New Gun Ban for 2007!

[dohidied]

What about gun collectors? I know several people, some ex-military, that collect guns, and some of them are assualt type weapons. The only thing these guns do is sit in a locked cabinet, and once in a while go to a range to target practice.

Get a new hobby? If someone breaks in and steals the guns then they're going to be used for more than just target practice.

 

[RiDE]

Get a new hobby? If someone breaks in and steals the guns then they're going to be used for more than just target practice.

What if they steal cars.. aren't they going to run people over in the rush to get away?... should we outlaw those.. I mean.. c'mon... we can WALK to work right???

What about knives? What if the criminals use them to cut someone??? Outlaw those??? I mean, why does the sandwich need to cut sooo perfectly... why not just RIP it apart???

I guess by your logic we should look at all items that have been used in the commission of a crime.. then... make them illegal!

Prescription Drugs
Rope
Sharp Objects
Shovels
Lighters (ooooh.. fire!!!)


Great idea... :blind: <--- I'm wanting that to mean Ridiculous!

 

[surfwax95]

Guns don't kill people, bullets kill people...unless they're pistol-whipped, in which case guns kill people.

 

[MASTERforge]

This seems relatively tame compared to the approach the UK has regarding 'weapons'

By the end of the year it will be illegal to buy or sell a sword.

Those owning a sword will be allowed to keep it but not to sell or trade it. There may be some exemptions but what they will be is unclear.

I think that within a couple of decades Martial Arts practice will be banned or turned into pretty dances 'wushu style'

 

[James]

Now, simply speaking as a Devil's Advocate...

This proposal will not deny anyone the "right to bear arms."
What it will do is limit the amount and kind of weapons labeled as "assault weapons" that are being made to the general public. It is in no way denying anyone the right to purchase a firearm.

And just what do you consider an "assault weapon"? you would be suprised at just what is considered an "assault weapon". According to some, an old black powder cap and ball revolver could be an "assault" weapon because you can shoot it 6 times before reloading. I have a nice little 22 cal carbine that holds 10 shots and is considered an "assault weapon" by many. Almost any semi auto 3 shot shotgun is considered "assault weapon."

A piece here a piece there and the next thing you know all guns of any type are banned. That is what they want and they will accept nothing less. Once you are unarmed you are helpless against the criminal. Show me a country in this world with guns banned where the criminal does not have weapons.

Personally i would feel quite safe breaking into someones house in Canada and England and in any country that banns guns from private citizens. A little rape here, a little robbery there, maybe a murder now and then. The only thing the police can do for you is bring a blanket to cover your dead body under those circumstances.

Some great examples of gun banns around the world, Nazi Germany, Communest China/Russia, any dictatorship in the world just loves gun bans on private citizens.

I agree there should be gun controls. There are just to many people in this world that should not be allowed firearms, but we already have gun laws in every state and at all levels. Half of which are not enforced with any regularity, enforce those with great vigor and make the penalities strong. Quit giving criminals life for murder and then letting them out in 15 years.

 

[James]

If the gun-ban bill passes, how would the vice-president be able to shoot anyone ever again?

Sure he would, all he would have to do is go down town in any major city and buy one off the street corner. That is where the majority of criminals get their guns, not from stealing em out of some ones house, which is a widly popular myth.

 

[dohidied]

Sure he would, all he would have to do is go down town in any major city and buy one off the street corner. That is where the majority of criminals get their guns, not from stealing em out of some ones house, which is a widly popular myth.

So where do the guys on the corner get their guns?

 

[MacJet]

Under the current proposal, my 1956 Belgium Browning Auto-5 Light 12 (that's a semi-auto shotgun in 12 gauge) shotgun would be considered an "assault weapon" and banned as such. The only thing this gun is good at assaulting is pheasant and quail.

The goal of those who seek to disarm the people is to enslave the people. That may be acceptable to the NE and California but here in Texas you're just asking for a revolution. You can have my gun when you pry it from my cold dead hand.

 

[Amen-Moses]

This seems relatively tame compared to the approach the UK has regarding 'weapons'

By the end of the year it will be illegal to buy or sell a sword.

Those owning a sword will be allowed to keep it but not to sell or trade it. There may be some exemptions but what they will be is unclear.

I think that within a couple of decades Martial Arts practice will be banned or turned into pretty dances 'wushu style'

It has been illlegal to carry swords for a couple centuries now except registered ceremonial swords at ceremonies. (in fact any blade longer than 3 inches or "deemed by the police to be intended as a weapon" - such as a stanley knife in the hands of a thug)

I did Kendo for 6 months or so and never even saw a real sword, noone seemed to be bothered by it as the practice equipment is fine - at least until 2nd Dan or so.

Amen-Moses

 

[digital john]

Ok guys lets all be honest here....

There is talk about the how the 2nd amendments provides us with the right to bear arms to protect ourselves against the government incase they decide they want take away our god-given rights. That made a lot of sense 200+ years ago when the citizens could overtake a hostile government with muskets.

Fast foward to 2007....

Let's just say the government decided to take away our inalienable rights. Lets see how much success those southern cowboys have with their assualt rifles vs all the advanced technology the military has today ie surface to air missles, precision guided munitions etc etc.... The U.S. military could dominate and put down any uprising with very little effort. Basically rendering the original purposes of the 2nd ammendment useless.

In my opinion there is absolutely no reason why a civillian needs a weapon that is capable of firing 500+ rounds per minute.

 

[BIG D 04]

To people located in the UK:

Isn't it possible to get a hunting license for gun ownership? I know it's probably expensive, but is it possible?

Yea it's easy to get a Gun if you come under the right Framework, I suppose to a degree it works the same as the US but instead of "Everyone has the Right to bear Arms" you insert Farmer for Everyone

No you can currently can a Gun License for Shotguns if you run a farm and have to protect your Farm against Wildlife such as Foxes.

The main alternative if you are apart of a Gun Club where by you will practice target shooting such as Clay Pigeon Shooting and I think the final one is the exception for Gunmakers and Gun Collectors.

Well the only complication is the term "fitness" in the legislation, it determines whether you have had previous convictions such as gun related crime, alcohol or drug abuse or violence whether convicted or cautioned and then secondly you you have a valid reason.

I've never tried to get a Firearms or Shotgun License as I have no current need for either.

----

I can't comment on the situation in the US but I have often found you attitude towards the types of guns you deem necessary to defend yourself from a government, group or individuals a bit "out-there". I suppose us Europeans are too much into our peaceful process, we'll stay doing that as they seem to have a bigger success rating than Armed Militias.

 

[Amen-Moses]

Personally i would feel quite safe breaking into someones house in Canada and England and in any country that banns guns from private citizens.

Personally I'd feel like a criminal but it takes all sorts I suppose.

The thing is that criminals over here don't carry guns themselves because if they do and they are caught they will serve double or treble the time, whereas in the US the criminal will not only be heavily armed when he breaks into your home he will have spent a ton of time down the range honing his skills whilst you've been sat at your desk earning the money to pay for the stuff he will steal after he has shot you.

Criminals don't bother me anyhow, they aren't the ones who go bonkers and kill their workmates or just start sniping at passers by, in 99% of cases those incidents are committed by law abiding "normal" people who just happen to spend their "leisure" time collecting an arsenal of weapons and polishing them whilst watching Rambo films.

Amen-Moses

 

[RiDE]

Ok guys lets all be honest here....

There is talk about the how the 2nd amendments provides us with the right to bear arms to protect ourselves against the government incase they decide they want take away our god-given rights. That made a lot of sense 200+ years ago when the citizens could overtake a hostile government with muskets.

Fast foward to 2007....

Let's just say the government decided to take away our inalienable rights. Lets see how much success those southern cowboys have with their assualt rifles vs all the advanced technology the military has today ie surface to air missles, precision guided munitions etc etc.... The U.S. military could dominate and put down any uprising with very little effort. Basically rendering the original purposes of the 2nd ammendment useless.

In my opinion there is absolutely no reason why a civillian needs a weapon that is capable of firing 500+ rounds per minute.

Not true... a perfect example is Iraq... look at the problems the US is having there... The insurgency is not exactly High-Tech is it??? Now.. take away ALL of their guns.... now what??? Pretty easy right.

When the USA gained it's independence, it certainly was the VERY FEW who stood-up to take on the VERY many... and won. The vast majority of the populated colonies did not want war and were willing to be taxed into oblivion.. The courageous few made a stand a let their blood spill, and eventually won their freedom, as well as freedom for those that wanted to sit on their hands.

Let's hope it never comes to this, but if a revolution was ever to take place in the USA it would be by the few states/citizens who were willing to fight for their rights and the rights forsaken by those unwilling to stand-up.

And by the way... There are currently laws against MANY guns (inculding your 500 shot per minute gun), and most rightfully so... But every year the government moves the line a little closer, bit by bit, until they are all gone... Thankfully, there are many American that will continue to fight for their rights and rights of those that refuse to fight... first by voting, then protesting, and if need be... a revolution.

Just my $.02

 

[fleurya]

Under the current proposal, my 1956 Belgium Browning Auto-5 Light 12 (that's a semi-auto shotgun in 12 gauge) shotgun would be considered an "assault weapon" and banned as such. The only thing this gun is good at assaulting is pheasant and quail.

Ok, you bring one of those little shooters to my place, I'll pop one in your head, and then you tell me if you feel like you've been assulted or not.

The goal of those who seek to disarm the people is to enslave the people.

I really feel bad for all those enslaved brits.

There is talk about the how the 2nd amendments provides us with the right to bear arms to protect ourselves against the government incase they decide they want take away our god-given rights. That made a lot of sense 200+ years ago when the citizens could overtake a hostile government with muskets.

Fast foward to 2007....

Let's just say the government decided to take away our inalienable rights. Lets see how much success those southern cowboys have with their assualt rifles vs all the advanced technology the military has today ie surface to air missles, precision guided munitions etc etc.... The U.S. military could dominate and put down any uprising with very little effort. Basically rendering the original purposes of the 2nd ammendment useless.

In my opinion there is absolutely no reason why a civillian needs a weapon that is capable of firing 500+ rounds per minute.

Good point.


Honestly, I think people should be able to have weapons, as long as they have proven responsible to do so. However, compared to most (or all) "civilized" nations that allow citivens to carry firearms, America has failed that test miserably with the number of gun-related deaths. If you think about it, it's almost an embarrasement that we, as a whole, are so comparably uncivilized as to resort to such violence so often.

Finally, I think the fact that a product designed specifically to inflict harm, such as guns, is legal, and something no more harmful than alcohol, marijuana, is illegal.

 

[Amen-Moses]

When the USA gained it's independence, it certainly was the VERY FEW who stood-up to take on the VERY many... and won.

Since when has France been the "VERY FEW"?

Amen-Moses

 

[BIG D 04]

Let's hope it never comes to this, but if a revolution was ever to take place in the USA it would be by the few states/citizens who were willing to fight for their rights and the rights forsaken by those unwilling to stand-up.

But in that you would be forcing people to take action rather than to actually resolve the matter.

For example they ban Guns you go round gathering people up, who in there right mind is going to argue with a Group full of people with Semi-Automatic Rifles or Shotguns.

The fact of the matter is "People shouldn't be afraid of there Governments, Governments should be afraid of there people." Something I strongly believe in, Governments will and can not rule without the permission of the People.

Also you have little faith in your Military Soldiers that would attack there own people, it's never happened to date in any Civilised Democratic Society and it won't happen either.

 

[Amen-Moses]

Also you have little faith in your Military Soldiers that would attack there own people, it's never happened to date in any Civilised Democratic Society and it won't happen either.

Look up the history of a chap called Winston Churchill sometime, you may have heard of him. :bomb:

Amen-Moses

 

[TheCustomer99]

"The near-hysterical preoccupation with safety is at best a waste of resources and a crimp on the human spirit, and at worst an invitation to totalitarianism." - Michael Crichton

 

[fleurya]

Let's hope it never comes to this, but if a revolution was ever to take place in the USA it would be by the few states/citizens who were willing to fight for their rights and the rights forsaken by those unwilling to stand-up.

True, love live the confederecy!!

And by the way... There are currently laws against MANY guns (inculding your 500 shot per minute gun), and most rightfully so...

Your acceptance of banning any kind of firearms completely contradicts your reasons for people being allowed to own them. Earlier you made a comment about banning knifes and cars because they can kill. Then if we agree pretty much anything can kill, and we agree people have the right to own those things, why ban anything? By that logic, I should be able to build a small nuclear weapon just in case Bush and his administration take away my rights and I need to "clean up" Washington.

The bottom line to all of this is, a line needs to be drawn somewhere, and everyone stnads at odds as to where the line should be. The founding fathers set up the best governing system ever known to determine where these lines should be according to the will of the majority, and that same system will keep everyone in check and never allow things to go so far as to require any kind of massive assult violent against the government to maintain the balance.

 

[RiDE]

Since when has France been the "VERY FEW"?

Amen-Moses

I'm speaking of those that Stood-Up ORIGINALLY... France came in 2 YEARS after the war began. Thankfully so.