gun control

[roux]

i know i got in trouble before for posting a topic while being a n00b. but i belive the value of a post is in its content, not the one who writes it.

gun control is a highly debated topic almost everywhere. some feel if everyone had a gun, no one would get shot:confused:.

others belive if no one had guns no one would get shot, makes sence. but then the idea of constitutional rights and the 2nd amendment gets in the way. i have almost no idea which way to go. so ill let you all debate this one.

[flashpoint]

I'm not trying to get out of line, in posting etiquette, nor say too much about the topic, considering I'm a new voice just like you, but I have a feeling this topic, will go round' and round', and probably will cause a lot of arguments here, but does point out good points in the whole gun control debate. Gun control is not the issue in my opinion, its conrolling idiots that own guns :rolleyes:

[thrall]

I always favor to traet gun as a normal object.Living in a country where only few people own guns and the government policy is totally against the gun owning(just like the colonial times),I've some expereince to share.

See,criminals will get there guns anyway(true for all the countries,liberal on guns or not) so it's only the ordinary citizens that loses the right to own gun in gun coltrol.Of course government of entire world in all times tried to disarm it's population so that they can easily encronch over the rights of the citizens.

And theories can be formulated easily.Just hire some inelligentia and they will generate theory for whatever you like,hence anti gun theories.To disarm the citizens they just try to find excuses and thats what they are doing.

I agree with the point that owenership of big guns should be restricted and crring guns should be restricted as well,but not the ownership of the gun.The only possible motive of the "system" behind preventing owening a gun is what I've just said.

[zaibatsu]

flashpoint, I don't think this topic will go round and round here, I'm guessing 99% of the people here are against gun control. You can never eliminate firearms, for the same reason you can't eliminate explosives. You can always make a gun out of something, whether it be a simple pipe with the end folded over with matchheads as propellant with rocks and nuts as projectiles, up to a semi-automatic gas-operated rifle firing bottlenecked cartridges. This shows that the ideal of gun control - to remove the "risk" of people owning and using guns - is impossible to achieve.

[flashpoint]

Very true, money talks, if gun control were to be put into effect, than there would be more crime and more ways to obtain guns than there is now. But I figure that there is only so much control the government can have, before they just have to control the guns themselves. There already is a lot of mandatory conditions you must follow to purchase a firearm. I figure if gun control comes into effect, there would be a lot of pissed off americans and a lot of arrests and probably more gun related crimes.

[roux]

i like the way you all think. outlawing guns would be as effective as outlawing homosexuallity or alcohol. but ya gotta put your foot down somewhere. but no one needs an AK-47 to defend themselves.

[Tuatara]

The 'right to bear arms' implies the 'right to summary execution of anyone you don't like'. I don't think anyone should have the 'right' to use lethal force against someone else. Yes there are times when it becomes a matter of self-defence, but if it becomes perceived as a 'right' then other forms of conflict resolution get overlooked, and people die. 'Self-defence' should be hard to prove.

I live in a gun controlled country. We have very few gun related deaths here. So few that they all make headline news, about twice a year. The idea that gun control will allow the crims to wander around slaugtering at will is wrong. If some fucktard points a gun at you, give the dickhead what he wants then lets the cops sort it out. You get to stay alive, thats the main thing - everything else is replaceable. I know it sounds like a weak, cowardly attitude, but its a good way to end up seeing your great-grandchildren. All a macho, 'fight back' attitude is going to get you is dead.

However trying to apply gun control anywhere gunb ownership is endemic (and I'm referring to 'self-defense' weapons) is going to be bloody hard.

[Flake2m]

The problem isn't the fact that people own guns it is what they do with them.
A firearm is designed for only one thing - to kill or maim living things, whether it is a .50BMG or a .22 hornet.
The USA has put gun ownership as the 2nd amendment. Some people see this as an excuse to own a small armory of guns that have enough combined firepower to wage a war. Now I don't give a rats arse whether it is someones constitutional right to own a gun; you don't need 20 firearms for self defense.
Now I am not aginst gun control, I am against some of the people that use guns as an excuse and use "consitutional rights" to circumvent common sense. I have no problems with people owning guns however if the person that owns the gun cant prove that they are going to use it maturely and responsibly then they don't deserve to use one.

[TreverSlyFox]

Well, this one I've just got to jump into at least from the U.S.A. perspective.

Our Fore Fathers were not stupid men and the knew very well that the Government thay had just formed could, and very likely would, become as tyrannical as the one they'ed just fought. And through out history the first act of tyranny was to dis-arm the citizen. So in comes the 2nd Amendment of our Bill of Rights to our Constitution. Now the 2nd Amendment speaks of two things: 1. The right of each individual to keep and bare arms. And #2. The Citizen Militia.

Our Fore Fathers knew that an armed citizenry could not be dictated to and that the Citizen Militia was the force to see to it that no one did (they had just done it). To understand the 2nd Amendment you have to understand the roll of the Citizen Militia. The Citizen Militia goes back through out history as an armed citizen force ready to react to defend it's village/town/city or country and the Citizen Militia was the force used from the begaining of this country at James Town right on through to the Civil War in 1861. The Militia wasn't just a band of citizens with rifles in 1776, they had all the current military weapons at their disposal includind crew served cannon. Just about every town had an Armory under the control of the militia that stored extra rifles, shot, powder and cannon.

The battles of Lexington and Concorde were not about confisction of "Private" weapons in homes, but was an attempt by the british to confiscate the weapons in the town's Militia Armories. The British knew very well that a few rifles weren't going to beat them but a lot of rifles, shot, powder and cannon could. The British knew very well the Militia was a force to be reconed with and like all tyrants their first overt act was to dis-arm the Militia as best they could.

That is why the militia has the duty to respond to Enemies both Foreign and DOMESTIC! and was codeified by the Militia Act of 1782 (I think that date is right but I'ed have to loo it up to be sure). That Act defines the Militia in two parts: Those in current Active Military service are the Organized Militia. The Un-Organized Militia is composed of all able bodied men NOT in current military service from the age of 17 to 45 and if you are prior military it extends that to age 65. AND it includes able bodied women in certain circumstances.

The reasons for the 2nd Amendment and the Militia are just as valid now as it was then, in fact maybe even more so now. THAT is the reason why many of us have large numbers of guns and ammunition, we take the responsibility of Citizenship seriously and we ARE the Militia by LAW. We will NOT be dis-armed no matter how many liberal wussys whine nor what laws they pass. If you wish to dis-arm us you'ed better bring a lunch and a lot of body bags because your going to need them.

[Bert]

The US second amendment isn't about your right to go deer hunting. It's not even about your right to defend yourself from crime. It's about other things- Primarily, that Thomas Jefferson and many of the other founding fathers felt that a professional standing army was BAD for many reasons... The cost, the chance that having one available would encourage any government to military adventures and the likelihood it would eventually be used to suppress their own population. They desired to set up a system where power truly resided in the people, and I would say their beliefs were vindicated both in the initial success of the American experiment, and the current state of affairs where a huge professional standing army is in place and the shit that is coming down thereby. Check out a few of the links below to see what I mean-

"and to abolish standing armies in time of peace" (http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch14s46.html)

"None but an armed nation can dispense with a standing army. To keep ours armed and disciplined is therefore at all times important." (http://hematite.com/dragon/jefferson2nd.html)

... but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formitible to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights... (http://www.allmax.com/wea/liberty/liberty.html)

Look at this google search on "Thomas Jefferson"+"standing army" (http://www.google.com/search?q=Thomas+Jefferson%22%2B%22standing+army%22&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&start=10&sa=N) for many, many more-

It is quite clear from reading the words of those who actually wrote our Constitution and Bill of Rights that they specifically intended that the population should be NEARLY OR EQUALLY AS WELL ARMED AS ANY PROFESSIONAL ARMY THAT SHOULD EVER BE REQUIRED. The creeping restrictions of this over the last 80 or so years have led to exactly the situation they feared would arise, in my opinion.

If you're smarter or better informed on human nature & politics than Thomas Jefferson, tell me a better way.

No good reason to own an AK-47? My ass...

[wrench352]

In most of the State Constitutions from the original colonies,there is a provision that "It is the duty of every able bodied man to keep and maintain a rifle and 20 rounds".Also you should check out an actual army document,still available today at the army e-library titled "Communication in a Come-as-you-are-war".911 was a huge wake up call to gun control advocates,and the anthrax attacks even more so.
If sheep bit back,wolves would be less prone to attack them.
On a side note,I do have a small armory,and when people ask me why I tell em all the same thing:
BRAIN EATING ZOMBIES

[shooter3]

Hi Flake, Your argument doesn't follow your end note. How are you going to fight your tyranical dictatorship without high powered military weapons. How about your 20 neibours who would like to fight the mess they got themselves into but can't because they turned in thier guns to the tyrant when he said to(democracys are the worst kind of tyranies because there are too many tyrants to cap).

Tuatara, Anecdotal evidence proves you wrong about defending yourself against crooks. Small case in point; I was mugged once. I was defenseless against 2 thugs and was left for dead(I was playing possom. Thank God I didn't get the coup degrass). The second time 2 guys broke into my dwelling. This time I had a 308 pistol and that stopped it cold with no one getting shot(I wish I had held them for the cops).

Remember; Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, etc. were no more than common crooks who managed to bullshit their way into a possition of power.

Lastly; If there was one, armed, good citizen, good shot, on each of those planes that flew into the WTC,(which would have been likely 45 years ago) there would have been no attack.

DEATH to TYRANTS, whomever they may be. Whether El Presedente' or the prick who's comming in you window at 3::00 in the morning!

[roux]

TreverSlyFox...you completly changed my mind.

[Jacks Complete]

For what it is worth, I disagree with gun control.

I believe that, in a just and honest society, everyone who could nominally prove they had no criminal record, and were trustworthy with a gun (i.e. they had taken a gun safety course, on the gun they wished to own) there would be only benefits to society.

I believe this would help to keep the society just and honest.

Criminals have guns. By definition, they break laws. We should allow those who are just and honest to at least have a running chance of being equal in terms of force, since the bad guy will always seek to dictate every other one of the terms of any encounter.

[Flake2m]

My other point is, wars these days are fought differently then 200 years ago. The USA iand many developed countries and facing a different sort of threat - Terrorism. 50 years ago an army would just invade your country and the people would use what they have to defend themselves that is another reason why the 2nd amendment is in place. With terrorism they are very small groups of people that use the state & federal laws to there advantage. Sure 200 people with guns can keep an infantry division at bay, but 200 people with guns cant stop a group from demolishing the twin towers.

I agree with you Jack C. Some people tend to think that if you teach a kid to use a gun he'll shoot up a school. Most kids that are taught to use a gun properly dont even get to fire one until they can almost assemble and break down one blind folded. If people are taught properly then the chances of accidents occurring is greatly reduced.

My point earlier. They are a few inconsiderite people in the world that own a small armory but don't care anything about homeland security or town militia. They simply own there 20 weapons or so because they can. Now I also meant earlier that if you have a small armory, you dont need all those guns to protect your own home, don't give me the bullshit about "a foreign army might invade or space aliens might attack etc" because things like that haven't happened in at least 50 years.
I am not saying you shouldn't be allowed to own 20 or so weapons, but some people need to think why they have so many before they decide to expand there collection.

[wrench352]

Flake2m,if I may.The second ammendment IS the ultimate provision X,meant to defend the other nine amendments.For the people to take it into their own hands,so that the Constitution should survive.After living through the threat of impending total thermonuclear war,and watching the collapse of the Soviet Union,revolution in China,aids,sars,antharax,9/11.Anything can happen,tomorrow even,Plague,Coup de tat,invading space aliens(This is less likely than suicide bombers flying 747s into buildings?)or even
BRAIN EATING ZOMBIES
In the first days of the fall of western civillization,do you think you'd recognize it?

[xyz]

Flake2m, I can see no reason not to own that many guns so long as the owner is responsible (has passed a comprehensive firearms safety course).

After all, variety is the spice of life :), and so many calibres to choose from...

[Flake2m]

Since about 75% of what I have said in this post has been Bullshit I'll shut up now.

I emphised the fact that people well trained and taught to use a firearm are less likely to have an accident however when someone owns a large number of weapons other people sometimes question their mentality (are they going to massacre a school/home whatever even though 99.999% they wouldn't) and owning lots of firearms can attract unwanted attention.

I suppose gun ownership is all about respect for the weapon and the environment and safety. When these basic things aren't taken into consideration bad things occur such as shootings, accidents and worst of all gun control laws.

[Tuatara]

So it all essentially boils down to education and respect. This is true of alcohol, drugs, cars, explosives, etc. If everyone played by the rules there'd be no need for gun control, or police, or armies, or burglar alarms ...

Sadly we don't live in such Utopian paradise, and so the rules have to be enforced.

[shooter3]

Of course it hasn't happened to me(Accident), so I can be dispassionate when I say that Liberty is more important than the few accidents that happen. In a nation of 400,000,000 people, 1500 accidents is .0000025% chance of death vs 33% chance of death in Cambodia when the Tyrant Pol Pot took power!

My point about personal arsenals; I don't care if some people are idiots or just like to look at thier collection, in either case there is a pool of weapons to be had if needed.

By the way, does anyone from Oz
or England feel that government intrusions have increased, stayed the same or decreased since "gun control?

[nbk2000]

The 2nd has, as previously stated, nothing to do with deer hunting. Rather, it's all about tyrannt hunting. :)

And just as a mechanic doesn't have only one wrench, so don't people have only one gun. A .22 is for squirrels and rabbits, a .300 WinMag for bear, and a .50 for politico's. :) If you only had a .50 to shoot, you couldn't shoot the squirrels...not if you wanted anything left to find. :D

[tmp]

During the 20th century it is estimated that approximately 170 million people
were killed by their own government. In most cases the victims were disarmed
by their own government prior to the massacre. Governments are
the most prolific serial killers ever known. No individual psychotic killer has ever
been as efficient. Beware any politician's claims that gun control prevents crime
or saves a person's life. It's all about the concentration of power in the hands
of a tyrannical elite.

[Hang-Man]

People who have gun accidents are just plain stupid. Let me elaborate, accidents you could have with you're gun:
1. You leave it loaded. Explanation: you're an idiot.
2. You take the clip out, thinking its empty, but leave one in the chamber. Explanation: you're an idiot.
3. You fire it at something stupid, causing it to either bounce around and hit something or go through and hit something. Explanation: you're an idiot.
4. You drop/throw/let your dog carry/ you're gun. Explanation: do I have to spell it out?

As you can see, only idiots have accidents with guns. So don’t control the guns, control the idiots (there’s far more idiots than guns anyway) I'd go into the whole issue but it’s far too late and I'm far too tired.
:rolleyes:

[Skean Dhu]

reading this thread reminds me of the Chris Rock gun control Sketch found in "Bowling for Columbine" :"let people own how ever many guns they want but make bullets cost $5000, then there wouldn't be any innocent by-standers..."

more gun control related humor " gun control is hitting what you aim at"

[tingtao]

Well, look at England for example. Some pretty damn strict gun control there and yet some pretty high crime, most against DEFENSELESS citizens. The criminals could care less if they are illegally carrying, the citizens don't feel like going away to jail for a long time simply because they wanted to feel protected, so the criminals know this and it seems to increase the crime. I know in certain states in the US where gun control is lax, a good portion of criminals think twice about committing a crime because they know there's a good chance the victim has a gun.

So, needless to say, I feel gun control is not all that effective. At the same time, it really does depend on the class of people in an area. In one peaceful type of state it is fine to be able to easily buy a pistol if you are 21, have an ID and no felonies, but in the very neighboring state where there are larger cities and more problemed individuals, it would just be a nightmare if so many of those problemed guys in their early twenties could easily buy a pistol. So it does really depend on certain factors. What's important is a balance.
Just my $.02

[Blackhawk]

It all comes back to the fact that controlling the guns to stop/lower the crime rates is a classic example of the ends justifying the means, people think that if they stop to tool being used the problem will go away, but they don't see that the source for the violence and deprvity is still there. Aus or at least the state I am in has to be a very silly place indeed due to the 'ends jutifying the means' laws that have been put into place. Firstly it is relatively hard to own a firearm, as they are heavily controlled and yet security guards are being held up not for what the are guarding, but for their weapons, illegal guns are being smuggled into the counrty for crimes and there was even an illegal zip gun manufacturing plant recently found and shut down, observation, controlling guns donsn't stop crime. As for knives, it is now illegal to buy or sell a knife to a child under 16 in this state in an attempt to stop the knife crime (taking that place of the gun crime) although this has been shown on current affair style shows to be a sack of crap as it is so easy to come buy a knife if you want on, hell you can even get some sheet metal and sharpen it. The final and most recent of the ludacris laws is that it is illegal to sell SPRAY PAINT to children under the age of 18, in an attempt to stop grafiti (a move that has increased the level of grafiti as to what I see).

In conclusion, governments are far to stupid to be left to decide what is good for the people as they are so far detatched, a situation that the beaurocratic/democratic shit stick governments the world has at the moment will never help.

Any thoughts on this?

[Ammonal]

A target grade rifle, an old single shot .22, P90, UZI, AR-15, AK47.
What do all of these things have in common? AMMUNITION.
A zipgun is only a viable thing to make because you can get .22's by the bucket load or any other calibre one may wish to make. If you take away the ammunition and reloading components it would soon become very difficult or expensive to aquire ammunition for your favourite vermin rifle or the Barret 'lookalike' you been making up in the back shed ;) I believe it was NBK who said 'a gun without bullets is just a club' and this is the exact point that all of the authorities in every country are missing. In England they banned handguns to reduce handgun crimes, but shock horror what happens? the crime rate increases and now they are considering reallowing handgun licences. Australia is not that far behind England in regards to handguns, everything over .38 handgun calibre has been banned! Now I will never get to experience firing a Desert Eagle .50AE legally :(
Basically the best I can understand is that if you take away the ammunition you make it harder for the everyday person that likes his gun collection to enjoy themselves, but you still dont fix the problem of crime because the governments are run buy ignorant sods who make decisions from statistics and distributions.
Instead of bringing in illegal firearms, the ammunition becomes a raging underground market. The problem is not in the control, the problem is that firearms exist and that is never going to change. As much as the governments will tell the ignorant masses that 'handguns kill people', they do not tell the masses that handguns in the hands of fools kill people, and ban them; they still exist therefore there is a need and a desire for the normal people who are interested in 'target' shooting and other 'sports' to perform their normal events unencumbered by the government trying to cut crime figures by banning registered firearms, when it is the illegal and unregistered firearms used in 99% of crimes!
I agree Blackhawk the 'ends justifying the means' is a tactic employed by ignorant sorts of people, in particular politicians just to suit the next elections votes. I guess it really comes down to power, and who holds it and who is after it.
In closing, Why must we be ruled by ignorant people? It is ignorance and fools that go hand in hand with accidents, shootings, rape, and any other forms and acts of scum in society.

[thrall]

"There are no dangerous weapons,only dangerous people"
"guns don't kill people,death kills people"
"Society creates the crime,criminals accomplish it"
"If you can't dazzle them with brilliance then baffle them with bullshit."
"The people who compromise essential freedom for temporary safety will lose both and deserve neither."
"the truth will set you free"
"fear is the power, terror is the key"
"Just my 2 cents":)

[Blackhawk]

Haha, nice collection of one liners, probably the best way to sum up this whole debate (and anything else) which I think stems back (even though the period is still) postmodernism, I.e. the hopelesness(sp) of searching for absoloute truth and the meaningless of existance , the crisis of representation etc. Basically when it comes down to it, what can you do? The world is a decidedly fucked up place but what choice do you have, you're born now.

"You either sink or you swim"
"Shit happens, what are you going to do about it"

[RIP]

Gun control has been perpetrated by many a Government prior to subjegating it's people. Big difference between the US and GB is, here in the US we are citizens. In the UK you are subjects. In WW2 England had to borrow arms from US to defend their own nation as they didn't have enough for their subjects to help in the national defense. Our forfathers put the 2nd amendment in the Constitution for a damn good reason. It was not for hunting or sporting purposes. It was placed there because they feared exactly what we have now. Repressive government, and national defense. Simple logic will tell anyone that "gun control" only effects those that have respect for laws. You could make the penalty for any gun related crime death, and criminals would still use them. As far as getting guns... If they can smuggle tons of coke and pot into this Nation, what makes you think they can't do it with guns??? I am honored and thankful to live in a Nation that has the 2nd amendment to protect us and all the other provisios of the constitution. Without the 2nd, all others would be meaningless. What did Hitler do first during his take over of Germany and other nations? Gun control. Hypocrites like Rosie spout off about gun control, but have armed guards! Hollyweird is the last place to get the true facts about gun control. It's not the guns that need controlled, it's the criminals. Guns equalize the battlefield, so MY wife can defend herself against any attacker. I feel good leaving for work at night because of the dogs I have, and the 357 she has. Protection of my family comes first. I carry my pistol everywhere, and train to use it every chance I get. Boy scout motto: Be prepared. More people get killed by cars than guns every year. More teenagers get killed from drugs than guns also. Sounds like someone should be taking cars and drugs away, since neither are rights granted to us. The meaning of existance is to survive, and procreate. I'm glad to live here, where I have the right to protect myself, and my family. Long live our Constitution and the 2nd amendment!

[stickfigure]

Right on! I keep a small Arsenal to myself, SA M-1A, M-4 Carbine, Mossberg 590, AK-47, Berreta 92FS, Para-Ord P-14, and a SA 1903, plus a few .22's for fun and pleasure. I only keep a couple loaded all the time. But I live alone and have no kids.

The most astounding arguments I here out of Non-US nationals is that you have no cluse about why and for what purpose these laws were written. Yes, our country his high gun crimes, but 80-90% of those crimes are caused and related to drug crimes. Think about it pot is one of the cheapest drugs by weight, besides LSD. Drug dealers will do any thing to protect it and junkies will do anything to get it. Also gun crime comes from those protecting the areas and customers that they create their income from. Gun control started here as a result of crime produced by Prohibition. And for 70 years that hasn't stopped people from getting a hold of the weapons that were banned in the NFA 1934 act, 70 years ago!!! Just as it hasn't stopeed people from getting the drugs they want either. Yet there has been only one crime committed by a person who legally owned an NFA firearm and that was by a Police Officer! If your going to preach about why America needs gun control try educating yourself on the facts first! Gun control and drug control go hand in hand and banning either two hasn't changed a damn thing, except to hurt those who use they respondsibly.

[Barcy]

Not going into the paranoid "They are taking my guns away, so they can disarm me" bit. I have to ask. Are guns ever really the political issue or just a good side line for politicians to avoid real issues and just revenue raise?
Australia, we have some nut decide to have open season on some tourists and honest gun owners lose their rights. And yes I had one hell of a collection (armoury if you want to call it that). However I have never kept firearms for the purpose of self defence, but they would be my preferred tool to deliver force over a distance if the situation occured. As for 20 guns, yes I had that many, but with hunting, competitive shooting and paintball (firearm under Australian law) it is hard not to. I have over 20 fishing lines and rods does that make me a murderer of the marine environment?

As for the types of firearms, some are historically collectable, some have a direct purposes such as special competitions and hunting. But man there used to be GUNS JUST FOR FUN and I have no regrets using them and miss the thrill of opening up on a mob of feral pigs in the channel country or up in the gulf with my SPAS 12.

But I digress, the issue that most aussies soon forgot was the increased medicare levee (mandatory tax) to pay for the cost of gun buy back, which was supposed to be a one of situation but it kept going. Now we have another buy back and I can say goodbye to my handguns. With cost and legal requirements to own firearms very few people can afford to maintain their place in the sport/interest and I can see that one day I will not be able to provide my son with the joys and thrills of legal target shooting and hunting, because some politicians decided that they can run little media attention getting sideshow policies and raise more revenue at the cost of people like myself.

If not for experience, studies and forums like this, I am certain I would not have the knowledge to fabricate a nice little (quiet/suppressed) firearm for my son and I to go out to dispatch the odd feral animal while enjoying the pleasures of the wild. Basicly these laws are like any prohibition, more of the common folk become criminals to varying degrees. There are always sheeple who will belief the political and media demand for gun control, but the good thing is some people learn form these little political games, once it actually impacts on their lives.

[Jacks Complete]

To all those talking about ammunition control as a change from gun control, it will not work.

A single round could cost £1000, and it would make no difference. Most criminals don't give a damn about the ammo, just the threat. They use a gun to force compliance, because you never ask if the gun is real before handing over the wallet!

If the gun plus a clip cost e.g. £3000, then the criminals would use them in just the same way. They make a small fortune from the robbery/drugs trade/enforcement/protection rackets, so they would just put up prices to match, if they felt they needed to. Once you have ten rounds, then unless you do a drive-by, or whatever, you are set for life, as a criminal.

Of course, ten rounds is one target, and I use at least 50 for each trip to the range. So it would kill target shooting dead overnight, whilst, as usual, dodging the problem of criminally used guns.

Also, of course, if costs went that high, the street would find a cheaper solution, be it bows and arrows, swords, or even *Gasp* home-made ammo and firearms!

A few cases, some match heads, and a tiny bit of BP, and you have a lead bullet on top of something that will fire, with lethal force. After you shoot the first unarmed subject, how many are going to try to rush you if you are holding a pistol? They don't know it gummed up the works, as they haven't ever seen anything like a real gun, even on the news and Hollywood.

Victim disarmament is a bad thing, and most gun control is victim disarmament. The rest is hitting your target!

[Barcy]

KnowledgeHungry, I hear what your saying and understand your passion, perhaps it is fare to say there are multiple issues and that the politicians can fleece the sheeple in many ways under the guise of protecting society from those evil guns.
Yes, gun control is an issue for you and me, but there is often little trends that shows when politicians have to answer to other issues they get passionate about something else and draw media into it. And violence or the threat of violence (gun control) excited the media like flys around shit.

But there will always be people, maybe like yourself who will always be blatantly open and opposed to these ideas (here here for them---very brave). Others like myself tend to be prefer the "be prepared" approach. I doubt wether any politician would ever see me as a threat, but god help whoever interferred with me and my own.
It is obvious gun control has not worked here in aus and I know of plenty of people who have never surrended their firearms, but make it common knowledge. Tough talk and stupid when the next new age dictator finally sends his piggies to look for and round these people up.

As it is obvious that political jokes keep getting voted in and the media have a frenzy on anything that is slightly firearm related. What will you do? Argue black and blue that it is not right (which it isn't) or come up with a practical suggestion. If I was not into looking for solutions to combat the big brothers and big sisters of society I would not be looking at forums like this. Let me hear your solutions on how to combat them and I will listen (believe me I will listen).

[Aryan_Nations]

Its amazing to see the politicans debate gun control. I personally get a kick out of this. Simple fact is the politicans who are for gun control and removing this right from us as citizens have body guards with weapons. Or the police who are for it that carry a weapon on a daily basis. So basically whats said is that if your the average Joe they want to remove your rights from you. This is why I support Gun Owners of America. The work in protecting our rights to bare arms. Anymore a days we are being stripped from our rights little by little. Well I can tell you this is one right they wont take away from people like you and I. Now I know guns arent for everyone as people will abuse there rights to commit violent acts. Well maybe if we quit blowing billions of dollars overseas on countrys in which have no immediate threat onto us then we could afford more police officers etc. But I guess ill shut up there before I fire up a whole nother debate.

Take care and be safe

[Speakle]

If some sad day the polititians are able to outlaw guns than we are all screwed because then the good guys will not own guns because it will be illegal and the bad guys will still have their guns and will be able to further terrorize everyone without the worry of being shot when they break into your house.

[MrMagnum]

hi there,

I'm a German gun owner. The German gun control is very strict but is not able to prevent bad guys from using guns and ammo.

[Narkar]

In some places the gun control is more strict than others. Here you need to have license to own a firearm, you cant even buy ammo for it if you dont have the license. To buy a firearm you need a permission from the police. It has 4 parts, 1 for the person who is selling, other is you (buyer), 3rd is the police and i dont remember the 4th.

Is very complex and politicians actually think that averagely a person makes a bad use of his personal firearm more often than good!!! Sure, killing someone when they are drunk and mad happens alot but more with knives and other melee weapons than firearms. And at the same time there is no way they can tell how often it happens that innocent person walks down the road, bad guys surround him thinking he is an easy target but when he pulls out his firearm the bad guys suddenly want to go away. I think pretty often.

Problem is how most people think. They are so dumb! They think that the guns are bad and kill people not people themselves, they think hunters are blood-thirsty monsters that mass-murder innocent little bambi deer. They cry when they read in the newspaper that someone was killed in car accident/bombing/firefight/whatever and blame whoever for it(when someone is killed by the bullet they naturally want to destroy all the worlds weapons and whatever) not realising that every day 275882827598 other people die too, that death is normal. If someone would kill somebody else using for example a gas bomb using water and electricity these damn "civilians" would want to ban water and electricity! Bunch of sheep not homo sapiens sapiens

[daysleeper]

Gun control is for those to weak minded or cowardly to die for their own freedom or that of their children.
For those that would rather eat potatoe chips and watch sports than live a real life, a life dedicated to progressing the species,
pushing evolution towards higher man, towards conquering all knowledge and bend it to serve the purpose of the strongest
and most deserving of life.

Thus spoke Daysleeper

[me234]

If the world was ideal, then the only post under this thread would read: "GUN CONTROL IS BEING ABLE TO HIT YOUR TARGET"! End of story, however the world is not ideal. Switzerland, probably the lowest crime rate in the world, two possible reasons: 1) It's some where in the vicinity of Holland, so people might be too stoned to break the law, or 2)Everybodoy (18 to 40 I think) is issued an assault rifle, now who the hell will break into a house with the knowledge that there is at least one assault rifle somewhere in the house, only dumbfucks. Now nothing personnal, but fuck the 2nd ammendment, I feel that that should be a mute point, we souldn't have to use that to defend ourselves, "IF YOU OUTLAW GUNS, ONLY OUTLAWS WILL HAVE GUNS" The sad truth. This thread is depressing the hell out of me, thinking about never going shooting again, shit!, do you guys also get withdrawl symptoms? Gun control is just a bad idea, yes if nobody had guns we couldn't shoot each other in road rage, but the fact of the matter is that the bad guys already have guns, there's nothing we can do about that, outlawing guns won't make them stop and think that "oh wait, guns are illeagal now, maybe we shouldn't do this after all" People who think that outlawing firearms will stop the bad guys getting guns are ignorant. Where I live the fucking gun control assholes really do believe the bullshit they're pedalling, they say stuff like "If guns are illeagal, it'll stop the bed guys from getting those AK-47's" they, the so called EXPERTS, really aren't aware that those fully-automatic AK-47's, are already fucking illeagal, they really aren;'t aware of this shit, WANKERS, FUCKING WANKERS, If wisedom grew on trees, they'd be bushes.

[me234]

I like what MrMagnum said it covers the whole arguemant in 2 sentances, that one post is the best out of all of ours. Well fucking said, now if the politicians would read that.

[MrMagnum]

I can write it in one sentence: law can only influence those who obey it!

[Jumala]

I see there a big problem with all the self defence strategys. If a criminal decides to come into your house he will not book in first. And he will not wait untill you hold a gun in your hands.

So what can you do if you look in the barrel of a shotgun and all your own guns are only one meter away. It is the same as you would store them on the backside of the moon or you have none. Even if you carry it in the pocket you will have no chance.
The self defence works only if you carry your gun allways in your hands, 24 hours a day.

I think some gun control would help to bring down the crimes but to much control don´t work.
In US you can get guns like popcorn and every kewl own some. And what will a kewl do with a gun,- he shoots around. This is the problem.

Off coarse only idiots act in this way but the world is over and over full of idiots.
Preventing the idiots would be fine but idiots have rights and guns not.
This is the reason why guns are controled.

A good example for a medium gun control is switzerland. There you can buy a full auto rifle but handguns are strict controled. I never heared about many weapon related crimes there.

[MrMagnum]

Some gun control is necessary, no doubt. But most laws on gun control are too strict. The German laws on gun control are an example for being too strict.

[daysleeper]

How is this for Democratic hypocracy. You always here these so called pro gun advocates, ranting about how Hitler banned gun ownership as one of his first actions when he came to power. But when the Allies"liberated" the German people from their "elected"leader, the allies found numerous weapons in posession of the Reich's populace.

Not only that, if America really freed the German's from Hitlers so called Tyranny, how come even now, Germans still don't have gun freedoms such as Amercians do or did at the time of the so called "liberation"?

In facted one of the first things Hitler did when he came to power was repeal a lot of the oppressive firearm restrictions, placed upon the Germans by the preceeding government!

Also gun control only works if you let it, the US was created by men that basically killed off the governing forces of the time in the 1700's, thats right we have freedom because we killed the oppressive system of the day, IMO, this system needs the same fate and will get it eventually.

And before it is asked, yes I'm a National Socialist.

[krimmie]

daysleeper
"Not only that, if America really freed the German's from Hitlers so called Tyranny, how come even now, Germans still don't have gun freedoms such as Amercians do or did at the time of the so called "liberation"?"

Who's calling it a liberation? The Allies were fire-bombing civilian targets for God's sake. Call it what it was...a complete ass kicking for what the Nazi's(and general population) put the world through.

As far as gun control goes...it won't work, they damn well know it! I am well stocked up with ammo( a special thank you to Cheaperthandirt.com) so let them fuck with the ammo price. For those youger members here on the forum...if you are of age, forget that vacuum pump, buy your guns and ammo now!

[Baughb]

My Two Cents:

I'm for limited gun control. There are certain weapons that there are no excuses for having, other than the wholesale slaughter of other humans. Just about anything automatic falls into this category. Really, what else are they good for? Maybe entertainment, but that loss is worth the sacrifice, if you ask me. What I would propose would be laws making the ownership of an automatic weapon a pretty harsh crime, like a couple years in the pen minimum for having one. Most other weapons, of any calibre, have a use and shouldn't be restricted.

Oddly enough, I'm all for things like fire selectors that could make a weapon fully automatic being legalized. They do have a purpose, and that purpose is keeping the government on it's toes. It may seem like a conflict with my earlier statement, but it really isn't. In a working system, law abiding citizens have no need for weapons that can hose down crowds in short times. For home and self defense, semi automatics do the job adequately. Only those who have plans on starting large firefights have any real need for automatics, let's face it. You don't go hunting deer with these things. On the other hand, having the equipment to turn your AR-15 or AK into a combat ready weapon is enough to give the government second thoughts on any nefarious deeds they may be plotting.

In the end, the power is still with the people, but the law is drawn at a reasonable line.

[daysleeper]

What the Nazi's put the world through? I thought America declared war on Germany not the other way around? Perhaps my understanding is flawed?

I don't think the police should ever be better armed than ordinary citizens are, the military yes, it needs to stay ahead of the enemy

[shrek]

The problem I see with the military having better weapons than the police and the population is: What if the military become the "police"... martial law? Than we are screwed. With FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) the way they are, I could see it happening.

[flamingfrog]

i think that there should be limited guncontrol limiting civilians to hunting firearms and pistols.

[MrMagnum]

daysleeper, America declared war on Germany because Germany declared war on the whole rest of the world. The American war declaration on Germany was just an act of self defense and therefore justified. Germany wanted to occupie the world as "lebensraum" ("habitat") for the Germans, because the Nazis believed that Germans were better and stronger men than the rest of the world's population.

[daysleeper]

Really? Well that is not what Hitler said in Mein Kampf. Ever read it? Your statement sounds like it came right from the Television.
I think it's funny, those that watch enough of the "History" channel, start to think they have a history major or something, lol.

Either way, gun control sucks balls

[Baughb]

Daysleeper:

I'd like to take a minute to shoot a few holes in your last couple statements. While it may be true that America declared war on Germany before Germany made any aggressive moves directly aimed at America, it wasn't unprovoked. Germany was an obvious threat, a fact they made abundantly clear by taking over half of Europe. You may wish to say that they'd have left the US alone, but I for one don't buy it. They invaded Russia, and if the Nazis had locked down Europe and Asia, I have no doubt that they would've tried to expand.

If that isn't reason enough for you, then I wish to point out that one of Germany's allies (Japan) attacked the US before we declared war on anyone. This alone was reason enough to get into the war against the axis powers. You may argue this by saying that we didn't have to go to war with Germany, that destroying Japan would have been retribution enough. However, that flies in the face of the alliance that Germany and Japan had. It would defy the point of an alliance.

Lastly, I'd like to point out that Mein Kampf was published in the mid 1920's, 1925 or '26 IIRC. This makes it chronologically impossible for Hitler to react to America's entrance into WW2 in that book. It is possible that I misunderstood what you meant by that last post, better clarification of your points in the future would be a help to all of us that read them.

[MrMagnum]

daysleeper, I read Mein Kampf two times. I am a German and I know the history of my country very well and not only from television. The Nazis wanted to expand Germany over the whole planet earth!!

[daysleeper]

Actually not expanding Germany, it was expanding the idealism of National Socialism, which is stated quite clearly multible times.
Hitler praised the US for the amount of freedom it's citizens enjoyed and had no ill intent for the US, proof? Ever see those pictures of the Nazi blimps hovering over Washington DC? I have. Ever heard of the Hindenbrg? Nazi Germany had many oportunities to attack the US, and wipe out DC, but they did not. Because Hitler saw America for what it was, a nation explored setteled and made by and for Europeans. Germany and Japan had a non agression pact, not really an allied union as we understand it today like Nato or anything like that.

If we want to discuss these issues in dept let's start a new thread or something, this one is about gun control, I brought up Nazi Germany as an example to demonstrate democratic hypocracy, not change the topic.

[MrMagnum]

A new thread is a good idea as I am interested in this topic.

It is true that Hitler originally wanted to join the UK and the US. He believed that both nations were of the same human race as the German nation. He just wanted to expand the idea of National Socialism. But when WWII started and he saw that the UK and the US wouldn't join him, he turned them into enemies and wanted to defeat them. This was 1940. Mein Kampf was written in the early 1920ies.

[Jacks Complete]

Gun control is a great thing. It lets me hit my targets.

[ossassin]

Gun control is not meant to protect the citizens of a country from each other; it is meant to protect the government from those citizens. The liberals who are pushing for gun control are socialists in every aspect. They want to raise taxes, put the federal government in charge of health care, decrease the power of state governments, etc. Once the socialists completely take over the country, we will start to lose our status as the superpower. We have to fight back against the fools. I think that sometime in my lifetime there will have to be a civil war over it, but maybe I'm just crazy. :)

[Yorki_pyro]

here in the uk gun control is far too strict in my opinion,
some simple facts for anyone who doesnt know:
you can make a fully functional firearm with some machine tools and a chemistry lab
people get shot if guns are illegal or not
and guns are FUN, they are works of art, and they dont kill people.
and does anyone know how to make a primer?

[tmp]

Maybe if the politicians weren't allowed to have their bodyguards
to protect them, they might get a taste of the street crime the rest
of us worry about. I'm speaking from a victim's point of view.

[Jacks Complete]

tmp,

Of course, you would only get them to sign that law at gunpoint!!

When 90% of the population want something else, they want to make sure they have all the other cards...

[JoeJablomy]

I like answering the clean, technical questions first, so:
Yorki: Percussion primers have a cup that holds a impact sensitive compound, the compound in the cup, and an anvil that is generally in contact with the compound in the center of the cup. The anvil can be part of the cartridge case, which would then have to have an off-center flash hole (a berdan primer) or the anvil is a separate piece, generally punched from sheet brass and having 2-3 legs and a raised central part. The priming compound is frequently lead styhnate based, and US military compounds also contain PETN. Potassium chlorate compositions are probably much simpler to improvise.
Electric primers are generally made of a cup similar to the percussion form, but with a large hole in the bottom. A brass 'button' sits on the rim around this hole and has a raised part that sticks through and is level with the cartridge base. The button is insulated wherever it is in contact with the cup. The priming compound sits on top of the button, and is apparently the bridge; lead styphnate is also electrically sensitive and should thus be set off by about 28 or more volts. Alternatively, a bridgewire of some kind could probably be used, but would likely need CD system to get a good response time.

Now for the politics:
Everyone here has so far given in to the annoyingly selfish tendency to try to defend their own personal and often irrational biases, without really going beyond what we've all already heard. You've probably even heard what I'm about to tell you.
It does not matter what someone wants to do with a gun, a big gun, a machine gun, a room full of guns, or a fucking howitzer. It is none of your business. You may be afraid of someone having guns, but he is not the slave to that fear, YOU ARE. It does not matter if you think it's "unreasonable" for him to have the gun, you aren't the one who's going to use it. In a free society, the rules of the game are:

The only thing you can not do is prevent someone else from doing whatever he wants with his own stuff.

Clearly, if he has a gun, the only thing he can't do with it is anything that prevents you doing whatever you want, so there is no presumption of a right to kill, sorry Tuatara. There is no presumption of a right to do anything that you the non-owner can legitimately bitch about like shooting your house, which is your property. However, You cannot tell Him how big/fast/many/what kind of gun he can have. It's his fucking business, not yours. See?
Does the average civilian have a use for a machine gun? None of your fucking business. I know a lot of civilians who have uses for machineguns. They include
-shooting stuff
-shooting junkyard cars
-bowling
-showing off
-looking cool
-talking about them
-building them to prove the design works
-whatever the fuck you want that doesn't violate other people's rights.
No use except mowing down crowds of civilians? Read carefully the earlier posts, and you will notice it said many times that you should not decide what the law should be based on the movies. Do you have any idea how much ammunition would be needed to 'mow down a crowd?' The fact is, while You don't have any use for their machine gun and have a highly emotional tendency to think of machine guns as people killers, it is entirely possible for anyone to have a reason to want and to have a machine gun. It's their gun, not yours, and thus is none of your business. Period. You may interpret the machine gun as a threat, and you are free to think however you want, but you are no more free to throw someone in jail for having something than they are to shoot you because you're an asshole.
The one problem with democracy aside from the kind of politicians it attracts is that the people are allowed to vote other people's rights away. A real constitution would have a provision that says certain freedoms cannot be taken away regardless of how many people want it. In fact, the US constitution does almost exactly that, but the courts have voted it null and void. To preserve general freedom, there really ought to be an ammendment that prohibits laws that regulate the possession of things.
Anyway, the point I want to make about selfishness is, many people here want freedom to do whatever they happen to want, and in their parochial enlightenment realize that they are being perfectly reasonable in that desire, but all the same they are still entirely willing to tell other people who want weird and dangerous freedoms to go fuck themselves because their idea of freedom is obviously insane. My response is, in order to not be fucked with, everyone has to stop fucking with people. I've never tried drugs, but I would have no problem with total legalization. Dealing in addictive drugs probably merits restriction on the grounds that you're fucking someone if you hit him up with heroin without warning of the drug's addictive tendencies, and fucking people is the only real crime, but beyond that I have no problem granting you the unlimited right have things you could burn your brain with. I would feel very bad for you if you did turn into a hippie, and would try to convince you not to do it, but in the end it's your life and your responsibility, any you're free to fuck yourself because if you weren't you wouldn't be free. The problem is that very few people really care about anyone else's freedom anymore, and don't even bitch until their own is threatened.

++++++++++++++++++

You know, it wouldn't hurt to add a few paragraph breaks in the monosentence that is this post. NBK

[ossassin]

I don't see why the American citizens won't mobilize against it. We're the true rulers of the country. Why don't we just unite and use our power?

[tmp]

Dianne Feinstein is 1 of the worst enemies that we have. In 1 of Mega's
posts, he says that bitch helped to put limits on lab glassware that residents
of California are allowed to own. Congress is trying to muzzle the trial-lawyer
guild on malicious lawsuits against the U.S. gun industry. Once again the
bitch put in her 2 cents worth trying to attach a rider to that bill that would
renew the assault weapons ban. She was also pleased at the sentencing
of Sherman Austin to a year in Federal prison for an unconstitutional law she
helped to write.

Her equally vicious senatorial counterpart on the east coast, Chuck,
The Fuck, Schumer is opposed to lifting the BATFE restrictions on model
rocketeers that requires them to get a low explosives permit and have a
separate magazine for storage of rocket motors with propellant weights
exceeding 62.5 grams. Federal law already limits rocket motors to 4 ounces
of propellant.

Sorry to go off topic a bit, but this is an example where many groups have
been victimized by these 2 assholes. I'm sure most gun owners won't vote
for the Democratic candidate in the upcoming election. Unfortunately, I
will have to hold my nose and vote for GWB because it's come down to who
will fuck me the least.

I don't consider myself to be anti-Semitic, but with these 2 Jews, I think
NBK2000 may have a valid point ! When these 2 expire, I want to know
where they're buried so I can repeatedly piss on their graves !

[wrench352]

Yay! Another one on board! One by one I'll recruit all o' y'all. Tmp I hope I influenced the way you think some. Let me tell ya too, Kerry is right on board with em.
If yall want to have some fun I got this email the other day:
S.659, the bill that will help eliminate frivolous lawsuits against the firearms industry, will be taken up in the Senate this week, possibly as soon as tomorrow. It is widely reported that Sen. Feinstein will attempt to amend the bill with a renewal of the 1994 "Assault Weapons" Ban.

The anti-gun lobby is staging a "phone-in" tomorrow (Tuesday, February 24th) in opposition to S.659. Though the bill already has enough co-sponsors (54) to ensure passage, a filibuster could still be attempted, which is presumably what the anti-gun side is hoping for.

To ensure our elected officials know they will lose more votes than they gain by supporting a renewal of the AWB, we all need to do our part by calling our Senators and voicing our strong opposition to the Feinstein AWB renewal amendment that will be offered for S.659... not only should this ban not be renewed, it should not be allowed to cloud the issue of whether S.659, an unrelated bill, should be passed.

The anti-gun folks are asking their people to call between the following hours:

9:00 AM - 1:00 PM Eastern Standard Time
8:00 AM - 12:00 PM Central Standard Time
7:00 AM - 11:00 AM Mountain Standard Time
6:00 AM - 10:00 AM Pacific Standard Time

Call 202-224-3121 and ask for one of your Senators' offices (you'll have to call back to reach the other one).

Even if you've already called your Senators in the past few weeks, CALL AGAIN tomorrow. Be polite, but firm in your opposition to Feinstein's AWB renewal amendment. Please spread the word to everyone you know.

Thank you, everyone, for taking an active role in ensuring this useless ban does indeed sunset this September.





http://www.awbansunset.com
http://www.awbansunset.com/forums
So call up your Senator and bug the shit out of 'em,we can do this if we all pull together.

And for everybody else; What part of

The RIGHT of the PEOPLE to KEEP AND BEAR ARMS,SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED
dont you understand?
You cant argue those words away.Its a god given right.
Last point and its what truly makes us a super power,has anyone ever heard of a "Come as you are war"?

[me234]

I like JoeJablomy, he has a good sense of how civilian life should be run, with privacy, who gives a fuck what your neighbor has in his safe, I only care if he's gonna lend me some ammo. Switzerland, how long have they been ISSUED with assault rifles, for fucking ever! How often have YOU heard of them "mowing down" crowds of people, why, did you say NEVER? That's what I thought, if you knew that everyone around you might have an M16 or a Galil or an FAL or something, would you go house breaking? Would you fuck with your neighbor? Would you kick his dog? No you would be very nice to him and everyone else you ever meet. A quote:

George Washington: “Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence. To secure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and the pistol are equally indispensable. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference – they deserve a place of honour with all that is good.”

Thomas Jefferson: “The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”

Who said what if the military instates martial law? What if they get power hungry? What if they turn into the SA(A.K.A. the brownshirts)? Are we to defend against grenades and M249 with bolt action 30-06, maybe a .416 here and there? Fuck no, a well-armed militia must be every bit as well armes as the emeny they might face, otherwise how else are we to survive in the face of extreme adversity? The american "founding fathers" are the base for the whole american constitution, what the said is and probably always will be regarded as law, execpt the 2nd amendment, "All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others".

[Yorki_pyro]

The constitution is very important to americans, and thus the 2nd ammendment is one of their main arguements BUT what about a British person?
What arguement do we have in favour of our weapons? (or should I say TOOLS)
And thank you JoeJablomy for the primer information, also I agree with you on this issue.

[tmp]

:mad:

Wrench352, I'm an NRA member so I was already on board against these
idiots who we collectively refer to as Congress. Unfortunately, the bill to
protect the U.S. gun industry failed in the Senate because that bitch
Feinstein and her allies attached 2 riders to renew the assault weapons ban
and to require criminal record checks for ANY person selling guns at a gun
show.

Did any other Forumites see the movie "Runaway Jury" ? In the original novel
the defendants were the tobacco industry. Leave it to Hollywood to inject
their agenda and change it to the gun industry. The gun industry was
painted in the most negative way with Gene Hackman portrayed as a jury
consultant hired by a gun company who would do anything, including illegal
acts, to defeat a lawsuit filed by the widow of a victim who was murdered
by a gun-wielding maniac's murder spree in the opening sequence.

In contrast, Michael Moore's "Bowling For Columbine" was tame. The Oscars
need a new category - that is "Best Propaganda Film" of the year !

[me234]

Is that the new version or the old film, I'm sure the old film was the tabacco company wasn't it? If it is the new film then that is complete bullshit, doesn't america have a complaints commission to complain to? That needs some serious compaints, that's downright discrimantory, it's one thing the smokes company doesn't tell people that smokes have this or that bad shit in them, then they need to be sued, but a gun company for something that does not contain anything toxic or hazardous to on's health except the manner in which an independant party wields it? That's fucked up!!!!!!!!
If you use a cigarette as directed, it's harmful to your health, if you use a firearm as directed, it's only harmful to range targets, animals the user has a permit to hunt and people attempting to inflict grievous bodily harm on you, or a family member. Fucking hell, that's downright unethical of the film makers, somebody PLEASE write in to those motherfuckers and give them the facts of life, I don't care if they aknowledge you or not, or even if they give a shit, but they must just have been told so they cannot plead ignorance, fuckers.

[me234]

My apologies, I confused myself, I was thinking of The Insider and the Juror, I thus made a complete ass of myself with my earlier post, so I wanted to make ammends and let everyone know that I realized my noob mistake: There was no earlier film version of the novel, hence, sorry.

[Red Devil]

Bert, that was great, very rarely do I see someone put the second amendment in context. When reviewing the law, the courts are supposed to define what the writers of the legislation meant, and in constitutional law the court is supposed to define what the writers of the constitution meant. What I never understood is why they just didn't pick up a copy of the collected works of the founding fathers that were written for the papers of the time (now known as the Federalist Papers) in which they more or less explain why they put what they put in the constitution. Anyway, just wanted to say good job.

JoeJablomy, some 15 years ago I had a history teacher who said that ideally the US was supposed to be a country in which you could "do what ever the hell you wanted so long as you don't infringe on anyone else's rights". What ever the hell happened to that... no wait, that would be the damn lawyers right? No personal responsibility anymore.

There is a small city down south somewhere where I read (this was a few years ago) that the gun ownership rate was close to 100%. Crime was below 2%. All I can remember was it was a little blue book I had taken out at the library that had two authors taking turns in each chapter arguing for and against gun ownership/control. Best story out of it was some 80 year old lady who had caught a burgler coming through the dog door. Put a shotgun to his head and made him wait there in the door till the cops came.

On a side note, krimmie, do you find that after using the cheaperthandirt stuff you have alot of residue to clean out. I have some serious problems with their 9mm and 9 short ammo with residue and duds. Cheap russian ammo, great for the range, but I don't use it on carry or hunting. Just curious.