NationStates Jolt Archive

A semi auto .308 civvie rifle in the proper hands is more deadly and armor piercing than an M-16. For that matter, a K98 Mauser is damned nasty.

I own two of them. Just watch Shindler's List or Enemy at the Gates for an example of their capabilities.

With a similar example, it's why Kalishnikov was upset about the change from the 7.62 to the 5.45 round. Loss of firepower.

ok, everyone can have military issue guns and ammo, however they are no longer allowed to use any civilian issue ammo: hollowpoints, slugs, etc
I'll have to buy my K98 and M1A then.

i still say we destroy all guns and give people melee weapons or nonlethal protection, that will be teh uber fun, oh yeah and an honor system, honor systems pwn.

I'll have to buy my K98 and M1A then.

Two very nice weapons. If you sporterize them, however, you'll have to be thwacked.

Oh yes, let us abolish firearms entirely! Just like Germany in 1938 with their "perfect gun control" stance! Oh wait... Yeah, that didn't turn out so well now did it.

Surely the point- until 1938, Germany DIDN'T have gun controls, and when did the Nazi Government come into power? 1933.


It started cracking down on freedom of political expression within weeks of coming to power, and Germany still lacked gun control when they bought in the Enabling Act, the equivalant of the Patriot Act.

I've seen lots of points of view in this thread, and, frankly, it's your country, do what you will with it, I was just explaining how I saw the constitution. In my country, I would campaign vigorously for gun controls if we didn't already have them. We put them in after numerous massacres, notably Dunblane, which happened near me and where a handgun owner murdered a whole bunch of primary school kids in their gym.

Sure, violent crime and gun crime is still around, but I feel safer in my home knowing it's illegal, and I also have the benefit of living in a society where owning a weapon designed to kill others is viewed as wrong, in law and common feeling.

Also, Britain has never had a massive gun culture such as the US, yet we've survived pretty well against tyrannical governments without much armed resistance, mainly due to a respect for the rule of law, a well-functioning democracy with consultation and scrutinisation of all laws etc etc.

I also note this- the American People (or some, at least) claim it as their right to own weapons to overthrow tyrannical governance. Well, come on then. You have a government which is destroying your historical legal rights to due process of law, which is destroying your right to free speech, which is strengthing it's secret services and acting against it's own citizens, supressing their free speech and pushing a whole nation into a climate of fear which is looking even worse than the days of the McCarthy witchhunts. There's no point having this right unless you're actually going to use it. The German people didn't, and look what happened there.

I can't really imagine a similar administration ever coming into power over here, but if they did, I'm pretty sure a resistance would be able to arm itself.

The only thing that doesn't fit with the tyrannical government theory your putting out is that the government is liberalizing gun ownership rather than restricting it.

They might be doing the Patriot Act, and other restrictions of rights, but concealed carry is the law of the land in 33 states now, gun ownership is way up, gun and ammunition sales are skyrocketing, and the assault weapons ban has expired.

The same man who gave you the Patriot Act (Ashcroft) was a strong believer in the 2nd Amendment - as meaning individual gun ownership.

I think that if the government had taken the guns away first - and then started in with the Patriot Act - people would have been more nervous.

The only thing that doesn't fit with the tyrannical government theory your putting out is that the government is liberalizing gun ownership rather than restricting it.

They might be doing the Patriot Act, and other restrictions of rights, but concealed carry is the law of the land in 33 states now, gun ownership is way up, gun and ammunition sales are skyrocketing, and the assault weapons ban has expired.

The same man who gave you the Patriot Act (Ashcroft) was a strong believer in the 2nd Amendment - as meaning individual gun ownership.

I think that if the government had taken the guns away first - and then started in with the Patriot Act - people would have been more nervous.

True, but one swallow doesn't make a summer. Also, it could be a case of divide and rule. I would imagine the American people are more worried about crime than they are about the tyranny of the administration.

More likely, however, is that they just want to get re-elected, and being pro-gun is gonna get you more votes.

More likely, however, is that they just want to get re-elected, and being pro-gun is gonna get you more votes.

The problem is that Republican are extremely consistent about being pro-gun. There are a fair number of Democrats who vacillate back and forth, and still more who vote anti-gun, but dress in duck hunting suits and kill ducks during campaigns.

People vote for whoever is obviously more consistent about their favorite issue.

The problem is that Republican are extremely consistent about being pro-gun. There are a fair number of Democrats who vacillate back and forth, and still more who vote anti-gun, but dress in duck hunting suits and kill ducks during campaigns.

People vote for whoever is obviously more consistent about their favorite issue.

I dunno, I think it's because there's more people who support the right to bear arms. I don't see any inconsistency between being for gun-control AND going out shooting ducks. I'm very for gun-control in my country, but I have no problem with people who hunt with guns. To own a gun for hunting you need a gun licence, which prevents guns getting into the wrong hands. After all, the term is 'gun control', not a gun-ban.

Also, I didn't mean to say that the Republicans were being opportunistic about gun control, it's obviously a sincerely held belief.

I dunno, I think it's because there's more people who support the right to bear arms. I don't see any inconsistency between being for gun-control AND going out shooting ducks. I'm very for gun-control in my country, but I have no problem with people who hunt with guns. To own a gun for hunting you need a gun licence, which prevents guns getting into the wrong hands. After all, the term is 'gun control', not a gun-ban.

Also, I didn't mean to say that the Republicans were being opportunistic about gun control, it's obviously a sincerely held belief.

No, the duck shooter was Kerry. He was consistently Anti-Gun in his voting. Solid. He thought he was being perceived as "anti-gun", so he thought up the duck killing expedition.

Didn't work, as you might expect.

No, the duck shooter was Kerry. He was consistently Anti-Gun in his voting. Solid. He thought he was being perceived as "anti-gun", so he thought up the duck killing expedition.

Didn't work, as you might expect.

I know. I said there's no inconsistency in being pro-gun-control and yet going shooting. Kerry wanted/wants guns to be controlled, not outlawed. Owning a registered gun for the purposes of recreational duck shooting is still gun-control. Although you're right, I think he did it for cynical reasons.

I can't really imagine a similar administration ever coming into power over here, but if they did, I'm pretty sure a resistance would be able to arm itself.
Does anyone besides me find this guy's stance hilarious? The UK has waaayyy more social controls on it's citizens then the US.

I know. I said there's no inconsistency in being pro-gun-control and yet going shooting. Kerry wanted/wants guns to be controlled, not outlawed. Owning a registered gun for the purposes of recreational duck shooting is still gun-control. Although you're right, I think he did it for cynical reasons.

It's the avowed position of all gun control political organizations in the US (Handgun Control, etc) that gun registration is merely a first step - towards total confiscation.

It's not paranoia, it's their stated positions. Kerry has even come out in support of crazy ideas like the 10,000% tax on ammunition (which never made it to the floor).

That sounds like total confiscation, except for the rich.

I would imagine the American people are more worried about crime than they are about the tyranny of the administration.
I think you have just put your finger on the reason the US is in decline. More Americans ARE interested in security than in liberty. Hell, more can name the last winner of Survivor than can name their elected representatives.

It's the avowed position of all gun control political organizations in the US (Handgun Control, etc) that gun registration is merely a first step - towards total confiscation.

It's not paranoia, it's their stated positions. Kerry has even come out in support of crazy ideas like the 10,000% tax on ammunition (which never made it to the floor).

That sounds like total confiscation, except for the rich.

You know... this is another example of the total, dividing, non-moderate extremism that is tearing this nation apart in general.

First off, it doesn't *matter* if that is the stated goal of all of the pro Gun Control US organizations... to register guns as a first step toward total confiscation. I'd like to see you cite your non-biased, non-partisan, well researched source on this, as well... but I'm not expecting it.

The fact is, by taking a MODERATE and reasonable first step like this, these organiztions put the pro-gun lobby at an immediate disadvantage. To the neutral parties in this nation, it looks like the anti-gun lobby is asking for something very reasonable, very logical. It is *easy* to argue for registration.

On the other hand, the pro-gun lobby looks like lunatics, conspiracy theorists, arguing back, "Hell no, if we do that, it is only their first step toward taking ALL our guns away".

Which is *exactly* what the anti-gun lobby WANTS you to do. They *want* you to look like paranoid gun-nuts who are certain that a super secret Nazi party is waiting to confiscate all your guns so they can take over the nation and raise the Fourth Reich on American soil.

And, honestly, the fact that the pro-gun lobby doesn't see this and develop a BETTER response is, well, it speaks poorly about the intellect of the pro-gun lobby.

A MUCH better response would be, "In cooperation with gun manufacturers and major gun advocacy organizations, in the name of responsible gun ownership in the US, we see the logic and reason behind collecting a database of registered gun sales and owners in the United States. To that end, and to avoid the opportunity for political abuse of such a list, we have started funding to create an organization which will work carefully with local and federal authorities, with careful oversight by non-partisan, third party watchdog groups, to begin safe, reasonable and secure gun registration in this nation, which will be administered primarilly by the gun lobby".

You do this, you turn it against them... THEN if they scream, "Hell no... YOU don't get to administer the registrations"...

You can turn it back around at them... WHY... Why are you so intent that YOU should get to pick? Why does it matter WHO maintains the registration database, as long as it is made accessible to legitimate law authority for criminal cases? What is YOUR real agenda if you have objections?

And then you make THEM look like the bad guys...

But nope... the gun lobby isn't smart enough to do THAT...

It is a can't lose scenario. If they back down, you register guns, but it is the pro-gun lobby that keeps track and gets to decide when it is appropriate to release information from that database. If they don't back down, then THEY look like gun-grabbing neo-nazis, instead of YOU looking like the paranoia-conspiracy theorist lunatics...

Although this may have come from a stand-up comedy joke, I find it most reasonable.

The idea was suggesting that we don't need more gun control because it's the bullets that kill/hurt people. If the price for manufactured bullets rises up to let's say $5,000 a bullet to civilians, this would restrict less gun violence from teenagers or newly risen gangs with little or no money. If somone were to come up to a store and purchase $5,000,000 worth of bullets (1000), then suspicsions would rise against this person asking "Would someone need 1000 rounds badly enough to pay $5 million for them?"

You know... this is another example of the total, dividing, non-moderate extremism that is tearing this nation apart in general.

First off, it doesn't *matter* if that is the stated goal of all of the pro Gun Control US organizations... to register guns as a first step toward total confiscation. I'd like to see you cite your non-biased, non-partisan, well researched source on this, as well... but I'm not expecting it.


And then you make THEM look like the bad guys...

But nope... the gun lobby isn't smart enough to do THAT...

It is a can't lose scenario. If they back down, you register guns, but it is the pro-gun lobby that keeps track and gets to decide when it is appropriate to release information from that database. If they don't back down, then THEY look like gun-grabbing neo-nazis, instead of YOU looking like the paranoia-conspiracy theorist lunatics...

From the results of the elections for the last ten years, it seems that it is the anti-gunners that are seen as the extremists by the general populace. From the sweeping of Congress after the Clinton Gun Ban was passed to the increase in pro-gun members this last election, it seems that groups like GCI need to reevaluate their tactics, not the pro-gun groups.

Quote: Sen Diane Fienstien (D-CA) "Mr. & Mrs. America, turn them ALL in"

Although this may have come from a stand-up comedy joke, I find it most reasonable.

The idea was suggesting that we don't need more gun control because it's the bullets that kill/hurt people. If the price for manufactured bullets rises up to let's say $5,000 a bullet to civilians, this would restrict less gun violence from teenagers or newly risen gangs with little or no money. If somone were to come up to a store and purchase $5,000,000 worth of bullets (1000), then suspicsions would rise against this person asking "Would someone need 1000 rounds badly enough to pay $5 million for them?"
Over my rotting corpse, you communist son of a bitch.

Well the 2nd Amendment does give you the right to bear arms, it doesn’t actually specify that those arms have to be of a particular type or technological advancement.

The full spirit if the 2nd amendment can be satisfied by making only black powder muzzle loaders legal without a special licence. The prohibition of full automatics and WMDs are a subjective line drawn by congress with the 2nd Amendment, I don't see why we can't draw that line back a hundred and eighty odd years.

That's no more true than if I were to say that the first amendment doesn't apply to radio, television, and -- yes -- the internet. It's a nonsensical argument with no basis in fact.

Although this may have come from a stand-up comedy joke, I find it most reasonable.

The idea was suggesting that we don't need more gun control because it's the bullets that kill/hurt people. If the price for manufactured bullets rises up to let's say $5,000 a bullet to civilians, this would restrict less gun violence from teenagers or newly risen gangs with little or no money. If somone were to come up to a store and purchase $5,000,000 worth of bullets (1000), then suspicsions would rise against this person asking "Would someone need 1000 rounds badly enough to pay $5 million for them?"

Or they could be imported from say Mexico or made in a machine shop, or reloaded. Once again a plan designed to disarm the law-abiding populace populace, support the criminals, and bankrupt the firearms industry.

I also note this- the American People (or some, at least) claim it as their right to own weapons to overthrow tyrannical governance. Well, come on then. You have a government which is destroying your historical legal rights to due process of law, which is destroying your right to free speech, which is strengthing it's secret services and acting against it's own citizens, supressing their free speech and pushing a whole nation into a climate of fear which is looking even worse than the days of the McCarthy witchhunts. There's no point having this right unless you're actually going to use it. The German people didn't, and look what happened there.

I can't really imagine a similar administration ever coming into power over here, but if they did, I'm pretty sure a resistance would be able to arm itself.

The problem is large numbers of people who are opposed to the current administration are also the ones who are very much pro gun control. I know people who won't even go into a Walmart because they sell guns there. These people are not going to have the skills, will or sense to otherthrow any tyranical government.

Fortunately for them, if we ever get a tyranical government here, I am willing and able. In fact, I'd be upholding the oath I took on joining the Army:

To defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

I'm not worried about losing my guns. I'm not worried about losing my freedom. Yet.

The problem is large numbers of people who are opposed to the current administration are also the ones who are very much pro gun control. I know people who won't even go into a Walmart because they sell guns there. These people are not going to have the skills, will or sense to otherthrow any tyranical government.

Fortunately for them, if we ever get a tyranical government here, I am willing and able. In fact, I'd be upholding the oath I took on joining the Army:

To defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

I'm not worried about losing my guns. I'm not worried about losing my freedom. Yet.

But the price of that freedom is eternal vigilance.

Most of the anti-gunners I've met are the ones that oppose the present admin., but trust in the gov't (including the police) to protect them. I always wonder what would happen when they take their placards and slogans up against a real tyrannical gov't.

I enlightened one anti-gunner once when I explained to her how long it would take for the police to make it to her house (best time and assuming she was able to call) and what could happen to her in that time. I took her out to learn to shoot the next weekend.

Hey look, even MORE proof that pro gun control people don't know what they're talking about

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ibd/20050112/bs_ibd_ibd/2005111issues

Crime: The most pre-eminent scientific group in America has produced a definitive analysis of our decades-long experience with gun control and shattered what has become an article of faith among proponents.

The 328-page report by the National Academy of Sciences (news - web sites) is based on 253 journal articles, 99 books, 43 government publications, a survey of 80 gun-control laws and some of its own independent study.

It could find no evidence to support the conclusion that government restrictions on firearms reduces gun crime, gun violence and gun accidents. (Article Continues)

Yes you should be able to bear arms, I mean there is nothing wrong with wearing sleevless t shirts!!
I'm soo funny!

Anyway, no it is proven that when people and even the police force bear arms that crime rates go up. I know you may feel safer but take up a martial art instead, it may not be much help if someone comes after you with a gun but at least you'll be fit enough to fun away

Yes you should be able to bear arms, I mean there is nothing wrong with wearing sleevless t shirts!!
I'm soo funny!

Anyway, no it is proven that when people and even the police force bear arms that crime rates go up. I know you may feel safer but take up a martial art instead, it may not be much help if someone comes after you with a gun but at least you'll be fit enough to fun away

Not so. In the US, every state that has "allowed" its citizens to conceal carry, violent crime has DROPPED. I don't know where you're getting your stats from, but in the US, it goes down where there are the least number of restrictions on gun ownership and use.

Yes you should be able to bear arms, I mean there is nothing wrong with wearing sleevless t shirts!!
I'm soo funny!

Anyway, no it is proven that when people and even the police force bear arms that crime rates go up. I know you may feel safer but take up a martial art instead, it may not be much help if someone comes after you with a gun but at least you'll be fit enough to fun away

Too many statistics say you're wrong. Violent crime drops in places where concealed carry becomes easy to obtain. It's also lower in places in the US where legal gun ownership is higher.

Violent crime in the US is highest in areas where gun ownership is severely restricted.

Also, most violent crime (93 percent) is committed without a firearm.

One more note. Just to see if people are as fast as they say they are, we have a berm at my shooting range. A big wall of dirt that you can walk behind in order to change targets (you can't be hit by a bullet there).

We tape a balloon to a yardstick, and the challenge is this. At the signal (a beep from the timer), the person behind the berm has to move the balloon (down, in any pattern they choose) in such a way as to prevent it being hit by the shooter.

The shooter has to draw, fire, and hit the balloon before it goes out of sight.

There are several people I've met who claimed to be quite good at martial arts who have tried this. I haven't missed the balloon yet (at 25 yards).

Yes you should be able to bear arms, I mean there is nothing wrong with wearing sleevless t shirts!!
I'm soo funny!

Anyway, no it is proven that when people and even the police force bear arms that crime rates go up. I know you may feel safer but take up a martial art instead, it may not be much help if someone comes after you with a gun but at least you'll be fit enough to fun away

I hope this means run away... must be French.
I was pretty depressed at the start of this thread, but it is good to see a few people are around who understand the Second Amendment.
One of the things I saw was that the Constitution gives rights to Citizens of the USA. Not so. It enumerates God given rights.
Oh, and Militia, in the context of the Bill of Rights, means any able bodied male between 16 and 50.
And finally, the Bill of Rights lists DEFENSES of the people from their own government.
'Nuff said. :sniper: