it.

Blackwood, a mother of four, called 911 to get help.

"I started screaming. I feel so nervous now that I want to move away. This happened just when the kids were coming home from school," she said.

Police cordoned off the cul-de-sac around the front the townhouse where as many as a dozen shell casings littered the road.

The victim was listed in serious condition with a bullet lodged near his spine. Police say he is expected to live.

scooter_the_shooter

11-16-2005, 00:32

People will kill each other no matter what. Ban guns and they will use them any way or use a bat or something.

In the USA guns are used by women with restraining orders often. In fact they make up a large percentage of the "incidents" with guns and ccw. Would you want to disarm them? Or the old man who carries a 38 snubby.

Many of you anti gunners say "I don't care I know karate" Or "I know how to use a katana" and my favorite "I am 6'7 280 pounds and all muscle"~:joker: well I'm sorry to say were not all Jackie Chan~:rolleyes:

I never saw you say that goof but I see it quite often when gun control comes up here and other places.

scooter_the_shooter

11-16-2005, 00:35

That mother of 4 should have had a gun....imagine if they got in there, They'd probably cap her and her kids too for helping the poor guy.

If some one is willing to do that why wouldn't they be willing to get a gun of the black market?

Goofball

11-16-2005, 00:36

People will kill each other no matter what. Ban guns and they will use them any way or use a bat or something.

I didn't say anything about banning guns. I was talking about having very tough restrictions on who can buy guns.

Alexander the Pretty Good

11-16-2005, 00:38

So Goof - who should be allowed to purchase guns?

scooter_the_shooter

11-16-2005, 00:40

Me I have no problem with that IE

No one with out citizen ship

No one with a (violent) felony

But if you start with the only some types of guns, only so many guns, no hi cap mags, registration, You become my enemy:duel:

Up date the AHSA has not givven me an email back, Its only been 3 days though. Lets give them soem more time.

Goofball

11-16-2005, 00:53

So Goof - who should be allowed to purchase guns?

It's more who shouldn't be allowed to purchase guns. Here are a few of my suggestions:

1) Anybody who has not taken some sort of a gun safety course.
2) Anybody who has a criminal record.
3) Anybody who is a documented alcoholic or other substance abuser.
4) Anybody who has had any history of mental illness.
5) Anybody who does not either own a gun vault/safe, or is willing to leave his/her guns in a vault at his/her gun club.
6) Anybody who can't wait a reasonable "cooling off" period, say, 7 days or so, before buying their first gun.

I think that list would be a good start.

I am also in favor of strict gun registry and licensing. Mainly as a tool to be used against people who own "illegal" or "black market" guns. My plan? Simple: Anybody who is caught with an unregistered firearm in their posession goes to jail for twenty years. No chance of early release. No questions asked. Anybody caught selling guns illegally? Life in prison with no chance of parole. Ever.

Don't you think that might get a lot of dirtbags off the street? If just owning an illegal gun was enough to get you sent away for a long, long time?

But if you're a law-abiding citizen who's willing to register your guns? No problem. Buy and own as many as you want. Fully auto? Semi-auto? Handguns? Shotguns? No problem. Fill your boots.

Just keep them in your safe. And don't you dare try selling them illegally to try to make a few extra bucks...

Kralizec

11-16-2005, 01:05

Crazed Rabbit: could you explain why registering guns does nothing (0.0) to help solve crimes? If I were to think of a simple example, what if the police finds a corpse and forensics determine the victim was killed with a 0.45, it could help if the police were to know wich of her friends/collegues/other people who knew her owned a 0.45 pistol.

The problem with registeration is that it makes it easier for the gov't. to confiscate guns if they decide to ban a certain type of gun. Some states are eager to ban guns, even after they've promised they won't.

Well, that would be a problem of governments being able to pass stupid laws, and their ability to lie and get away with it. I assure you it's not limited to the US.
However, I do believe that I have to behave in accordance with the law even if I think a particular law is stupid- that's part of the foundation of a working law state. There are democratic ways to change such things. Is it wrong of a government to promise not to ban certain guns, and do it anyway? Yes, of course. Does that make it right for people to keep these certain guns illegally? In my opinion, no.

scooter_the_shooter

11-16-2005, 01:20

It's more who shouldn't be allowed to purchase guns. Here are a few of my suggestions:

[QUOTE]1) Anybody who has not taken some sort of a gun safety course.

I don't need a darn saftey course, I learned from my dad when I was 5 and he learned from his.....and *gasp* I never shot any one. Gun saftey is not rocket science.

When ever you get one check the action.

If you aren't shooting dont have it loaded.

Don't point it at any one; or any thing you are not willing to destroy.

Do you really need to pay to go to a saftey course for that?

2) Anybody who has a criminal record.

Depends on the crime~;)

3) Anybody who is a documented alcoholic or other substance abuser.

What if they clean up their act? Which I recently found out happens more then I thought~:cheers:

4) Anybody who has had any history of mental illness

I don't like this, some studies say that over 50% of americans are metally ill...which is obviously BS, but this could be used by the gun grabbers to stop a normal guy from buying a gun.(most of these "illnesses" are people using defense mechansisms or just stressed out~:rolleyes: obviously they get over it quick and are not going to kill any one)

5) Anybody who does not either own a gun vault/safe, or is willing to leave his/her guns in a vault at his/her gun club.

Bad Idea how will you enforce it...have the gestapo uhh I mean peace officer raid my house once a week. And what if I can't afford a safe? (there is a difference between a sheet metal gun cabinet, and a safe/vault

6) Anybody who can't wait a reasonable "cooling off" period, say, 7 days or so, before buying their first gun.

Thats ridiculous. There is a law in some states like this...the brady campaign thought of it. If it was in my state all it would do is make me REAL angry....do you want a bunch of angry gun owners~D (do you mean all guns or first gun)

And what about full autos?

Crazed Rabbit

11-16-2005, 01:21

your right on most accounts but youre views are aimed almost copmpletely twards rifles and larger scale weapons (i think) while they are to conspicuos to use in a crime. but there are always those idiots who have no right yet still carry the concealable pistol. regulations on rifles can be limited as they are at less risk of being used in vicios assault but let thiose handguns be monitered at all times lest they fall into the wrong hands fore unfortunatly many will.

Yes, pistols are used more often, but the total uselessness of registration still applies.

It's more who shouldn't be allowed to purchase guns. Here are a few of my suggestions:

1) Anybody who has not taken some sort of a gun safety course.
2) Anybody who has a criminal record.
3) Anybody who is a documented alcoholic or other substance abuser.
4) Anybody who has had any history of mental illness.
5) Anybody who does not either own a gun vault/safe, or is willing to leave his/her guns in a vault at his/her gun club.
6) Anybody who can't wait a reasonable "cooling off" period, say, 7 days or so, before buying their first gun.

I think that list would be a good start.

I am also in favor of strict gun registry and licensing. Mainly as a tool to be used against people who own "illegal" or "black market" guns. My plan? Simple: Anybody who is caught with an unregistered firearm in their posession goes to jail for twenty years. No chance of early release. No questions asked. Anybody caught selling guns illegally? Life in prison with no chance of parole. Ever.

Don't you think that might get a lot of dirtbags off the street? If just owning an illegal gun was enough to get you sent away for a long, long time?

But if you're a law-abiding citizen who's willing to register your guns? No problem. Buy and own as many as you want. Fully auto? Semi-auto? Handguns? Shotguns? No problem. Fill your boots.

Just keep them in your safe. And don't you dare try selling them illegally to try to make a few extra bucks...

I'll agree with you on 2, providing it's violent or serious crime (writing a bad check can get you barred from owning guns), 3, and 4, providing the mental illness is a severe one, and not just facial tics.

I also agree on the strict prohibitions on knowingly selling guns to people who can't get them legaly, and the long sentences for owning guns illegally. However, I also believe that we don't need registration laws to achieve that. If a person owns a gun illegally, which can easily be determined be finding out if they could buy one legally.

This would have the same effect on throwing criminals with guns in jail for long times, without the bad side affect of throwing away non violent people who hadn't harmed anyone. See my earlier posts for more arguments against registration.

On your recommendations for requirements for buying a gun, I'd have to disagree with the one about taking a safety course for simply buying a gun. I would support the gun store giving a short lecture on proper gun handling, along with a booklet with the gun on proper safety practices.

The requirement for a safe is also one I'm against. Having to store your guns in a safe makes it very hard to use them in self defense, and can be a very expensive way to get one handgun.

Finally, I'm against 'cooling off' periods because it doesn't stop criminals from getting guns (since they wouldn't get them from a store) and makes it hard for a person to get a gun if they need a weapon for defense from an immediate threat (rioting or stalker, for example).

Crazed Rabbit

scooter_the_shooter

11-16-2005, 01:24

scooter_the_shooter

11-16-2005, 01:28

Yes, pistols are used more often, but the total uselessness of registration still applies.

On your recommendations for requirements for buying a gun, I'd have to disagree with the one about taking a safety course for simply buying a gun. I would support the gun store giving a short lecture on proper gun handling, along with a booklet with the gun on proper safety practices.

Crazed Rabbit

Its all in the manual for the gun. I remember on my taurus on EVERY page in the manual in big red letters it had. "Keep it pointed in a safe direction" or something like that.

All manuals have the 4 rules in them.

Kralizec

11-16-2005, 01:33

Well suppose if they find the empty cartridge or the bullet itself, then what? (I imagine it's insanely hard to determin a wound is caused by a .45, if you don't have either of them)

You've indirectly strenghtened my point: because there is such a variety on guns and ammo, it's actually easier to narrow the suspects down.

scooter_the_shooter

11-16-2005, 01:40

Beirut

11-16-2005, 01:46

No use at all for that. a plain old 45 slug doesnt say much.

there is

45acp
45 gap
45 long colt
etc

Add that with hollow points, plain old lead, full metal jackets, tracers, steel cores, and all the different grain weights and Just knowing its a 45 doesn't help much.

Though I respect your knowledge on these matters, I do disagree here. Weight, bullet composition, and rifling marks can narrow it down quickly if the person has the right information.

Also, the gun safety rules are as follows:

1 - All guns are loaded. Always.

2 - Never point a gun at anything you are not willing to destroy.

3 - Keep your finger off the trigger until your sights are on the target.

4 - Never shoot at a shadow or a sound. Know your target and what is behind it.

There are more, but there are the Big Four.

ichi

11-16-2005, 01:46

But Lord Ichi, where did those seven rounds go if not in the target?

into my 'shootin car' (three more payments and its mine!)

http://www.terragalleria.com/images/us-sw/usnv9198.jpeg

scooter_the_shooter

11-16-2005, 01:50

Though I respect your knowledge on these matters, I do disagree here. Weight, bullet composition, and rifling marks can narrow it down quickly if the person has the right information.

Also, the gun safety rules are as follows:

1 - All guns are loaded. Always.

2 - Never point a gun at anything you are not willing to destroy.

3 - Keep your finger off the trigger until your sights are on the target.

4 - Never shoot at a shadow or a sound. Know your target and what is behind it.

There are more, but there are the Big Four.

Yeah I know those seem to be the official nra(what every one follows)rules...but they are just common sense IMO.

I don't know much about ballistics and all that (I don't reload yet) But how can you tell the difference between a gap and a acp in a wound? They can even be loaded to the same pressure.

Beirut

11-16-2005, 02:10

I don't know much about ballistics and all that (I don't reload yet) But how can you tell the difference between a gap and a acp in a wound? They can even be loaded to the same pressure.

Honestly, I'm not sure what a "gap" is? Do you mean armour piercing?

There wouldn't be much difference in the wound I'm guessing, other than a narrower channel perhaps for the armour piercing if the acp deformed or fragmented even a little. (Sorry, I've read a lot about guns and this sort of thing is often discussed.)

A .45 LC would certainly leave a different wound channel than a .45 acp round, as well as more fragments inside the wound since very little, if any, .45LC rounds are FMJ. Most would be JHP or SP, or some manner of hunting round. Also, the rifling pattern on a .45 acp and a .45LC are bound to be noticeably different, as well as their weights and composition.

bmolsson

11-16-2005, 02:15

People will kill each other no matter what. Ban guns and they will use them any way or use a bat or something.

Same thing with nukes.... ~;)

scooter_the_shooter

11-16-2005, 02:35

Honestly, I'm not sure what a "gap" is? Do you mean armour piercing?

There wouldn't be much difference in the wound I'm guessing, other than a narrower channel perhaps for the armour piercing if the acp deformed or fragmented even a little. (Sorry, I've read a lot about guns and this sort of thing is often discussed.)

A .45 LC would certainly leave a different wound channel than a .45 acp round, as well as more fragments inside the wound since very little, if any, .45LC rounds are FMJ. Most would be JHP or SP, or some manner of hunting round. Also, the rifling pattern on a .45 acp and a .45LC are bound to be noticeably different, as well as their weights and composition.

A gap is a 45 acp with a shorter casing basically.

Alexander the Pretty Good

11-16-2005, 03:32

Goof - I agree with points 1 through 6, at least generally, but am unsure of the registration.

The only problem with it is, and excuse the phrase and perhaps poor argument, "slippery slope." With all firearms registered (under penalty of long prison terms) it is just one step easier to ban some or all firearms and confiscate them. It won't happen tomorrow, and probably not in 25 years, but who knows in 75 years from now?

:bow:

Xiahou

11-16-2005, 03:46

Goof - I agree with points 1 through 6, at least generally, but am unsure of the registration.I'll only take points 2,3 & 4 personally and change 2 to a violent crime or a felony. 6 is flat out dumb and has been proven time and time again not to make any difference, whereas 1 is an undue burden. People can and do know how to handle guns and are able to keep them in their homes without taking formal, government approved courses.

Unless you've proven yourself irresponsible (2,3,4), you have to be assumed to be a competent and responsible person. The right to own a gun is a right in the US and you can't strip someone of it without reason.

Alexander the Pretty Good

11-16-2005, 03:56

How about keep #1 but allow it to be waived if your:

# Current or past military service.
# Current or past law enforcement service
# Participation in a rifle, pistol, air gun or shotgun competition (provide copy of results bulletin).
# Completion of a marksmanship clinic that included live fire training (provide a copy of the certificate of completion or a statement from the instructor).
# Distinguished, Instructor, or Coach status.
# Concealed Carry License.
# Firearms Owner Identification Cards that included live fire training.
# FFL or C&R license.
# Completion of a Hunter Safety Course that included live fire training.
# Certification from range or club official or law enforcement officer witnessing shooting activity.

I got this from here (http://www.odcmp.com/Services/Rifles/eligibility_requirements.htm). These are the marksman participation requirements required to purchase an M1 from this government-related program, Civilian Marksmanship Program.

2 could be softened to violent felonies, I guess.

Xiahou

11-16-2005, 04:07

Nah, it's still an infringement of a right without good reason- it makes the assumption that the average citizen who buys a gun will be irresponsible with it without training(and that 1 who takes some 1hr class will be responsible). Again, I dont think you should strip someone of a right unless they've shown themselves not to be competent. (liken it to making someone pass a written test before being able to vote.)

Besides, there are many ways for a person to learn how to use a gun- they could be life long hunters, or have been trained on gun use from childhood by relatives, ect.

English assassin

11-16-2005, 12:33

@English assassin,

It seems you cannot think outside your own perspective? It seems you are a little stuck on yourself there.
I'd like to remember you the world is larger than your own neighborhood what looks normal to you may not be acceptable somewhere else, for instance, I would never eat at an English restaurant, I think English cousine is pure crap, if you ask me I wouldn't serve it to my dog, if I had a dog that is.

I think THAT was a little uncalled for. As it happens I was a pretty good rifle shot at school, where I was lucky enough not only to fool around with Lee Enfields on a regular basis but a lot of other toys up to an including the then current british army GPMG.

And I am a current (though admittedly only recently joined) member of a rifle club.

So I would suggest that maybe it is YOU who needs to consider than not everyone who thinks that registration is a good idea, or that no one really needs to own a semi automatic weapon, is anti-guns.

Ja'chyra

11-16-2005, 13:08

I think THAT was a little uncalled for. As it happens I was a pretty good rifle shot at school, where I was lucky enough not only to fool around with Lee Enfields on a regular basis but a lot of other toys up to an including the then current british army GPMG.

The "then current" still is current bud, 60 years old and still going strong.

English assassin

11-16-2005, 14:34

Ja'chyra

11-16-2005, 14:54

Is that right? They were muttering about going over to the LSW at the time.

I guess someone worked out that since all the new rifles were going to jam it might be a good idea to stick with a machine gun that actually worked...

LSW is a squad support weapon along with the LMG but the GPMG is still used in the heavier role.

The A2 LSW and IW are vastly improved over the A1 versions and almost everyone is happy with them, teh SF might even use them if they were painted black ~;)

Ironside

11-16-2005, 14:54

Wardo

11-16-2005, 20:56

I think THAT was a little uncalled for.

NO! YOU WILL NOT MAKE ME EAT ENGLISH FOOD! NOO! NOOOOO! PLEASE! PLEASE HAVE MERCY! NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! :surrender:

So I would suggest that maybe it is YOU who needs to consider than not everyone who thinks that registration is a good idea, or that no one really needs to own a semi automatic weapon, is anti-guns.

I mentioned the registration of Airsoft guns and how they suffered a collateral ban because of it, I never said any of the rest.

Are you so used to people vehemently disagreeing with you when they talk to you that you automatically assume and deduce who they are and what they think and that they must be against you? Well, don't do that anymore because this time you missed terribly. ~D :rifle:

My point was about how registering anything (<-) is not necessarily a good thing, should dogs be registered? Some people think it's logical, good and necessary to exterminate some races of dogs from Germany, should we also ban these races over here, or anywhere else for that matter? Registering would be a first step, since professional breeders are registered, you know exactly where to go to exterminate the race, if you register the owners, you know exactly where to collect each dog or demand the owner to hand it over to a gas chamber, if both breeders and owners of some specific races were unregistered it would be IMPOSSIBLE to exterminate a race.

So the thing is, can't registration campaigns for anything (<-) have other motivations behind them other than only good, nice, logical, goals? I was merely asking you to consider the USA has tons of NGO's and some wolves in a lamb's skin, and that perhaps there is a good reason or more than one to keep things as they are, even if that thinking is imcompatible with British society or illogical to an English assassin. ~:)

Xiahou

11-17-2005, 05:46

Point taken? ~;pCars arent a right. Certainly driving them on public roads isnt a right either. Point taken?

Ironside

11-17-2005, 17:58

Cars arent a right. Certainly driving them on public roads isnt a right either. Point taken?

Ah, the constitution argument.
I'm sure that the funding fathers were wanting to have the population be able to handle thier guns properly when the rebellion vs the goverment comes. ~;)
(And if you disagree that the second ammendment has annything to do with militias, care to explain why it's so wierd compared to the rest of ammendments in that case).

Anyway, do you think it would be sensible to have every law-obeying with a gun to have atleast basic training with it?

BTW about cars and guns. What is more important today? What would most likely be written into a constitution today?

Xiahou

11-17-2005, 19:56

Anyway, do you think it would be sensible to have every law-obeying with a gun to have atleast basic training with it?
Sure, the responsible thing for a gun owner to do would be to learn to be proficient with it- but, we don't live in a nanny state and it isn't the responsibility of our government to mandate that everyone "understands" their rights before being allowed to exercise them.

BTW about cars and guns. What is more important today? What would most likely be written into a constitution today?I dont think the right to drive a car would be written into the Constitution anymore than the right to drive a horse and buggy was when it was created. The right to own firearms was written in explicitly, which shows how important a right it was viewed as- right up there with freedom of speech, ect. The notion that people want to wipe away such an important part of our Constitution is unsettling to me.

drone

11-17-2005, 20:59

Goofball

11-17-2005, 23:36

Nah, it's still an infringement of a right without good reason- it makes the assumption that the average citizen who buys a gun will be irresponsible with it without training(and that 1 who takes some 1hr class will be responsible).

No, it doesn't make that assumption.

What it assumes (correctly) is that people (even Republicans~;) ) do not come straight out of the womb knowing the proper safe handling techniques for firearms.

A gun used improperly is equally as deadly as a car used improperly, and we require people to pass at least a basic operator test before giving them a drivers license.

What I am seeing here is what appears to be a systemic "slippery slope fear" syndrome in the U.S.

Just as pro-choice advocates balk at any small hint of limiting a woman's freedom to abortion (i.e. late-term bans) because they think it will lead to further limitations, gun advocates balk at even the suggestion of a limitation to any person's "right" to buy any gun, anywhere, any time, no questions asked.

Do you honestly think that it is really a silly idea to require somebody to demonstrate at least a rudimentary amount of safe handling knowledge before selling them an item that could kill an entire third grade class in less than one minute?

I think a little dash of common sense is called for here...

Xiahou

11-18-2005, 00:01

A gun used improperly is equally as deadly as a car used improperly, and we require people to pass at least a basic operator test before giving them a drivers license.I adressed this already- driving isnt a right.

We arent tested before being able to exercise free speech, nor do you have to take a class before being secure in your possessions ect. You don't come out of the womb being able to make an informed vote- yet people can vote without taking a class on it or demonstrating their knowledge to the government.

Goofball

11-18-2005, 00:19

I adressed this already- driving isnt a right.

Nor is the constitution a suicide pact.

Just because something is a right doesn't mean common sense shouldn't be applied.

It simply boggles my mind that you don't think people should be required to know how to operate a deadly device properly before owning it.

We arent tested before being able to exercise free speech

Free speech doesn't go off accidentally while you are cleaning it and punch a large hole in the back of your three year-old's head.

nor do you have to take a class before being secure in your possessions

Similarly, knowing the government can't arbitrarily search your house without probable cause does not cause accidents that involve sucking chest wounds.

You don't come out of the womb being able to make an informed vote- yet people can vote without taking a class on it or demonstrating their knowledge to the government.

I was about to say that making an uninformed vote doesn't kill people, but based on the results of your last election that would clearly be an incorrect statement.

Xiahou

11-18-2005, 01:37

Similarly, knowing the government can't arbitrarily search your house without probable cause does not cause accidents that involve sucking chest wounds.Maybe that right should only be applied after you house and place of business have been inspected annually by federal agents to make sure you don't have something dangerous that could hurt yourself or others with. Common sense, no? My god, they could even have guns! ~:eek:

I was about to say that making an uninformed vote doesn't kill people, but based on the results of your last election that would clearly be an incorrect statement.Good, so you agree with me then or are you saying the people should be required to take classes to vote?

Goofball

11-18-2005, 01:53

Maybe that right should only be applied after you house and place of business have been inspected annually by federal agents to make sure you don't have something dangerous that could hurt yourself or others with. Common sense, no? My god, they could even have guns! ~:eek:

sssssstttttttrrrrrrreeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeetttttttttttccccccccccchhhhhhhhhhhh...

Good, so you agree with me then or are you saying the people should be required to take classes to vote?

C'mon X, you know me better than that.

"Agree with you?"

~:joker:

But seriously.

Until they invent ballots that fire projectiles capable of penetrating the human body, no, I don't think you should have to take classes to vote.

Xiahou

11-18-2005, 02:09

It's also a stretch to say that droves of gun owners will accidentall kill themselves or others if they dont have government approved training.

Total accidental deaths in the US: 106,742
Death due to accidental firearm discharge: 762
link (http://www.nsc.org/lrs/statinfo/odds.htm)

Again, you're going to need something more compelling before making a case for depriving people of their Constitutional rights. By your logic, more people have died from voting Bush into office- maybe you should rethink the voting classes. ~;p

bmolsson

11-18-2005, 06:19

So actually an American citizen have a constitutional right to own a nuke ?

Ironside

11-18-2005, 12:29

Remember, the 2nd Amendment doesn't explicitly say "firearms", it says "arms". This allows the definition to change, as technology advances. Automobiles, or horse/buggy team, aren't in the Constitution because they don't have the same effect on the relationship between the people and the government. If the founding Fathers added an armed populace clause, they did it for a good reason. It adds a check to the government's power, which is really what the whole document is about.

As it's obvious that the state can use the access to cars and roads into a reward system, it's obvious to a constitution written today that cars and roads needs to be protected for the freedom of it's citizens. ~;)

So actually an American citizen have a constitutional right to own a nuke ?
Yes. Atleast according to some. It also approves you driving aroud in a tank inside a city, unless you damage things, that is ~;p . Well actually not even then, but you'll get punished for the property damage.

Xiahou, got any simular stats on serious injury?

I do find it "funny" that people are letting other people die and let the sanity be trown out of the window, because of a piece of paper written 230 years ago.

But to be fair Xiahou, would you accept an add on the constitution about this, if voted through?

And BTW, most of the other rights have certain restrictions on them anyway.

solypsist

11-18-2005, 16:56

in other news:

Capitol Hill sources have told GOA there is a provision in this bill (amending Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act) which would allow the FBI to get a secret court order to seize ANY business records it believes would be relevant to an anti-terrorism investigation... without having to make the case that the gun records they're confiscating have any connection to a suspected terrorist.

Hence, in the name of fighting terrorism, the FBI will be given a license for unbridled fishing expeditions.

Gun sales are business transactions, and FFL holders must retain copies of the 4473 forms (yellow sheets) filled out on every gun sale. Thus, an anti-gun administration could easily determine that such records would be useful in the fight against terrorism, and demand them all.

But that's not all. More than just your gun purchase records are at stake. Financial and medical records, library records and much more will now be open to FBI fishing expeditions. They won't have to get any prior court approval.

It gets worse. If the gun dealer, where you purchased firearms, is required to hand over your gun purchase records, he is BARRED from telling you about it under the PATRIOT Act.

http://www.gunowners.org/a111705.htm

drone

11-18-2005, 17:19

As it's obvious that the state can use the access to cars and roads into a reward system, it's obvious to a constitution written today that cars and roads needs to be protected for the freedom of it's citizens. ~;)
The federal government has very little to say about the rights of citizens to drive cars, this is up to the local/state governments. Cars supposedly (and I know this is debatable) help the economy so it is in the government's interest to allow access, regulated as it may be.

If I'm reading that link Xiahou put in correctly, firearms (suicides 17108, assualt 11829, accidental 762, other 243) are not nearly as deadly as transport accidents. In a magical would without firearms, many of those suicides would still occur by other means, so I'm not sure we would save many lives there. Looks to me like we need to ban driving first. ~;) As someone who as been through both a State of Georgia driver's exam and an NRA-sponsored gun safety course, I'm of the opinion that the NRA definitely does a more copmprehensible job.

Goofball

11-18-2005, 18:00

The federal government has very little to say about the rights of citizens to drive cars, this is up to the local/state governments. Cars supposedly (and I know this is debatable) help the economy so it is in the government's interest to allow access, regulated as it may be.

If I'm reading that link Xiahou put in correctly, firearms (suicides 17108, assualt 11829, accidental 762, other 243) are not nearly as deadly as transport accidents. In a magical would without firearms, many of those suicides would still occur by other means, so I'm not sure we would save many lives there. Looks to me like we need to ban driving first. ~;) As someone who as been through both a State of Georgia driver's exam and an NRA-sponsored gun safety course, I'm of the opinion that the NRA definitely does a more copmprehensible job.

I'm glad you took the safety course. You would be a gun owner whom I would feel safe sharing the same room with while you were armed. Did you find that taking the course was avaluable experience for you, and would you recommend it to other gun owners?

drone

11-18-2005, 18:40

I'm glad you took the safety course. You would be a gun owner whom I would feel safe sharing the same room with while you were armed. Did you find that taking the course was avaluable experience for you, and would you recommend it to other gun owners?
I definitely think gun owners should take the course (even if not mandated). Most of it is just common sense, but there are a lot of people out there that lack that. I got a lot out of it since I wasn't around handguns growing up (parents didn't like them), although I had shot rifles and shotguns before. Virginia has made concealed carry legal, but you need a permit and I think you have to do another safety course centered around carrying the firearm on a regular basis. I don't have this permit, but I would like to take the class at some point, seems like it would have a lot of practical pointers on how not to blow your foot off. Most people I know who have the permit have it mainly so they don't have to worry about transporting their weapons in cars to and from ranges. The "handgun in car" rules are arcane at best.

Ironside

11-18-2005, 19:45

If I'm reading that link Xiahou put in correctly, firearms (suicides 17108, assualt 11829, accidental 762, other 243) are not nearly as deadly as transport accidents. In a magical would without firearms, many of those suicides would still occur by other means, so I'm not sure we would save many lives there. Looks to me like we need to ban driving first. ~;) As someone who as been through both a State of Georgia driver's exam and an NRA-sponsored gun safety course, I'm of the opinion that the NRA definitely does a more copmprehensible job.

Wrong thread ~;p

You see, in a attemt to reduce the accidents with cars, we're having drivers licences, because we have come to the conclution that if you want to own a car, then you'll need to handle it properly, to reduce the amounts of accidents.

By some odd reason does some people think that applying this to guns is proposterous. ~;p

I got no problem that NRA holds the corse instead of the state (probably quite the opposite, if the NRA holds better corses), the issue is those with guns that have no idea to handle them.

drone

11-18-2005, 22:15

Wrong thread ~;p

You see, in a attemt to reduce the accidents with cars, we're having drivers licences, because we have come to the conclution that if you want to own a car, then you'll need to handle it properly, to reduce the amounts of accidents.

By some odd reason does some people think that applying this to guns is proposterous. ~;p

I got no problem that NRA holds the corse instead of the state (probably quite the opposite, if the NRA holds better corses), the issue is those with guns that have no idea to handle them.
Using Xiahou's stats link, around 1K people (lump the accidental and "other" categories together) were killed through accidental use of firearms in the US in 2002, compared to 48K through vehicular accidents. Homicides and suicides don't count here, as they are the "proper" use and safety training would have no effect. Not trying to sound crass, but 1K is a drop in the bucket (1.5K die from falling down stairs? WTF???). To me, cars seem like a much greater danger than firearms, and training (such as it is) is already mandatory for cars. Doesn't seem like firearms safety courses would make much of a difference, although I still think people should take them.

The accidental deaths caused by firearms are not really the issue. The issue is the balance of personal protection and freedoms vs the criminal use of firearms. If existing laws were enforced properly, this would go a long way to reducing the crime. The threat of a legally armed populace as a hedge against government abuse, that's something worth keeping.