NationStates Jolt Archive

I know they must be out there.

I believe that citizens should be able to own a firearm for personal protection, for hunting, and to become part of a 'well-regulated militia'. What I DO NOT believe is that that entitles a person to an arsenal of military grade weapons (ie grenades, mines, SMGs, rocket launchers, etc.)

I like the phrase: "a" firearm. Out of interest, what do you think we are "entitled" to?

I bet he means muzzle loaders :P

It's a she. But yeah, probably.

:fluffle:

I used to live in America. Does that count?

(The asteroid America, not the country. :p)

~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe

I have friends in Finland who own machineguns as well as sound suppressors. Licenses required, yes, but they can own them.

The paperwork and such seems simpler than the Class III license procedure here in the US.

No, they don't walk up and down the street with them - but they do get to go to the shooting range and have fun.

Oh no, because we all walk around with AK-47s slung over our shoulder :rolleyes:

Oh no, because we all walk around with AK-47s slung over our shoulder :rolleyes:

No, but you do sell and own more machineguns and sound suppressors per capita than the United States.

The best sound suppressor technology in the world came from the demands of the civilian Finnish market. If you aren't using one of the latest reflex designs from Finland, you're using out of date technology.

I know they must be out there. I believe that citizens should be able to own a firearm for personal protection, for hunting, and to become part of a 'well-regulated militia'. What I DO NOT believe is that that entitles a person to an arsenal of military grade weapons (ie grenades, mines, SMGs, rocket launchers, etc.)
Err, with a very few extreme cases, no US gun-enthusiast believes they are entitled to area-effect/military explosive weapons systems. Those are not considered to be "individual weapons" in any sense of the term. (Despite protestations to the contrary, civillian-grade .50BMG rifles are not per-se military anti-equipment rifles. Shooting a car (armored or not) with a single, or even 2 or 3 .50 rounds won't catestrophically destroy it. That's what Full-Auto .50BMG machine guns are for. A 20+lb rifle that fires the .50BMG cartridge is a long-range target rifle - and virtually useless for anything else.)

Fully-automatic SMGs are heavily regulated, requiring a Class III registration, FBI check & tax stamp, and have been so since 1936. No Stamped Class III weapon has been used in a crime in the US. However, that long-standing bit of regulation has not kept gangs (why the law was written - Prohibition era Gangsters) from aquiring them anyway.

Anyway, if I am "allowed" ot own "a firearm for personal protection, for hunting, and to become part of a 'well-regulated militia'." That means I should own, in the ballance:

A high quality military caliber Handgun - for Personal defense and as part of Militia Kit.
A small (.17 -.27) caliber semi-automatic rifle for small game.
A medium (.30 -.40) caliber rifle for Continental "Big Game"
A large (.40 +) caliber rifle for Moose/Elk & Alaskan "Big Game"
A .410 gauge shotgun for Halibut fishing
A 20 ga shotgun for small foul
A 12 ga shotgun for Turkey & Geese
A Select Fire "Main Battle Rifle" equivilant to that carried by the Military for Militia use (easier to "regulate" since all Military units will be the same)

Not a bad collection. Better than what I have now (http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y180/MrMisanthrope/IMG_3510.jpg). I'm putting together a shopping list as we speak. :D

I know they must be out there.

I believe that citizens should be able to own a firearm for personal protection, for hunting, and to become part of a 'well-regulated militia'. What I DO NOT believe is that that entitles a person to an arsenal of military grade weapons (ie grenades, mines, SMGs, rocket launchers, etc.)

I've been involved with firearms since childhood, many of my friends are collectors and gun enthusiasts. I've never met anyone who collects Class III stuff. Other than the odd empty grenade paperweight I've never seen any of what you mention. I don't think there's much interest in it.

The amount of Class III civilan automatic weapons has been limited since 1986 under the Firearms OWners Protection Act, so there's only 200,000 of them. It's unlikely you meet collectors by chance. :)

Um....yeah, I'm not big on guns, and I'm an American....you found me. Dang.

Actually I have no problem with a gun in the hands of a duly responsible adult. Besides, my dad has several guns, some of them antiques, all of them passed on to him from somebody else in the family, and he taught my sister and i to use them when I was 10. (I took to a rifle pretty quickly -- handguns....not so much) So I'm satisfied that, if it comes to it, I can at least hold the irresponsible crazies off

I've been involved with firearms since childhood, many of my friends are collectors and gun enthusiasts. I've never met anyone who collects Class III stuff. Other than the odd empty grenade paperweight I've never seen any of what you mention. I don't think there's much interest in it.
I've met many Class III owners, and I don't even go to gun shows.

There's plenty of interest in it.

what is it about guns in america that makes us so...so....stupid. Other countries who own the same ratio of weapons don't have our gun violence rate.
I'm not so much agianst guns as I am agianst idiots with guns. Oh, wait. America. Yeah, I guess I'm agianst guns. :)

Favorite news story of the day: North Carolina man unloading his grill from the back of his truck. Sets loaded gun on top while carrying the grill from the car to the house. Gun falls, fires into his neck. dumbass.

I know they must be out there.

I believe that citizens should be able to own a firearm for personal protection, for hunting, and to become part of a 'well-regulated militia'. What I DO NOT believe is that that entitles a person to an arsenal of military grade weapons (ie grenades, mines, SMGs, rocket launchers, etc.)

If you knew what you were talking about, you would also realize the purpose of having a well regulated militia. It is to defend the people from the government in the event that the government became oppressive. The only way to make sure of that is to allow the people to attain weapons on par with the government. The American Revolution was won because they had the same weapons as the British. Therefore, one gun per person would not be enough to secure the people's defense and would be inviting the government to take absolute control.

I've met many Class III owners, and I don't even go to gun shows.

There's plenty of interest in it.

Ok, good to know. I'm in a remote area out of the mainstream and can't speak for the rest of population. Up here most of the interest is in hunting firearms or antiques.

Ok, good to know. I'm in a remote area out of the mainstream and can't speak for the rest of population. Up here most of the interest is in hunting firearms or antiques.

I have friends that live in remote areas of Montana who are Class III owners. It's nice to be able to sit on your back porch and let off a few hundred rounds on full auto without worrying about whether you hit someone by accident or not (your nearest neighbors are over 50 miles away).

I have friends that live in remote areas of Montana who are Class III owners. It's nice to be able to sit on your back porch and let off a few hundred rounds on full auto without worrying about whether you hit someone by accident or not (your nearest neighbors are over 50 miles away).
The main reason most people don't go into Class III firearms is that, well, it's too bloody expensive - even if you reload. A case of ammo is anywhere from $80 - $300 and full auto eats it awfully fast....

If you knew what you were talking about, you would also realize the purpose of having a well regulated militia. It is to defend the people from the government in the event that the government became oppressive. The only way to make sure of that is to allow the people to attain weapons on par with the government. The American Revolution was won because they had the same weapons as the British. Therefore, one gun per person would not be enough to secure the people's defense and would be inviting the government to take absolute control.

So when Americans slaughter their own government because they don't like it, its fighting an oppresive government, but when other people do it, its terrorism?

The main reason most people don't go into Class III firearms is that, well, it's too bloody expensive - even if you reload. A case of ammo is anywhere from $80 - $300 and full auto eats it awfully fast....

Yes. I've got a Dillon press that will make around 500 rounds per hour, but then there's the cost of components. It could be affordable.

There are different kinds of gun enthusiasts.

Some like the cowboy period.
Some like full auto.
Some like benchrest.
Some like varmint hunting.
Some like other hunting.
Some like skeet, trap, or sporting clays.
etc...

And some people would rather go fly fishing. Go figure.

So when Americans slaughter their own government because they don't like it, its fighting an oppresive government, but when other people do it, its terrorism?
No, when people slaughter innocent civilians not affiliated in any practical way with the government it is Terrorisim.

In the 9/11 incidents, the WTC towers were Terrorisim. The Pentagon attack was an act or War.

Citizens of a country attacking their Government installations & personnel are engaging in Rebellion.

Citizens attacking Citizens not affiliated with the Government in any practical way are engaging in Criminal Violence.

See the difference?

Yes. I've got a Dillon press that will make around 500 rounds per hour, but then there's the cost of components. It could be affordable.
To an extent. When I had a reasonable income and shot IPSC I reloaded .45 on a progressive press as well. But it still got expensive, even using recycled brass and lead/primer/powder costs running about .05/rd.

At 300rpm, a full auto would eat $15/min in reloads.

That's too salty for me right now...

I like the phrase: "a" firearm. Out of interest, what do you think we are "entitled" to?
Considering that I outlined what I believe right before you posted and you're challenging it....
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=423088

And I do notice most people are off-topic. This thread's about being an American and not being a gun enthusiast, not about telling me that I don't understand what a well-regulated militia is. (Never mind that I taught the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Oh well.)

Oh no, because we all walk around with AK-47s slung over our shoulder :rolleyes:

Too big.

Uzis! ;)

Too big.

Uzis! ;)
Limited range and no penetration against body armor. Split the difference. Get those AK 74s with the short barrels and folding stock.

I have friends in Finland who own machineguns as well as sound suppressors. Licenses required, yes, but they can own them.

The paperwork and such seems simpler than the Class III license procedure here in the US.

No, they don't walk up and down the street with them - but they do get to go to the shooting range and have fun.

Except you are not allowed to owned guns in Finland other than hunting rifles and no you certainly CANT onw machineguns in Finland. We also dont manufactor any kind of silencers.

Considering that I outlined what I believe right before you posted and you're challenging it....
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=423088

And I do notice most people are off-topic. This thread's about being an American and not being a gun enthusiast, not about telling me that I don't understand what a well-regulated militia is. (Never mind that I taught the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Oh well.)
My wife and parents aren't gun enthusiasts... but they don't care that I am. Does that count?

Except you are not allowed to owned guns in Finland other than hunting rifles and no you certainly CANT onw machineguns in Finland. We also dont manufactor any kind of silencers.

What are you talking about?


Sound suppressors, a firearm accessory strictly regulated in many other jurisdictions, are also widely available in Finland. Their use is promoted as a public good, as they reduce the noise pollution that firearms practice could otherwise produce, and reduce hearing injuries in frequent shooters and range operators. The presence of silencers is not considered problematic as they are almost never used in crimes.

Private ownership of Tear gas or Pepper spray is licensed for the purposes of personal protection, collection, training, or education.

Black powder firearms manufactured prior to 1890 are free to be possessed without regulation, but for shooting with them needs license.

Possession of destructive devices such as rocket and grenade launchers, breech loading cannons, artillery rockets, or automatic weapons is generally not permitted. The Finnish Ministry of the Interior has discretion to license such devices to collectors or for motion picture production or exhibition use.


The military reservists have bought for themselves pistols, target rifles, shotguns and semi-automatic rifles for practice shooting. This has been passively supported by the government, as it gives to the reservists possibility to practice shooting with military style weapons without requiring government spending. Their actual service weapons are stored by the Defence Forces, and are only given to the persons in training situations and when there is a risk of a war.


The ownership and use of firearms is regulated by the Firearms Act of 1998.

Firearms can only be obtained with a license, which can be obtained from the local police for €32. A separate license is required for each individual firearm and family members can have a parallel licenses to use the same firearm.

To obtain a firearms license, the individual must declare a valid reason to own a gun. Acceptable reasons include: hunting, sports or hobby, profession related, show or promotion or exhibition, collection or museum, souvenir, and signaling.

The firearms certificate may be cancelled if a person has committed a violent, gun-related, drug-related crime or broken certificate rules. Also physical and mental problems or reckless behavior are solid grounds for canceling the certificate.

Possessing a firearm without a license is punishable. Unlicensed firearms may be turned over to the police without punishment, provided this happens under the individual's own initiative. Firearms surrender in this manner are auctioned to the public or destroyed.

Gun laws were last changed 1998. At that time flare guns became subject to licensing, and some types of ammunition were specified especially dangerous.

http://www.greensky.biz/articles/Gun_politics_in_Finland?mySession=89b443b494769c7095d470bec0e55130

No, when people slaughter innocent civilians not affiliated in any practical way with the government it is Terrorisim.

In the 9/11 incidents, the WTC towers were Terrorisim. The Pentagon attack was an act or War.

Citizens of a country attacking their Government installations & personnel are engaging in Rebellion.

Citizens attacking Citizens not affiliated with the Government in any practical way are engaging in Criminal Violence.

See the difference?

Um. Actually, you did a nice job of explaining how -- according to you:

Timothy McVeigh was engaging in Rebellion -- he was a freedom fighter.

So is every former postal worker that shot up a post office.

The attack on the Pentagon would have been Rebellion and not terrorism -- if any involved had been a US citizen.

The line between terrorism and patriotism should involve a bit more than (a) are you of the same citizenship as the people you are killing and (b) are your victims "in any practical way with the government."

Um. Actually, you did a nice job of explaining how -- according to you: Timothy McVeigh was engaging in Rebellion -- he was a freedom fighter. In a (bad) way, yes.
So is every former postal worker that shot up a post office. OK, caveat: Political Motivation Required :D
The attack on the Pentagon would have been Rebellion and not terrorism -- if any involved had been a US citizen. In a (bad) way, yes.
The line between terrorism and patriotism should involve a bit more than (a) are you of the same citizenship as the people you are killing and (b) are your victims "in any practical way with the government."
I don't think I implied "patriotisim" in the term "rebellion". Rebellions can be legitimate or illigitimate, acts of one or acts of many, but, because they have political motivations (lookee, there's the caviat! Whee!) they are rebellions none the less.

IMO Rebellion as Patriotisim would either require an objective set of political greivences that have been ignored or repressed by the governing power to the extent that the government is in categorical rejection of its own founding principles. But really, since it is the Winner who writes history, one man's Patriotic Revolution is another man's Rebellion - I just don't put terrorisim in the same class.

Yes, Cat Tribe is correct... the line is simple, but not in the sense that has been portrayed.

The acts by the Commonwealth of Virginia, in the spring of 1861, was an act of "revolt" against the US (not treason or terrorism)... But a singular act by a person against the state, does not connect directly to patriotism (Tim McVeigh). That is, it has to be a "duly constituted" governmental act, against another "duly constituted" government office that is seen out of wack. Indeed, when California officials refused aid to FBI operatives in their state trying to close Medical Marijuana clinics (against California State Law) while agents were "held" by California residents (blockaded in their offices).... It was an "act of revolt" as well....

Act must be duly constituted and authorized by a proper "representative" of the locality, under present legal guidelines and gurantees to "the people" [of the state], for it to be a valid and true act of "revolt".

Tim McVeigh was a terrorist.... He was a singular individual, operating with no authority from the people of Oklahoma, attacking a Federal Building.... Had the state of Oklahoma, on the other hand, taken some act (under proper grounds); it would be functional "revolt".

So when Americans slaughter their own government because they don't like it, its fighting an oppresive government, but when other people do it, its terrorism?
First, the term "terrorism" is used a little too loosely at times.
As Dictionary.com says
Terrorism:
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.
Terrorism more acurately portrays method and tactics rather than the overarching events.

Rebellion or revolution is a broader action aimed at wresting control from some authority or convention, which, can incorporate multiple tactics including terrorism. Generally in order for something to be a rebellion you must first be amongst the governed, and second your actions must be directed against said authority or convention. (IE the gov't, not civies.)

Addition: Theoretically a single person could revolt, but as stated above, they would have to be amongst the governed, and direct their actions towards the authority or convention they are revolting against. The indiscriminate targeting of people not belonging to the authority (as in OKC) would thus be an act of terrorism in rebellion.

While the motives (like trying to change a law one views as unjust) would be similar to someone staging a sit in or demonstration, the methods (terrorism as a opposed to peaceful demonstration) oftern draw the line between what is and isn't acceptable.

Yes, Cat Tribe is correct... the line is simple, but not in the sense that has been portrayed.<snip>
Tim McVeigh was a terrorist.... He was a singular individual, operating with no authority from the people of Oklahoma, attacking a Federal Building.... Had the state of Oklahoma, on the other hand, taken some act (under proper grounds); it would be functional "revolt".
I agree to the extent of the term Revolt, but McVay's act was one of politically calculated Rebellion. He struck at a Federsl Government target for political purposes. That he did so in a way that was simultaneously terroristic (in that he used a device that, IIRC killed people not actively involved in Government and that there were "civillians" inside, does not render it a solely terroristic act - unlike WTC I&II which were civillian structers with a very few government offices.

(I am in no way trying justify/to make McYay's deeds look less henious, just pointing out my interpretation of the ROEs for Rebels (good and bad) vs. Terrorists (bad))

I was raised around guns, my dad was a cop. But I actually don't think private ownership of handguns is a good idea. Lets face it most gun crimes are commited with handguns. And I don't think anyone needs a semi or full auto weapon for hunting. They take the 'sport' of of it and too often turn it into simply finding an animal and slaughtering it. It dismays me when a lot of what modern hunters consider the challenge of hunting is the locating of game, because technology has made the actual bringing down of that game so much easier. Bowhunting is real hunting, but if you must use a firearm, a pump shotgun for fowl or a bolt or lever action (I have an affinity for model 97's) for large game makes it more of a challenge. For home defense these weapons are adequate also, even though I scoff at most gun nuts claim that they need such. 'Home defense' weapons are many times more likely to be used in a crime or to harm a family member than they are to be used for home defense.

I agree to the extent of the term Revolt, but McVay's act was one of politically calculated Rebellion. He struck at a Federsl Government target for political purposes. That he did so in a way that was simultaneously terroristic (in that he used a device that, IIRC killed people not actively involved in Government and that there were "civillians" inside, does not render it a solely terroristic act - unlike WTC I&II which were civillian structers with a very few government offices.

(I am in no way trying justify/to make McYay's deeds look less henious, just pointing out my interpretation of the ROEs for Rebels (good and bad) vs. Terrorists (bad))

At the same time I construe a difference between acts by duly constituted authority, and those of individuals.... As well as principle of target. In all prior cases of "american rebellion" it was an act initiated by the representatives of "the people" constituting the government, against other fanctions of the government (in military order)... That is, in personal right, a person must act by properly constituted authority (US Civil War, soldiers fighting under the particular authority of their State Executive and Legislatured; US Revolution, Colonies raising troops under authority of particular colonial instituted chartered legislative body, including acts during the Civil Rights era of Govenors using State Militia to oppose federal troops)... Which constituted the classical US principle of "Rebellion"... McVeigh's acts were of self-appointment; he was not acting by any duly constituted authority (thus his act is more seditious, than rebellious), and against civilian assets, and civilian employees of the government (as opposed to military assets, or the assets employed to a actual representative of the government).

Thus I would argue more facets:
1. Terrorism
2. Revolt
3. Sedition
4. Patriotism
5. Acts of War.

I would convey the WTC attack as an act of Terrorism (being against civilian targets)

Pentagon was an act of War (being against military asset)

OKC Federal Building was an act of "Seditious Terrorism"

Whereas historic acts such as:
Boston Tea Party was an act of Seditious Revolt

Revolution in general was an act of Patriotic Revolt

Civil War was an act of Patriotic Revolt (of the Confederate States) and Patriotic Act of War (of the United States).

So two facets fall in to play:
1. Are you acting as a duly constituted agent of a proper government (Nation, State, Country).
2. What is your particular target? (Civilian asset or Military Asset).

On a side note, some acts during the war could be applied to acts of terrorism (Sherman's march) where the target is civilian assets, even though acted on by a government authority. And other such things (attack on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, while ultimately "good" were acts of "terrorism" being non-discriminatory).

I generally have an old-fashioned view of "war" where it should be confined to military attacks, not non-discriminatory assaults.... But that's just me.

I was raised around guns, my dad was a cop. But I actually don't think private ownership of handguns is a good idea. Lets face it most gun crimes are commited with handguns. And I don't think anyone needs a semi or full auto weapon for hunting. They take the 'sport' of of it and too often turn it into simply finding an animal and slaughtering it. It dismays me when a lot of what modern hunters consider the challenge of hunting is the locating of game, because technology has made the actual bringing down of that game so much easier. Bowhunting is real hunting, but if you must use a firearm, a pump shotgun for fowl or a bolt or lever action (I have an affinity for model 97's) for large game makes it more of a challenge. For home defense these weapons are adequate also, even though I scoff at most gun nuts claim that they need such. 'Home defense' weapons are many times more likely to be used in a crime or to harm a family member than they are to be used for home defense.

I have a concealed carry permit (in Virginia).... And it has saved me on multiple occations... Considering I have to deposit large sums of money on a semi-frequent basis, being a SBO (Small Business Owner). The police can't be everywhere at once... And I have no plans to die, because some fucktard wants to feed his heroin addiction.

At the same time I construe a difference between acts by duly constituted authority, and those of individuals.... As well as principle of target. In all prior cases of "american rebellion" it was an act initiated by the representatives of "the people" constituting the government, against other fanctions of the government (in military order)... That is, in personal right, a person must act by properly constituted authority (US Civil War, soldiers fighting under the particular authority of their State Executive and Legislatured; US Revolution, Colonies raising troops under authority of particular colonial instituted chartered legislative body, including acts during the Civil Rights era of Govenors using State Militia to oppose federal troops)... Which constituted the classical US principle of "Rebellion"... McVeigh's acts were of self-appointment; he was not acting by any duly constituted authority (thus his act is more seditious, than rebellious), and against civilian assets, and civilian employees of the government (as opposed to military assets, or the assets employed to a actual representative of the government).

Thus I would argue more facets:
1. Terrorism
2. Revolt
3. Sedition
4. Patriotism
5. Acts of War.

I would convey the WTC attack as an act of Terrorism (being against civilian targets)

Pentagon was an act of War (being against military asset)

OKC Federal Building was an act of "Seditious Terrorism"

Whereas historic acts such as:
Boston Tea Party was an act of Seditious Revolt

Revolution in general was an act of Patriotic Revolt

Civil War was an act of Patriotic Revolt (of the Confederate States) and Patriotic Act of War (of the United States).

So two facets fall in to play:
1. Are you acting as a duly constituted agent of a proper government (Nation, State, Country).
2. What is your particular target? (Civilian asset or Military Asset).

On a side note, some acts during the war could be applied to acts of terrorism (Sherman's march) where the target is civilian assets, even though acted on by a government authority. And other such things (attack on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, while ultimately "good" were acts of "terrorism" being non-discriminatory).

I generally have an old-fashioned view of "war" where it should be confined to military attacks, not non-discriminatory assaults.... But that's just me.
I concede. :p

Your definition is more clear than mine and actually better represents what I believe. (Though you still haven't really included "rebellion" in there...)

I concede. :p

Your definition is more clear than mine and actually better represents what I believe. (Though you still haven't really included "rebellion" in there...)

Rebellion/Revolt... same thing.... though I view it more in line with something "authorized" by a proper governing authority.... Singular acts (outside of authority) are sedition. It's a matter of "Agency"... is the person acting as a valid agent, or as a singular individual...

Example, If I drive a truck full of explosives, as a singular person to the pentagon, and blow it up.... it's an act of sedition. The same to the Richmond Federal Building; it's an act of terrorism (and sedition).

If I act as a properly constituted authority under the commonwealth of Virginia, which decides to "break" from the US, it's an act of "war". However, the same to the Richmond Federal Building, it's an act of terrorism, and revolt.

If McVeigh was operating under Oklahoma state authority, its would be terrorism, but not sedition....

I was raised around guns, my dad was a cop. But I actually don't think private ownership of handguns is a good idea. Lets face it most gun crimes are commited with handguns. And I don't think anyone needs a semi or full auto weapon for hunting. They take the 'sport' of of it and too often turn it into simply finding an animal and slaughtering it. It dismays me when a lot of what modern hunters consider the challenge of hunting is the locating of game, because technology has made the actual bringing down of that game so much easier. Bowhunting is real hunting, but if you must use a firearm, a pump shotgun for fowl or a bolt or lever action (I have an affinity for model 97's) for large game makes it more of a challenge. For home defense these weapons are adequate also, even though I scoff at most gun nuts claim that they need such. 'Home defense' weapons are many times more likely to be used in a crime or to harm a family member than they are to be used for home defense.

Ahh, the Kellerman myth.

Many of the hunters I know don't hunt for "sport" or a "challenge", they hunt to reduce their food bills. Either way, it's a lot more humane and healthy than the meat you get from the store.

The main reason most people don't go into Class III firearms is that, well, it's too bloody expensive - even if you reload. A case of ammo is anywhere from $80 - $300 and full auto eats it awfully fast....

I thought it had more to do with finding a law enforcement official that would allow someone in their department to sign off on the Class III....isn't going to happen in Madison or Milwaukee, WI, that's for sure.

I can't wait to get out of this state.

I thought it had more to do with finding a law enforcement official that would allow someone in their department to sign off on the Class III....isn't going to happen in Madison or Milwaukee, WI, that's for sure.

I can't wait to get out of this state.

Have you considered the Free State Project?

Have you considered the Free State Project?

I did. Then they went and picked a cold state. :) I don't need to swap Wisconsin for New Hampshire--it's basically the same state--at least as far as weather is concerned.

We're moving to the Carolinas in T minus 4 years. Taxes are a LOT lower there, and they have friendlier gun laws--at least in the concealed carry sense.

Um. Actually, you did a nice job of explaining how -- according to you:

Timothy McVeigh was engaging in Rebellion -- he was a freedom fighter.

So is every former postal worker that shot up a post office.

I was not aware that Syniks automatically equated someone engaging in rebellion as a freedom fighter. Two separate issues.

personally, I would like to own a flintlock, just becuase they are cool like that.

Prolly would never get a chance to shoot it, but... meh. Flintlocks = awesome...

I also want a gladius. I like retro weapons.

Plus for self defense. I mean, its like kicking it oldschool.

What I DO NOT believe is that that entitles a person to an arsenal of military grade weapons (ie grenades, mines, SMGs, rocket launchers, etc.)
to the original poster:
it would be good for you to look up the historical background so you understand the reasons and basis for the ammendmant. it was based on the swiss "peoples army" that would be able to rise up in a popular uprising and overthrow an oppressive government or be a last line of defence for the nation. as such personal military grade firearms were in fact the idea. this is re-iterated in the supreme court case of USA VS miller when supreme court justice james clark mcreynolds in an effort to prevent further encroachment on the 2nd ammendmant made the point that "the militia consists of ALL able-bodied men who have a right, even a DUTY, to own firearms suitable for military service"-which he provide many historical references for.

this is further backed up by the United States Consolidated Statutes (USCS):
which says that all men between the ages of 17 and 45 who are not in the US military or regulated militia(national guard/coast guard), comprise the UNregulated militia.

the subject of area effect weapons was handled by another poster ;)

Drunk commies reborn
Limited range and no penetration against body armor. Split the difference. Get those AK 74s with the short barrels and folding stock.
personally i prefer the FN-P90, love the multi use design(for lefties or righties), it looks sleek, it's compact and has that unusual top load 50 round magazine that fires a FMJ 5.72 rounds.


THE LOST PLANET
I was raised around guns, my dad was a cop. But I actually don't think private ownership of handguns is a good idea. Lets face it most gun crimes are commited with handguns.

sorry but i have to go with the words of the law enforcement officers:
the comments of lewis county sheriff john mccroskey (2003)
quote:

i don't believe restricting law-abiding citizen's ownership of firearms does anything but make them easier victims. if it was as easy as passing laws, then there would be no crime. but it isn't. law-abiding people are law-abiding because they follow the law. lawbreakers don't care what the law is, and will find a way to get guns.

that in addition to:
According to Gary Kleck, a criminologist at Florida State University, there are 645,000 defensive uses of handguns per year in the U.S. Thirty-eight percent of convicted felons reported having been scared off, shot at, wounded or captured by an armed victim. In robberies involving personal contact with the offender, 25 percent of victims who remained completely passive were injured anyway. Of those robbery victims wielding guns, only 17 percent were injured. Of those using weapons other than guns and knives, 22 percent were injured.

as for the topic of the .50 cal "sniper rifles"
most people don't realise they were first used by shooting clubs over 70 years ago(and still continue to be today) they were (much) later adapted for military service as heavy sniper rifles. the fringe liberal paranaoia generated about this firearm, even though they are to big, expensive, and heavy to be used in crime(none that i an aware of), is nothing more than the step down plan used by anti-gun groups....if this is a "bad" gun and they get people comfortable with getting rid of it, they can then condition people for when they want to get rid of the next "bad gun" until they have disarmed the populous as is thier stated goal.

Err, with a very few extreme cases, no US gun-enthusiast believes they are entitled to area-effect/military explosive weapons systems. Those are not considered to be "individual weapons" in any sense of the term. (Despite protestations to the contrary, civillian-grade .50BMG rifles are not per-se military anti-equipment rifles. Shooting a car (armored or not) with a single, or even 2 or 3 .50 rounds won't catestrophically destroy it. That's what Full-Auto .50BMG machine guns are for. A 20+lb rifle that fires the .50BMG cartridge is a long-range target rifle - and virtually useless for anything else.)

Fully-automatic SMGs are heavily regulated, requiring a Class III registration, FBI check & tax stamp, and have been so since 1936. No Stamped Class III weapon has been used in a crime in the US. However, that long-standing bit of regulation has not kept gangs (why the law was written - Prohibition era Gangsters) from aquiring them anyway.

Anyway, if I am "allowed" ot own "a firearm for personal protection, for hunting, and to become part of a 'well-regulated militia'." That means I should own, in the ballance:

A high quality military caliber Handgun - for Personal defense and as part of Militia Kit.
A small (.17 -.27) caliber semi-automatic rifle for small game.
A medium (.30 -.40) caliber rifle for Continental "Big Game"
A large (.40 +) caliber rifle for Moose/Elk & Alaskan "Big Game"
A .410 gauge shotgun for Halibut fishing
A 20 ga shotgun for small foul
A 12 ga shotgun for Turkey & Geese
A Select Fire "Main Battle Rifle" equivilant to that carried by the Military for Militia use (easier to "regulate" since all Military units will be the same)

Not a bad collection. Better than what I have now (http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y180/MrMisanthrope/IMG_3510.jpg). I'm putting together a shopping list as we speak. :D
god forbid, we dont get our halibut.

If you knew what you were talking about, you would also realize the purpose of having a well regulated militia. It is to defend the people from the government in the event that the government became oppressive. The only way to make sure of that is to allow the people to attain weapons on par with the government. The American Revolution was won because they had the same weapons as the British. Therefore, one gun per person would not be enough to secure the people's defense and would be inviting the government to take absolute control.

militias are outdated anarchorischmis. back in the days of revolution, sure it was useful but these days the people are misled and abused by the government and yet only a small minority recognise it as such and so something about it. and without gun violence. besides, the US armed forces are extremely powerful and efficient, do you think militias would have a chnace in hell of stopping carpet bombing by B-52's, advanced infrared systems to detect hidden underground complexes and bombing them with GBU's or any other possibly secret urban combat technology they're now using in iraq?

Those B-52's need support networks far wider than any guerilla cell.

You can hide from the bombing by blending in with the population -then kill off some of the ground crew as they go on leave. Government officials, support troops, even pilots on leave would be targets. :)

militias are outdated anarchorischmis. back in the days of revolution, sure it was useful but these days the people are misled and abused by the government and yet only a small minority recognise it as such and so something about it. and without gun violence. besides, the US armed forces are extremely powerful and efficient, do you think militias would have a chnace in hell of stopping carpet bombing by B-52's, advanced infrared systems to detect hidden underground complexes and bombing them with GBU's or any other possibly secret urban combat technology they're now using in iraq?

Yeah, all that high efficiency stuff is working WONDERS over in Iraq--which of course isn't why the US military is still there.... :rolleyes:

Underarmed and underfunded troops work QUITE well against the US military.

Now imagine 80 million of them.

I was not aware that Syniks automatically equated someone engaging in rebellion as a freedom fighter. Two separate issues. You are right, I don't and they are.

personally, I would like to own a flintlock, just becuase they are cool like that.

Prolly would never get a chance to shoot it, but... meh. Flintlocks = awesome...

I also want a gladius. I like retro weapons.

Plus for self defense. I mean, its like kicking it oldschool.
I have both. (well, my black-powder guns use #11 caps but whatever).

The Gladius (mine is actually a Georgian-pattern Qama) is a lot of fun.

god forbid, we dont get our halibut.
Um... you go ahead and try to gaff a 100+lb halibut some time while it's trying to sink your boat. Long experience has shown that the safest way to bring one in is to shoot it with a small shotgun BEFORE bringing it aboard.

Sorry about about the Hijacking - at least I'm not going to fly this thread into an office building... :p

I suppose the biggest "problem" of the original question was it was asked to "non-gun enthusiasts".

What is a "non-gun enthusiast"? Someone who is enthusiastic about banning guns or someone who is ambivilant about guns but enthusiastic about non-gun things?

How about "Any USian Anti-Gun NSers out there? - (Pro gunners can read but shut up please...)" :D

Yeah, all that high efficiency stuff is working WONDERS over in Iraq--which of course isn't why the US military is still there.... :rolleyes:

Underarmed and underfunded troops work QUITE well against the US military.

Now imagine 80 million of them.

well the kill trate is 30 insurgents dead for every American military dead... so i'm not sure they're being very successful.

but... there are, what, 50,000 insurgents in Iraq maybe (ball park)?

Imagine 200+ million armed Americans in rebellion against the government... would be impossible to defeat without nukes.

well the kill trate is 30 insurgents dead for every American military dead... so i'm not sure they're being very successful.

but... there are, what, 50,000 insurgents in Iraq maybe (ball park)?

Imagine 200+ million armed Americans in rebellion against the government... would be impossible to defeat without nukes.

Oh, I'm not denying that the kill rate is decidedly one-sided, just that if it were so easy to take down 100,000 people, the US military wouldn't still be there. But, judging from your comments, I'm guessing you were already past that point. :)

Don't forget to add to the equation the number of military deserters if such an action were to occur.

The armed populace is still the major deterrent, though.