While the thread itself did't change my opinion, I decided not to apply for an advertized position in the USA, and this decision was reinforced and consolidated by contributions and opinions expressed in the thread.

I pick up my handgun permits tomorrow.

I guess I am still wanting to hear from someone who owns a semi-automatic gun with high capacity clips as to why they feel a need for such a weapon as a law-abiding responsible gun owner. I will never understand why so many Americans interpret "the right to bear arms" with the "right to bear any arms I desire". There are already plenty of weapons that an ordinary citizen is not allowed to own, and you are kidding yourself if you think that the arms that you can legally own (even semi-autos) could ever help if the US government went rogue and decided to become a military dictatorship. When the second amendment was created, I think weapons were a pretty even playing field in government versus citizen weaponry. Now there is no level playing field, but you are still stuck with that poorly worded second amendment and many, many more innocent people will die because of it.

How about his for a re-worded second amendment:

You have a right to own certain types of weapons, once you have demonstrated you have adequate knowledge and training to use the weapons safely. This right does not include firearms that are automatic or recoil semi-automatic, and you also do not have the right to own high capacity ammo clips. This right also does not include armor, tank or aircraft piercing weapons and ammo, nor does it cover biological and chemical weapons, and it certainly does not include nuclear weapons. You do not have the right to own long-range missiles.

Your right to bear weapons only extends to the use of weapons for self-defense, hunting food or humane euthanasia of wounded non-human animals. You may also use your weapon for practice to gain proficiency in it's use.

Any rights to own the above weapons can be revoked if you are a) convicted of violent offenses, or b) deemed to be of an emotionally unstable or impulsive character by a team of professional assessors. Since most adolescent males are naturally of an emotional and impulsive character, these rights do not extend to you until such time as you can demonstrate maturity, stability, and of course suitable know-how.

I'm sure I could go on, but what's the point really? No one is looking to take away all your toys, just to limit what toys you can own, and who cannot own them. Rifle, pistol, shotgun, knife, nunchakas, spear, bow and arrow, cross-bow? Fine. Everything else..pretty dubious as to why you would want anything else.

+26 to Lynn's post.

Edited by T.L. on 01/17/2013 20:24:22 MST.

"+26 to Lynn's post."

+1 to Travis' post.

Lynn for President!!!

BTW, Lynn, you forgot a particularly nasty little toy that is legal. Google up Barrett Rifle. It's a real winner.

Here read this. Serious nap risk though!

Barret Rifles?

C'mon Tom, you've gone soft. Barrets are for farmgirls and overweight safari hunters that couldn't find a cape buffalo in their own backyard without a $6000 guide.

When the $hit hits the fan and the United Nations rolls in to take our guns away and escort us off to F.E.M.A. deathcamps, you're going to need a man's gun.
I personally won't be satisfied with my Second Ammendment Rights until I can get my hands on a 30mm Bushmaster MK 44 with depleted uranium based armor piercing rounds to mount in the bed of my camoflaged 4x4 Ford F350 Dually. AND a thermal targeting system.

Nancy Pelosi and Dianne Feinstein are the only damn things standing between me and a fully functional Tomahawk missile system in my garage.

If we cannot be AT LEAST as well armed as the Government, we'll never taste true Freedom.

nm

Edited by MAYNARD76 on 01/18/2013 00:22:58 MST.

>High capacity clips.
There is no such thing as a high capacity clip. It's called a magazine. A clip is something else. No gun owner is going to take your opinion on controlling specific firearms seriously if you can't get that right. I know that sounds rude, but it's the truth. The "high capacity magazines" that people love to refer to are not high capacity, they are normal capacity. Most rifle magazines are 30 rounds. You are calling for low capacity magazines. A magazine larger than 30 rounds isn't very practical. It would make the rifle heavy and tiresome to carry around. It would make far more sense to carry extra magazines on a vest than to carry one excessively large magazine.

Watch this video and then try to explain to me why banning high capacity magazines would make firearms less deadly or reduce the deaths in a mass shooting: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2GsmUzSBaUQ&feature=youtu.be
A ban on high capacity magazines would put someone defending their home at a disadvantage. If you were going to invade someones home, you could pocket several magazines or attach them to a vest. If you had to grab your firearm to defend your home, you wouldn't have time to grab extra magazines.

In response to banning semi automatic rifles, you should watch this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b8d9k6pHqYw
I realize there is still a significant speed disadvantage with a bolt action, but it's probably a lot less than you were thinking!



"Need"
Not needing something is not a reason to ban it. You should have a logical reason for banning it. Tom mentioned a Barret, which is a .50 caliber sniper rifle. I have heard some say that we should ban .50 caliber rifles because it's a huge caliber with no practical use for hunting or self defense. It also has no practical use for criminal activities either. It's an anti-material rifle used to stop vehicles or penetrate through a wall at long distances. So why ban it? There is no recorded event of a .50 caliber rifle being used in a crime. So let people waste their money and shoot stuff with ridiculously large bullets. It's not hurting anyone.

"If we cannot be AT LEAST as well armed as the Government, we'll never taste true Freedom."

Thanks for setting me straight, Craig. I knew something was missing, but I just couldn't quite articulate it. Assuming your Ford 350 Dually has a decent sound system, here's some music to get you in the proper mood as you tool down the highway
thru those amber waves of grain, bound for those far off purple mountains to defend freedom. ;0)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-cb0IIWQa4

"Most rifle magazines are 30 rounds."

Aren't we forgetting an adjective here, as in most "military" rifle magazines....? I used to hunt, and I never saw a deer rifle with anything near a 30 round magazine, or should I say clip, because that is what we used to call them. I did a cursory Google search on the round capacity of a Remington 30/06 semi automatic rifle, just to get a feel for what's out there these days, and it comes off the shelf with a 4 round clip. Now this is undoubtedly for hunting situations, where 4 rounds and one in the chamber should be enough to bring an animal down, or at least give the hunter an adrenaline pump if he can't hit the animal. When you say most rifle magazines are 30 rounds, what type of use are you thinking of?

"It also has no practical use for criminal activities either. It's an anti-material rifle used to stop vehicles or penetrate through a wall at long distances. So why ban it? There is no recorded event of a .50 caliber rifle being used in a crime."

It has very practical potential use as a means of shooting down a large aircraft as it takes off, if one happens to be a terrorist. Equally bad, it has enormous potential as a means of assassinating a high official. As you said, it's a sniper rifle. I'll bet it gives the Secret Service nightmares thinking about the possible scenarios. With a range of well over a mile, how can they possibly cover all the potential shooting positions in an urban environment? That .50 cal round could penetrate an agent, the official, and another agent behind him with ease, not to mention bullet proof glass.

"There is no recorded event of a .50 caliber rifle being used in a crime. So let people waste their money and shoot stuff with ridiculously large bullets. It's not hurting anyone."

Yet, but the first time is liable to be a real disaster. How you can support allowing these things to be legal is simply beyond me. They have no place in a civilized society. Period.

"There is no recorded event of a .50 caliber rifle being used in a crime."

I'm not convinced that's true....

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/581569/posts

and

http://www.vpc.org/snipercrime.htm

-----------"There is no recorded event of a .50 caliber rifle being used in a crime."

I'm not convinced that's true....

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/581569/posts

and

http://www.vpc.org/snipercrime.htm


that probably should have read "killed". But nearly all of those "crimes" are people illegally possessing the .50 gun. Which isn't want is meant.

"http://www.vpc.org/snipercrime.htm"

What I found of particular interest was the reference to some moron firing an armor piercing incendiary round into a tree stump, thereby starting a fire that lasted several days. Now, back to my earlier comment about targeting a large passenger airplane, a 747 or A-380 perhaps.... How can anyone in their right mind try to justify making this type of weapon legal?

"No gun owner is going to take your opinion on controlling specific firearms seriously if you can't get that right. I know that sounds rude, but it's the truth."

You are right Justin. I don't know a heck of a lot about specific gun configurations. I don't need to. I don't own a gun, and never will. I DO own an illegal stash of pepper spray (illegal in NZ anyway). I have used it twice against vicious dogs. I grew up in the US, and my parents had a pistol in the house. I spent summers at my grandparents house where we got paid to shoot birds in the orchard. We got paid per bird, but never got paid fairly as their spaniel would often retrieve the birds and scamper off before we could collect the evidence. Of course, that would make me a poor choice to be making policy on weapons control, but I'm fine stepping back and letting someone with more knowledge decide on policy. I guess you could say I willing gave away my second amendment rights when I moved to NZ. I have to say I feel much safer, even though there is still a chance that I might one day come across a criminal who flaunts the law and possesses an illegal weapon (or even a legal weapon, hunting here is HUGE in popularity and there are plenty of legally owned rifles). It is clearly not enough to make changes to US laws limiting who can own what. There also needs to be a concerted effort to get illegal weapons off the street. So a change to search and seize laws as well?? I don't have a glib answer, I just recognise that there IS a problem, and the lack of will to make changes really upsets me.

It is clearly not enough to make changes to US laws limiting who can own what. There also needs to be a concerted effort to get illegal weapons off the street. So a change to search and seize laws as well??

This.

Ironically, many anti-2nd amendment progressives are strong proponents of 4th amendment rights. Oakland has been considering hiring Bill Bratton, a proponent of policies including "stop and frisk", and the recent city council meeting discussing it was packed with raucous protesters. The anti-police movements don't help either; here's a piece on the topic from NPR's All Things Considered: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=102353811

If you're willing to have a stash of pepper spray because dogs are a problem, consider how well people will respond to gun laws in places like Oakland. Those who do comply only shift the balance of arms more in favor of the thug side. That's why I'm very much in favor of programs that are effective against gangs; those are the groups doing most of the killing.

Gentlemen, gentlemen...

Long ago and far away, I was one of those guys dressed in green who attempted to defend freedom. Actually, it was one of those wars that came out right. But I digress.

My personal weapon was the M-16A2 rifle. Obviously that is a purely military weapon, and it is really only good for a fast action firefight, but it is relevant in that it was the ancestor of the AR-15 civilian weapon that has gotten a lot of bad press lately. The major difference is that the military version was full automatic and semi-automatic, whereas the civilian version is semi-automatic only. In full auto mode, ours used to get rid of 18 rounds in about 1.25 seconds.

When we went through basic training, we learned that a "clip" is slang terminology, and "magazine" is a little more formal. Sometimes the drill sergeants would use the term "clip," but when we used the term we got corrected. Oh, well. It is the metal thingie that holds the rounds that are fed up into the receiver to be chambered. Back in the day, all we had were 20-round magazines, and we were taught never to put more than 18 rounds in it, because #19 & #20 tended to ruin some of the spring action which led to increased jamming. That is kind of bad in a firefight. Over the years, I believe that they worked out some of those bugs, so that led to 30-round magazines, etc. I walked with it, fired with it, and slept with it. Such is the nature of a personal weapon in a combat zone.

My opinion is that there is no practicality at all for any homeowner to have a magazine holding more than ten rounds or so. Well, maybe if you live in Nairobi. If your neighborhood is that bad, then you better move to someplace safer.

If anybody tries to break down my front door, he will first get hit in the face with bear spray. Then he will wish that he was dead.

--B.G.--

"Actually, it was one of those wars that came out right."

They had M-16s in World War 2? Huh, learn something new every day....

"They had M-16s in World War 2? Huh, learn something new every day...."

"The M16 rifle, officially designated Rifle, Caliber 5.56 mm, M16, is the United States military version of the AR-15 rifle. The rifle was adapted for semi-automatic, three-round burst, and full-automatic fire.[6] Colt purchased the rights to the AR-15 from ArmaLite, and currently uses that designation only for semi-automatic versions of the rifle. The M16 fires the 5.56×45mm NATO cartridge. The rifle entered United States Army service and was deployed for jungle warfare operations in South Vietnam in 1963,[7] becoming the U.S. military's standard service rifle of the Vietnam War by 1969,[8] replacing the M14 rifle in that role. The U.S. Army retained the M14 in CONUS, Europe, and South Korea until 1970. Since the Vietnam War, the M16 rifle family has been the primary service rifle of the U.S. armed forces." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M16_rifle

Nah, I think Bob was probably referring to Grenada, or Panama maybe. Unless he thinks Viet Nam came out right??? Bob....?

Edited by ouzel on 01/20/2013 19:52:14 MST.

"They had M-16s in World War 2?"

Ah-ha! You didn't know those things because you couldn't find any YouTube video of it.

--B.G.--