# Gun Enthusiasts



## Kluuvdar (May 15, 2012)

So, out of curiosity are there any other gun enthusiasts on the forums? What do you think of guns?

Personally, as I live in a state in a country where guns are legal, I think most people that own guns don't know how to operate or care for them properly. Also, I don't care for hunting, I don't have an issue with other people doing it, I don't have the stomach for it.


----------



## Commiecomrade (May 15, 2012)

I plan on getting some guns. Probably a pistol and a shotgun. I have no problem with lax gun laws.


----------



## thoughtmaster (May 15, 2012)

Well, my 9 year old little brother owns a Winchester rifle, we own a shotgun and a pistol and we live in the South so by default I'm what would be called a "gun nut."


----------



## Anubite (May 15, 2012)

I am currently in the process of getting my shotgun, still deciding on what model though...


----------



## Ikrit (May 15, 2012)

i'm sort of a weapon enthusiast period

from daggers to bombs and everything in between


----------



## Seian Verian (May 15, 2012)

I'm more of a sword enthusiast than a gun enthusiast.

...Know very little about either though, sadly. Oh well


----------



## Aden (May 15, 2012)

I'll probably be picking myself up some form of handgun at one point, but I could hardly be called an 'enthusiast'

\Shooting at random crap on the side of a hill is surprisingly fun, however


----------



## dinosaurdammit (May 15, 2012)

oh man... guns >

243
12 mossburg
30-06
9 mil
22 LR
AK47
M4
M16
.45
20-06
6x5x55


----------



## Aetius (May 15, 2012)

Planning to buy a mosin whenever I am no longer broke.


----------



## Unsilenced (May 15, 2012)

I want to buy a gun, but my living situation does not allow that. 

Sadface.


----------



## Artillery Spam (May 15, 2012)

dinosaurdammit said:


> oh man... guns >
> 
> 243
> 12 mossburg
> ...



What the shit. Are you preparing for the Zombie Apocalypse or something?


----------



## Kosdu (May 15, 2012)

Big time gun nut, great shot with pistols. No training.
Shot a 20ga shotgun, 12ga..... .22 rifle, .22 Ruger Competition pistol(one from 80s and one from 90s), 9mm Kahr pistol....


Buying a .22 rifle this summer, I use BB guns alot.


----------



## veeno (May 15, 2012)

I love guns.

But my cousin hides them so i dont kill anyone.

V:


----------



## Roose Hurro (May 15, 2012)

I have a six-gun cabinet, and it used to be filled, with overflow leaning against the wall.  But that was some time ago, when I had steady work and a decent income, and could afford the toys.  Now, only two slots in my cabinet are filled.  Though I have two pistols and a shotgun as well.  And a handful of airpistols, but I don't think they'd count, not being firearms.  If I can survive my present living situation, I may one day be able to get that gunsafe I need, and fill it with what I have, and with some other nice choices, which will most likely include a nice selection of 19th Century arms, to satisfy my "cowboy" side.




Seian Verian said:


> I'm more of a sword enthusiast than a gun enthusiast.
> 
> ...*Know very little about either though, sadly. Oh well*



You have all the wonders of the internet through which you can learn.  So your "Oh well" is misplaced.




dinosaurdammit said:


> oh man... guns >
> 
> 243
> 12 mossburg
> ...



There, fixed the one, and would really like a nice example of the later, myself.  Funny thing, but my fave shop has a 6.5x55 on their bargain rack, but someone messed with it, so it's no longer original.  Replaced the rear sight and messed up the barrel doing so, and is missing the upper wooden handguard.  Shame, but it would make for a nice project gun.


----------



## Ikrit (May 15, 2012)

Artillery Spam said:


> What the shit. Are you preparing for the Zombie Apocalypse or something?



correct me if i'm wrong, but i believe she live on a military base


----------



## MattisVeneficus (May 15, 2012)

Guns?! I love those. ^^
I am going to be on the trap team for my high school next year and go hunting for elk with my family. I currently own my own Winchester 30-6 and am going to be get a 12 gauge shotgun for the trap team soon. Just in my house we have 2 12 ga shotguns, a 20 ga shotgun, a .22 rifle, and a .22 revolver. I have many more stocked with my relatives for when I go hunting. 
I like to shoot guns for fun when I go visit my relatives. My uncle is a huge gun enthusiast and has a loaded one in almost every drawer in his house. When I go up to visit him we like to go and shoot at these awesome exploding targets that he has. Along with his many guns he has a Barrett .50 caliber rifle that he's going to let me shoot next time i see him. (I was too small all the times before.) 
When I get older I want to buy dual .45 colt long six-shooters because they were used in my favorite series.


----------



## Kluuvdar (May 15, 2012)

dinosaurdammit said:


> oh man... guns >
> 
> 243
> 12 mossburg
> ...



I like you.

Mine:
20 remington

My brothers:
walther 380
ppk
colt 1911A1
9mm
More I can't remember off the top of my head

My brothers friends:
AR-15 .223
.308
And a ton of handguns


----------



## Viridis (May 15, 2012)

While I'm at college, I have two guns with me.  I have my .22 Stevens semi-auto, and my .50 caliber muzzle loading pistol.  The .22 is a great little gun to just go and shoot some targets, and while the pistol is exceedingly fun, it's slightly impractical.  After about an hour of shooting, it feels like your wrist is about to separate, depending on how much powder you use.

At my home on the north end of the state, we have a small stockpile.    .308, .273, another .22, .30-30, .32-20 (all rifles), a 12 gauge, 20 gauge, and, oddly enough, a 16 gauge (ammo is hard to get).


----------



## Boondawks (May 15, 2012)

I collect dildo cannons

A guy tried to rob me and the carnage was terrible


----------



## KatmanDu (May 15, 2012)

Am pretty much down to one pistol (Ruger SP-101 .357) and one rifle (1942 M1 Carbine .30) at the moment, due to current fiscal situation... but have owned and shot firearms of all types since I was old enough to legally own one. Maybe earlier than that. Taught handguns, shotguns, subguns, and patrol rifle (read: pretty much any magazine fed semi auto) as well as combat tactics to law enforcement for ten years and still teach to civilians. Armorer certificates for Glock, H&K, Smith and Wesson, Remington, and FN. Love shooting, love hunting, love working on and restoring firearms.

Favorite pistol? The old standard 1911 Government (although I'm a better shot with a bone-stock Glock 23... go figure). Rifle? FN-FAL. Shotgun? I know the most about the Remington 870 pump, but after shooting a Benelli M4... wow. Subgun? H&K MP5 .40, hands down. Currently I have a Crescent Outside Hammer double-barrel 12-ga on the bench, rebuilding and refurbishing it for a friend. Absolute bitch to find parts for.

So, yeah, I guess I'm a fan of the US Second Amendment.


----------



## KatmanDu (May 15, 2012)

Boondawks said:


> I collect dildo cannons
> 
> A guy tried to rob me and the carnage was terrible



SPOOGE ERREYWHERE!

And much butt-hurt.


----------



## Aldino (May 15, 2012)

I have you all beat with one single gun, 

MP5 Internally Silenced

 If I told you where I got it I would have to kill you with it.

I also have Mossemburg Maverick a Marlin .22 for plinking and a Ruger .22magnum


----------



## dinosaurdammit (May 15, 2012)

Ikrit said:


> correct me if i'm wrong, but i believe she live on a military base




i also hunt for my self :U all the guns are mine. the 6.5x55 (thanks rose honestly i didnt know how to write it out) the shells are 86 dollars a box and only gotten in sweeden. :C


----------



## Bliss (May 15, 2012)

Guns should be banned.

However, I would love to have a nuclear arsenal.


----------



## Aetius (May 15, 2012)

Lizzie said:


> Guns should be banned.



Hippie. Dirty socialist hippie.


----------



## Bando (May 15, 2012)

Aetius said:


> Planning to buy a mosin whenever I am no longer broke.


lol slavshit nugget :V

I've always been a fan of weaponry, but I doubt I'd buy a gun any time soon. If I did, I'd probably go for a 1911 and rebarrel it for .22 rounds. Much cheaper for a day at the range.


----------



## Aetius (May 15, 2012)

Bando said:


> I've always been a fan of weaponry, but I doubt I'd buy a gun any time soon. If I did, I'd probably go for a 1911 and rebarrel it for .22 rounds. Much cheaper for a day at the range.



Come to Arizona if you want to buy guns, we have four shops right next to campus.


----------



## Bando (May 15, 2012)

Aetius said:


> Come to Arizona if you want to buy guns, we have four shops right next to campus.


http://mikes-revenge.net/mrmadman/why.jpg
Oh Arizona, you never disappoint.

I'd rather buy a vehicle first, just sayin'.


----------



## Aetius (May 15, 2012)

Bando said:


> http://mikes-revenge.net/mrmadman/why.jpg
> Oh Arizona, you never disappoint.
> 
> I'd rather buy a vehicle first, just sayin'.



Why not buy some assault rifles up front while you are at it? :v


----------



## Bliss (May 15, 2012)

Aetius said:


> Hippie. Dirty socialist hippie.


As if I took that as an insult. <:V


----------



## Saiko (May 15, 2012)

I love shooting. Hehe, I've got an 800 pound safe stuffed with them not 10 feet away from me right now. xD

30.30
.243
.308 (Icon sumthin in case anyone recognizes that. Shoots like a laser.)
several .22's
410 gauge (tiny little bastard HURTS)
12 gauge
.44 magnum
a couple glocks
a few other pistols scattered around the house. (I stopped keeping up with them)

I don't like hunting, though. It gets too boring, just sitting there in a tree watching the grass blow in the freezing wind.
But occasionally we'll have some cousins over who'll bring their own guns (more 12 gauges, a couple muzzle-loading pistols, some other epic pistol that I can't remember the name of because I suck at names...) and we'll just shoot in our back yard for three hours or so. xD


----------



## Caelius (May 15, 2012)

Hey Aetius you can pick up a surplus mosin nagant from Cabella's for around 80 bucks


----------



## Aetius (May 15, 2012)

Caelius said:


> Hey Aetius you can pick up a surplus mosin nagant from Cabella's for around 80 bucks



I don't think we have that store in Los Angeles. Big 5 usually has them on sale for around that price though.


----------



## Bando (May 15, 2012)

Aetius said:


> Why not buy some assault rifles up front while you are at it? :v


But a nugget would actually be more fun :V

The cressidas and sc300's beckon me though...


----------



## Aetius (May 15, 2012)

Commie Bat said:


> Could make a good sales pitch.  "put 15% down and we'll thrown in a trailer hitch and a fully loaded ar-15 for free. :V



Only in Arizona! :V


----------



## Kangamutt (May 16, 2012)

I'm probably _way_ far from being anything near a gun enthusiast, but I do want to get myself at least a pistol. More than likely a .22 revolver. Light for a human stick like me, and I just have a soft spot for six-shooters. Though just for having on the wall as a conversation piece, I'd love to get an old flintlock.


----------



## Saiko (May 16, 2012)

Kangaroo_Boy said:


> I'm probably _way_ far from being anything near a gun enthusiast, but I do want to get myself at least a pistol. More than likely a .22 revolver. Light for a human stick like me, and I just have a soft spot for six-shooters. Though just for having on the wall as a conversation piece, I'd love to get an old flintlock.


.22's are so much fun... and cheap, so you dun feel guilty for shooting them. : D


----------



## MattisVeneficus (May 16, 2012)

Lizzie said:


> Guns should be banned.


Blasphemy! 



Lizzie said:


> However, I would love to have a nuclear arsenal.


For you there is the nuclear rifle. ^^ It launches a 50 pound nuclear warhead at a distance of 3 miles. However, the blast radius is larger than that if i remember correctly....But you don't have to worry about that. ^^


----------



## Aden (May 16, 2012)

Aetius said:


> Come to Arizona if you want to buy guns, we have four shops right next to campus.



It's true! I could pop down to one of the few gun stores within a two-mile radius of my house and pick one up with only a small wait for a spot background check


----------



## thoughtmaster (May 16, 2012)

Wow this area is growing massively and this should be expected because who doesn't enjoy watching something go boom?


----------



## Aetius (May 16, 2012)

Aden said:


> It's true! I could pop down to one of the few gun stores within a two-mile radius of my house and pick one up with only a small wait for a spot background check



I love Arizona and its incredibly lax gun laws.


----------



## Roose Hurro (May 16, 2012)

dinosaurdammit said:


> i also hunt for my self :U all the guns are mine. the 6.5x55 (*thanks roose honestly i didnt know how to write it out*) the shells are 86 dollars a box and only gotten in sweeden. :C



No prob, been exposed to guns so long, I've learned all these things by heart.


----------



## Aldino (May 16, 2012)

Aden said:


> It's true! I could pop down to one of the few gun stores within a two-mile radius of my house and pick one up with only a small wait for a spot background check



We have gun shows here that have literally no rules. You walk in with cash and you walk out with a gun that could have been used to kill someone, its great. No background check all you need is your I.D.


----------



## Kluuvdar (May 16, 2012)

Aldino said:


> We have gun shows here that have literally no rules. You walk in with cash and you walk out with a gun that could have been used to kill someone, its great. No background check all you need is your I.D.



It's great in Florida, no background checks, no waiting period. I.D. + Cash = Gun


----------



## KigRatel (May 16, 2012)

I know quite a lot about guns... for someone who lives in the UK, where guns are illegal.

Because i've never had much direct experience, practically all my knowledge on guns is from First Person Shooters.


----------



## Schwimmwagen (May 16, 2012)

Lever-action .410 and generic old pumpshotty user here. Well, I have access to them. I used to go to a club too, where there was a large assortment of rifles, including an M16 and AK-108.

I'm looking to get a shotguns license so I can get myself something nice and in the future, get a proper firearms license. I'm looking to get a Mosin-Nagant M91/30, Karabiner 98k, and any Lee-Enfield model.



KigRatel said:


> *I know quite a lot about guns*... for someone who lives in the* UK, where guns are illegal*.



Wrongwrongwrong.


----------



## Saiko (May 16, 2012)

I want our AR-15 and AR-10 back. Dad sold them. ;-;

Those things are so much fun to shoot.


----------



## Batty Krueger (May 16, 2012)

Anubite said:


> I am currently in the process of getting my shotgun, still deciding on what model though...


Benelli SuperNova.  My friend has one and it's amazing.


----------



## sunshyne (May 16, 2012)

I have an EAA Witness .40 SW that I take to the range a few times a year, and keep in a closet just in case. 

A frightening amount of people on FA have galleries with nothing in them but picture after picture after picture of their guns and I must say, that is pretty creepy...


----------



## Batty Krueger (May 16, 2012)

Like this sexy sob?


----------



## Kluuvdar (May 16, 2012)

d.batty said:


> Like this sexy sob?



I saw the guns, and smiled.

Then I saw the person, and frowned.


----------



## Batty Krueger (May 16, 2012)

Kluuvdar said:


> I saw the guns, and smiled.
> 
> Then I saw the person, and frowned.


Hahah every time xD


----------



## KigRatel (May 16, 2012)

Gibby said:


> Wrongwrongwrong.



Damn, I knew I got something wrong. Well, they're not illegal as such, but they're much more strictly regulated, right?


----------



## Schwimmwagen (May 16, 2012)

KigRatel said:


> Damn, I knew I got something wrong. Well, they're not illegal as such, but they're much more strictly regulated, right?



That's true, yeah. In the countryside, they tend to be rather abundant. Also around the country are clubs that have all sorts of guns that most people wouldn't even have.

A year or so ago I found out that our local gun club owner happened to own illegally obtained weapons locked up in his basement, which included rocket launchers, automatic weapons, handguns, and even a small cannon of an old design (used cannonballs). I shit you not. He was later arrested.

I don't know how the trial ended, but the owner said that he had got these via legal means. By that he probably meant loopholes that the government wants to fix. But I dunno.


----------



## Aetius (May 16, 2012)

Kluuvdar said:


> It's great in Florida, no background checks, no waiting period. I.D. + Cash = Gun



Wasn't there a truck dealer in Florida that gave you a coupon for a free AK-47 for every truck purchased?


----------



## Roose Hurro (May 16, 2012)

Gibby said:


> Lever-action .410 and generic old pumpshotty user here. Well, I have access to them. I used to go to a club too, where there was a large assortment of rifles, including an M16 and AK-108.
> 
> I'm looking to get a shotguns license so I can get myself something nice and in the future, get a proper firearms license. I'm looking to get a Mosin-Nagant M91/30, Karabiner 98k, *and any Lee-Enfield model*.



I had a Mark 5 Jungler Carbine and an SMLE... I want another SMLE.  The .303 British is a nice cartridge, doesn't beat up your shoulder too bad, while still having some punch.  That, and an SMLE would make for a classy big-game hunting rifle.  So smoooooth!


----------



## KigRatel (May 16, 2012)

Gibby said:


> A year or so ago I found out that our local gun club owner happened to own illegally obtained weapons locked up in his basement, which included rocket launchers, automatic weapons, handguns, and even a small cannon of an old design (used cannonballs). I shit you not. He was later arrested.



I always thought that scene in _Hot Fuzz _wasn't completely fictional. Except this guy has a cannon instead of a naval mine.


----------



## Zydrate Junkie (May 16, 2012)

Boondawks said:


> I collect dildo cannons
> 
> A guy tried to rob me and the carnage was terrible


I imagine trying to rob your house is a bit of a pain in the ass then.

If I didn't live in the UK then by quench for firearms would be more readily sated. For now I must survive of air rifles until I join a gun club. (even then the amount of laws stop you from having any fun)


----------



## Rhampage (May 16, 2012)

Currently own:

Two Kimber .45's
A Stag Arms AR
Shotguns taking up an entire gun safe
A few S&W Federal Issues
A Henry Repeater (Because I like it Old Skoo)

Really looking into getting a Bushmaster Masada, but we will see.


----------



## Schwimmwagen (May 16, 2012)

Roose Hurro said:


> That, and an SMLE would make for a classy big-game hunting rifle.  So smoooooth!



Aye, I've tried out an earlier variant as well as a more modern variant. Possibly WW1 and late WW2 respectively.

The bolt is _glorious._ A fantastically smooth action. <3


----------



## Roose Hurro (May 16, 2012)

Gibby said:


> Aye, I've tried out an earlier variant as well as a more modern variant. Possibly WW1 and late WW2 respectively.
> 
> *The bolt is glorious. A fantastically smooth action.* <3



The Krag-Jorgensen is also very smooth.  And has that neat flip-open rotary mag.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (May 17, 2012)

I live in a state where it's very difficult to obtain any sort of firearm that I'd care about, but I do like target shooting. I'd get a small pistol of some kind if I could though; maybe Walther PP or Makarov. As for hunting, every hunter I've met has been a gloating, disrespectful buffoon.


----------



## Ikrit (May 17, 2012)

my favorite old gun is a blunderbuss 

is there anything more awesome then putting what ever you want into a barrel and shooting it?

and when you don't have time to reload, it make one heck of a blunt weapon.


----------



## Ozriel (May 17, 2012)

Kit H. Ruppell said:


> I live in a state where it's very difficult to obtain any sort of firearm that I'd care about, but I do like target shooting. I'd get a small pistol of some kind if I could though; maybe Walther PP or Makarov.




Come to VA. Getting a gun is like getting fast food. In-and-out. :V


----------



## Torrijos-sama (May 17, 2012)

Got a Marlin .30-30(336; Lever action), Ruger .22lr rifle (10/22; semi-automatic), an H&R .22lr revolver, and a Charter Arms .38spcl.

I'm still putting away for a mini-14, an SKS.


----------



## Batty Krueger (May 17, 2012)

Kit H. Ruppell said:


> I live in a state where it's very difficult to obtain any sort of firearm that I'd care about, but I do like target shooting. I'd get a small pistol of some kind if I could though; maybe Walther PP or Makarov. As for hunting, every hunter I've met has been a gloating, disrespectful buffoon.



Makarovs are drop dead sexy.  P99s are nice too, very comfy grip.


----------



## Dreaming (May 17, 2012)

I've never even seen a gun =( I don't see the appeal in them, meh. Rifles seem pretty cool though.


----------



## KigRatel (May 17, 2012)

Know what my favourite gun is?

Steyr AUG.  (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/39/AUG_A1_508mm_04.jpg)

Of course, i've never actually used one due to, you know, I'm British and I'm only 16 too. Is there anyone here who's used one of those?


----------



## Kluuvdar (May 17, 2012)

KigRatel said:


> Know what my favourite gun is?
> 
> Steyr AUG.  (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/39/AUG_A1_508mm_04.jpg)
> 
> Of course, i've never actually used one due to, you know, I'm British and I'm only 16 too. Is there anyone here who's used one of those?



I haven't used an AUG, but I've used one of these. They're really fun.


----------



## Batty Krueger (May 17, 2012)

KigRatel said:


> Know what my favourite gun is?
> 
> Steyr AUG.  (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/39/AUG_A1_508mm_04.jpg)
> 
> Of course, i've never actually used one due to, you know, I'm British and I'm only 16 too. Is there anyone here who's used one of those?



They are pretty fun to shoot.  Though the spent carts flying out no less than a few inches from your eye takes some getting used to.  Th trigger mechanism is cool too, no selector switch.  Single shot is a light squeeze and full auto is a full squeeze.


----------



## Catilda Lily (May 17, 2012)

I have a gun but I like my bow better.


----------



## Tao (May 17, 2012)

I own a bolt-action M24 and I'm saving up for my favorite weapon in the entire world - The Mauser C96. I especially like the M1896. :3c


----------



## KatmanDu (May 17, 2012)

Tao said:


> I own a bolt-action M24 and I'm saving up for my favorite weapon in the entire world - The Mauser C96. I especially like the M1896. :3c



I'd love a C96; one of the "Red 9" or chinese .45 copies. I've never found one that wasn't shot out, though.


----------



## triage (May 17, 2012)

where i live, if the next time i see a gun is when i die it'll still be too soon


----------



## Mentova (May 17, 2012)

I love firearms. It's one of my favorite hobbies. The only gun I personally own however is a ruger 10/22 for target shooting. It's a really fun gun with a lot of aftermarket parts for customizing and ammo is dirt cheap. Plus, .22s have like no recoil so you can shoot it all day without arm pain. I love that thing.


----------



## veeno (May 17, 2012)

I do own a good many guns.

But i will always love my German Luger.


----------



## Nineteen-TwentySeven (May 17, 2012)

Well, not necessarily into firearms, but I really enjoy shooting air/soft guns. I was thinking about getting a .22, but then I realized I'd have to pack up the car and drive about half an hour into the mountains to go to a shooting range so I could use it. With airsoft and air rifles, I can do it off of my back porch into just about anything I want. My friends and I once shot a can of rancid coke. I bet the shooting range would've nixed that idea.


----------



## Schwimmwagen (May 18, 2012)

veeno said:


> I do own a good many guns.
> 
> But i will always love my German Luger.



I'm too jelly for words. ;n; No pistols allowed here. All I wanna do is just try one out.

I think I may get WW2 Japanese and American bolt-action rifles, now that I think about it. That way I'd have a set of 5. I could get helmets to go with them, too.


----------



## Roose Hurro (May 18, 2012)

Gibby said:


> *I'm too jelly for words.* ;n; No pistols allowed here. All I wanna do is just try one out.
> 
> I think I may get WW2 Japanese and American bolt-action rifles, now that I think about it. That way I'd have a set of 5. I could get helmets to go with them, too.



Not a Luger, but I have one of these:  http://gastatic.com/UserImages/37974/908323872/wm_2596217.jpg ... Colt Woodsman 1st Series Sport, with adjustable front sight.


----------



## Aetius (May 18, 2012)

Gibby said:


> I think I may get WW2 Japanese and American bolt-action rifles, now that I think about it. That way I'd have a set of 5. I could get helmets to go with them, too.



Arisakas are pretty rare these days, specially finding an ultra rare non vandalized one.


----------



## Kezzmond (May 18, 2012)

Paid $80 for an SKS- Had no clip 
- Minor Rust spots (But plenty of them)


Cleaned up the gun, took it shooting and it never jamed, never failed to fire, and the groupings weren't that bad at 60 yards. (Iron sights)


----------



## Nineteen-TwentySeven (May 18, 2012)

Kezzmond said:


> Paid $80 for an SKS- Had no clip
> - Minor Rust spots (But plenty of them)
> 
> 
> Cleaned up the gun, took it shooting and it never jamed, never failed to fire, and the groupings weren't that bad at 60 yards. (Iron sights)


Aren't those the one's that supposedly can start slamfiring if given a good enough whack?

EDIT: Might want to check out that firing pin...


----------



## Kezzmond (May 18, 2012)

@ Nineteen-TwentySeven I just took my SKS outside and took it apart, thankfully my pin isnt in the forward position, LUBED THAT BITCH UP THOUGH. Thanks for the link, i now am a bit smarter.


----------



## Kihari (May 18, 2012)

I grew up in a family where most everyone owns lots of guns and loves hunting and all that.

I just don't get it. :I


----------



## davimink (May 18, 2012)

Guns should be treated like cars. In order to use one, you should get training. To have some as a mere keepsake, then whatever.

 Guns should never be banned from the general populace.


----------



## sleepyrat (May 20, 2012)

I used to have a C&R licence but never renewed it since I became a Marine. Been thinking about getting it again since buying even a long gun in my home state is a PITA made worse by the fact that I'm stationed far away and my home state has made it illegal for its residents to purchase firearms in other states without a shit ton of paper work. I'd change residency to where I'm stationed but I live in the barracks and wouldn't trust the retards in the armory with a potato gun.
I'm actually slightly bummed out since I want to buy a cheap H&R single shot 10ga but don't want to waste my leave to go home, file the paperwork for it, and wait a week for the waiting period.

What I own:
SMLE
Garand
M91 Mosin (finn barrel, early receiver)
M91/30 (round receiver)
Sears SxS (full choke x cylinder bore)
A bolt action 12ga that started life as a exported French trade musket for her African colonies, got sold to Belgium at some point, got converted to a single shot black powder bolt action shotgun there, and finally got exported to USA. Has "Needle Gun" engraved on receiver but its not the infamous rifle that changed warfare. I think it was just a marketing ploy based on what, at the time, was a very famous firearm.



davimink said:


> Guns should be treated like cars. In order to use one, you should get training.


I actually disagree. Guns are pretty much common sense and idiot proof (even mechanically "complicated" closed bolt semi-auto's are simple and logical if you take a minute to look at the mechanism). Just because people have invented a better idiot doesn't mean we need yet another layer of bureaucracy on the gun ownership onion. I say let evolution take its course. Will some innocent people be hurt as a result? yes but the idiots will die back eventually.


----------



## Schwimmwagen (May 20, 2012)

sleepyrat said:


> I actually disagree. Guns are pretty much common sense and idiot proof (even mechanically "complicated" closed bolt semi-auto's are simple and logical if you take a minute to look at the mechanism). Just because people have invented a better idiot doesn't mean we need yet another layer of bureaucracy on the gun ownership onion. I say let evolution take its course. Will some innocent people be hurt as a result? yes but the idiots will die back eventually.



No no no no no no no no no no.

Letting any complete fucking retard get his hands on a gun is going to cause nothing but a lot of dead/injured/worse innocents, which can be prevented by not letting them have them in the first place.

I'm all for civilians having guns, but I'd very much like a license system/level of control put in place.


----------



## Ikrit (May 20, 2012)

sleepyrat said:


> I actually disagree. Guns are pretty much common sense and idiot proof (even mechanically "complicated" closed bolt semi-auto's are simple and logical if you take a minute to look at the mechanism). Just because people have invented a better idiot doesn't mean we need yet another layer of bureaucracy on the gun ownership onion. I say let evolution take its course. Will some innocent people be hurt as a result? yes but the idiots will die back eventually.



don't EVER overestimate human stupidity


----------



## Roose Hurro (May 20, 2012)

Gibby said:


> No no no no no no no no no no.
> 
> Letting any complete fucking retard get his hands on a gun is going to cause nothing but a lot of dead/injured/worse innocents, which can be prevented by not letting them have them in the first place.
> 
> I'm all for civilians having guns, *but I'd very much like a license system/level of control put in place*.



You can't "license" a right, nor does any government have the authority to control a right, other than to arrest someone who abuses their rights to the harm of others.  Which is the only level of "control" we need.  Mis-use a gun, go to prison.  But everyone has the right to keep and bear arms without infringement.  Even those outside of America, only other governments don't protect those rights.  Then again, our Gov doesn't really like having us armed, either.  Because an armed populace is a free populace, and governments are all about "licenses" and "control".




Ikrit said:


> don't EVER *overestimate* human stupidity



You mean "underestimate"...


----------



## Ikrit (May 20, 2012)

Roose Hurro said:


> You mean "underestimate"...



oh irony, i love you so


----------



## Ad Hoc (May 20, 2012)

Roose Hurro said:


> You can't "license" a right, nor does any government have the authority to control a right, other than to arrest someone who abuses their rights to the harm of others.  Which is the only level of "control" we need.  Mis-use a gun, go to prison.  But everyone has the right to keep and bear arms without infringement.  Even those outside of America, only other governments don't protect those rights.


Why is it any more of a universal right than car ownership?


----------



## sleepyrat (May 20, 2012)

Ad Hoc said:


> Why is it any more of a universal right than car ownership?



Because the right to self defense is a universal and inalienable right (I'm not just talking about the reactionary act that most people think of as self defense I'm also talking about preemptive action when you KNOW harm is going to come to you). We are all born equally helpless but things quickly change as we grow up. Life isn't a karate kid movie and the 90lb girl will fail in a fist fight with a 6'7" 200lbs+ man 99.9% of the time. Weapons are great equalizers. The Government mandates us all equal and the colt enforces it (I don't remember the actual quote but that's the gist of it).


----------



## Roose Hurro (May 20, 2012)

Ad Hoc said:


> Why is it any more of a universal right than car ownership?



A car is just transportation.  A gun is protection.  A gun means no one can force you to do what you don't want to do.  A gun makes the weak strong.  A gun makes everyone equal.  And the biggie:  Guns existed back when the U.S. Constitution was written.  Cars didn't.  Maybe if they did, car ownership wouldn't require registration and licensing, because it would be a right, not a privalege.  Plus, guns and cars are equal in one aspect.  If you can't afford one, then you can't own one.  However, a gun is far cheaper than a car, so people are far more likely to be able to afford a gun than a car.  Therefore, even a person of modest means can be armed... can protect what little they may have.  From what I understand of history, a person was far more likely to have a gun then they were a "permanent" home.  Along with a horse.  But the gun always tended to come first, a tool to protect one's life and property from those who would try to take life and property by force.

Oh, and what sleepyrat said...


----------



## Bliss (May 20, 2012)

Roose Hurro said:


> You can't "license" a right, nor does any government have the authority to control a right...


Sure you can and sure as hell it does. 



> Because an armed populace is a free populace, and governments are all about "licenses" and "control".


The only populace that has any rights is one that has them bestowed upon it by a government; an organisation. A free populace is a governed one.


----------



## Ad Hoc (May 20, 2012)

sleepyrat said:


> Because the right to self defense is a universal and inalienable right.


So is the right to travel to find food, employment, escape danger, etc., Most people are capable of walking, but most people are also capable of throwing a punch. Both are inadequate in many situations. Adequate transportation is actually more necessary in this way, as it is more vital for day-to-day living in much of the Western world. (PT is not adequate in many parts of the world--especially America--and anyway that's government-run.)


EDIT: Ninja, hold on.



Roose Hurro said:


> A car is just transportation.  A gun is  protection.  A gun means no one can force you to do what you don't want  to do.  A gun makes the weak strong.  A gun makes everyone equal.


See response to Sleepy.



Roose Hurro said:


> And  the biggie:  Guns existed back when the U.S. Constitution was written.   Cars didn't.  Maybe if they did, car ownership wouldn't require  registration and licensing, because it would be a right, not a  privalege.


I said "universal" right. The world exists outside of America's borders. What bearing do our laws have on the rest of the world?



Roose Hurro said:


> Plus, guns and cars are equal in one aspect.  If you can't  afford one, then you can't own one.  However, a gun is far cheaper than a  car, so people are far more likely to be able to afford a gun than a  car.  Therefore, even a person of modest means can be armed... can  protect what little they may have.  From what I understand of history, a  person was far more likely to have a gun then they were a "permanent"  home.  Along with a horse.  But the gun always tended to come first, a  tool to protect one's life and property from those who would try to take  life and property by force.


Eh, again, see response to Sleepy. Adequate transportation is just as important as protection in the modern world.


----------



## Aetius (May 20, 2012)

Roose Hurro said:


> Because an armed populace is a free populace, and governments are all about "licenses" and "control".



So I guess Somalia is in your definition of a "free country" :v


----------



## Schwimmwagen (May 20, 2012)

Roose Hurro said:


> And the biggie:  Guns existed back when the U.S. Constitution was written.



And that was a big mistake.

And why is it that some demographics in your country are so intent on keeping their guns from "th' guv'mint"?

I don't know what it's like over there, but our government isn't oppressing us.


----------



## Mentova (May 20, 2012)

I swear I am the only gun enthusiast in the US who actually thinks gun laws should be strict. I don't think they should be outright _banned_, but they should have some difficulty to obtain. In my opinion, having strict laws makes it so only people who actually are serious about gun ownership will get them, instead of people who don't respect them or know proper gun safety. That way, hobbyists like myself can still have fun punching holes in paper from 100 yards away, and yet it will (hopefully) reduce gun crimes by making them less common and harder to obtain.


----------



## Nineteen-TwentySeven (May 20, 2012)

Mentova said:


> I swear I am the only gun enthusiast in the US who actually thinks gun laws should be strict. I don't think they should be outright _banned_, but they should have some difficulty to obtain. In my opinion, having strict laws makes it so only people who actually are serious about gun ownership will get them, instead of people who don't respect them or know proper gun safety. That way, hobbyists like myself can still have fun punching holes in paper from 100 yards away, and yet it will (hopefully) reduce gun crimes by making them less common and harder to obtain.


I'm right there with you, but stuff like that is between a rock and a hard place. Regulations can crack down on it and make it a lot harder to legally obtain a gun to ensure the safety and sanity of the user, but that will only increase the power of the black market, where anyone with the scratch can get one.


----------



## Roose Hurro (May 20, 2012)

Lizzie said:


> Sure you can and sure as hell it does.



If a license can be granted, it can be taken away.  Rights cannot be taken away, they can only be given up by the individual.  And a right controlled is not a right.  Because "control", if it is not in the hands of the individual, makes that individual subservient to a "Master"... to the one who has that "control".




Lizzie said:


> *The only populace that has any rights is one that has them bestowed upon it by a government*; an organisation. A free populace is a governed one.



False:  Rights are inherent, privilages are granted by a government.  And rights are not privilages.  And no:  A free poplulace is one that governs itself.




Ad Hoc said:


> So is the right to travel to find food, employment, escape danger, etc., Most people are capable of walking, but most people are also capable of throwing a punch. *Both are inadequate in many situations.* Adequate transportation is actually more necessary in this way, as it is more vital for day-to-day living in much of the Western world. (PT is not adequate in many parts of the world--especially America--and anyway that's government-run.)



Exactly, but the thing is, if you don't have a means to protect yourself, you don't have a means to protect you property, either... this includes a car.  What good is it to have a right to transport, food... to anything... if anyone stronger than you can take it away by force?  To secure every other right, you must first have the means to protect your rights.  This is what the Second Amendment is all about.  To secure your rights... to secure your freedom... you must first have the right to defend it.  And the means.  Without the means, your rights are only what someone else tells you they are, rather than what you tell other people.




Ad Hoc said:


> See response to Sleepy.



Done.




Ad Hoc said:


> I said "universal" right. The world exists outside of America's borders. *What bearing do our laws have on the rest of the world?*



The right to defend yourself IS a "universal" right.  What isn't is governmental recognition of that right.




Ad Hoc said:


> Eh, again, see response to Sleepy. *Adequate transportation is just as important as protection in the modern world.*



No.  There are priorities.  If you cannot defend your "adequate transportation", then it is not a right you can secure, because anyone stronger than you can take it away.  Again, this is the whole purpose of the Second Amendment, to secure the enumerated right to protect what is yours from those who would take it from you.

Also, you mentioned PT as being government-run/controlled.  All forms of transport are government-run/controlled.  You can lose your license, or be refused transportation if you don't follow someone else's rules and regulations.  Oh, correction... your ability to walk is not controlled by the government... that's a freebie.




Aetius said:


> So I guess Somalia is in your definition of a "free country" :v



Somalia, far as I'm aware, doesn't have a government.  It is a "country" of pirates and chaos.  Being armed and free doesn't mean a lack of governance.  It's a matter of whether or not a people takes responsibility for its own governance, turns that governance over to someone else, or simply has no governance, for whatever reason.  Perhaps you should study the history of Somalia?  You might find something of interest.  Because in America, whe had both governance, chosen by The People, while at the same time the will AND ABILITY to arm ourselves in the cause of freedom.  All because those who established the Colonies in America allowed the private, unrestricted ownership of personally owned firearms.  One of the reasons they came to the New World, to start a new life and a new nation.




Gibby said:


> And that was a big mistake.
> 
> And why is it that some demographics in your country are so intent on keeping their guns from "th' guv'mint"?*
> 
> I don't know what it's like over there*, but our government isn't oppressing us.



Exactly, so you can't say it was "a big mistake".  Remember, we would still be a British colony, or worse, if not for the private ownership of arms.




Mentova said:


> I swear I am the only gun enthusiast in the US who actually thinks gun laws should be strict. I don't think they should be outright _banned_, but they should have some difficulty to obtain. In my opinion, having strict laws makes it so only people who actually are serious about gun ownership will get them, instead of people who don't respect them or know proper gun safety. That way, hobbyists like myself can still have fun punching holes in paper from 100 yards away, and yet it will (hopefully) reduce gun crimes by making them less common and harder to obtain.



If this is the way you feel, then you obviously need a refresher on American History.  What we need is crime control, not gun control.  And you need to understand that, with freedom, there come certain risks.

I suggest you read these for a start:  http://www.sightm1911.com/Care/Gun_Quotes.htm

Because criminals don't respect the law, if you don't control the criminal, then you don't control the crime.  The only thing gun control laws affect are the law-abiding.


----------



## sleepyrat (May 20, 2012)

Gibby said:


> And that was a big mistake.
> 
> And why is it that some demographics in your country are so intent on keeping their guns from "th' guv'mint"?
> 
> I don't know what it's like over there, but our government isn't oppressing us.



I hate it when people make fun of they typical red neck accent. Just because they have a specific dialect doesn't mean they are stupid as you implicated. This is coming from a swamp yankee who barely gets along with most southerners in the first place.

You have to realize that American culture is very different from other countries. Hell its different from Canadian culture as well. For the majority of Americans guns aren't a big deal. A good example is when I was going to college in Maine. One of my friends there is from Scotland and there was a bit of culture shock for him when he started hanging out with me and my group of friends. Two specific events stick in my mind.

The first is when we were at a mall waiting on the girls who were shoe shopping (I think we originally went there as a food pitstop on a road trip but you know women). We were sitting on a bench and I just pulled out my pocket knife (big no name brand folder) and started flicking it open and closed. He just short of freaked out thinking we were all going to get in deep shit. Thing is no one in the mall was threatened or thought twice about it. A security guard did talk to me not to reprimand but to ask where I got it because he liked the design.

The other one is when we took him hunting. We couldn't drive to our spot so we made the short walk to the path (from which it was a VERY long walk but that's a different story of hilarity involving frost heave and sudden 4' drops into underground voids). The walk took us through part of town so we slung our rifles and opened the bolts. Again he was the only person in all of Maine bothered by this.

The only thing I'm afraid of is a situation like Britain where they started with guns, moved on to knives, and now I've heard something about there not being glass mugs at bars now (not sure on how true that is though). What to they have to show for it? HIGHER violent crime rates. Really I'm not afraid of government oppression. All governments oppress you just have to find the loop holes and run with it.

If guns were heavily restricted or even outlawed then well I'd just make my own (seriously if you took metal shop in HS and got at least a C- in your science classes YOU can successfully make a safe firearm) or buy on the BM. I would rather do things legally though just don't MAKE me a criminal.


----------



## thoughtmaster (May 20, 2012)

It is time to tell everyone who wants guns to be illegal, "then who will be able to stop the government if they start repressing people's right to live, the right to believe what you wish to believe, and the right to be independent of other people for your own requirements?" If I am able to recall, there was a quote from ancient Greece, or was it Rome? Anyway, the quote is, something similar to "who watches the watchers" which means "who will defend us from our defenders." Without the ability to defend ourselves, what would be there to prevent us from being slaves to our own government?


----------



## Onnes (May 21, 2012)

Why do I always get the feeling that Roose lives in the old west where your rights begin and end with firepower?


----------



## sunshyne (May 21, 2012)

Roose Hurro said:


> If this is the way you feel, then you obviously need a refresher on American History.  What we need is crime control, not gun control.  And you need to understand that, with freedom, there come certain risks.
> 
> I suggest you read these for a start:  http://www.sightm1911.com/Care/Gun_Quotes.htm
> 
> Because criminals don't respect the law, if you don't control the criminal, then you don't control the crime.  The only thing gun control laws affect are the law-abiding.



That would be a great idea, if there was a bright line anymore between a "criminal" and your everyday citizen. People are losing their right to own a firearm - with felony consequences if they ever touch one again - for really, really petty shit. In many states you can permanently lose the right by being convicted of misdemeanor assault (read: defending yourself in a fight) or for any drug crime (read: getting caught with a joint). That's asinine. Forgive me for not being able to see how your marijuana possession conviction from 15 years ago make you worthy of a lifetime ban on the only effective means of self-defense... And don't even get me started on mandatory minimums for so-called "armed criminals." Basically, when you know the ins and outs of it, the only thing having tough "crime control" and lax gun control gets you is crowded prisons.

At the same time, having laws that allow any dumbass to walk around with a gun is, to put it mildly, fucking stupid. And that's where some far-right state legislators actually want to go with our gun laws. Example: in Ohio last year, there was a state legislator who proposed a bill that would allow ANY PERSON who paid a $250 fee (and passed a background check, of course) to obtain a concealed carry license. No training or examination required. That would be even more idiotic than allowing people to drive without passing a driver's test, and somehow, of course, the gun lobbyist supported it. Stupid crap like that is why, even as a gun owner, I would never dream of giving money to the NRA.


----------



## Roose Hurro (May 21, 2012)

Onnes said:


> Why do I always get the feeling that Roose lives in the old west where your rights begin and end with firepower?



Read the quotes in the link I provided above.




sunshyne said:


> That would be a great idea, if there was a bright line anymore between a "criminal" and your everyday citizen. People are losing their right to own a firearm - with felony consequences if they ever touch one again - for really, really petty shit. In many states you can permanently lose the right by being convicted of misdemeanor assault (read: defending yourself in a fight) or for any drug crime (read: getting caught with a joint). That's asinine. Forgive me for not being able to see how your marijuana possession conviction from 15 years ago make you worthy of a lifetime ban on the only effective means of self-defense... And don't even get me started on mandatory minimums for so-called "armed criminals." Basically, when you know the ins and outs of it, *the only thing having tough "crime control" and lax gun control gets you is crowded prisons*.
> 
> At the same time, having laws that allow any dumbass to walk around with a gun is, to put it mildly, fucking stupid. And that's where some far-right state legislators actually want to go with our gun laws. Example: in Ohio last year, there was a state legislator who proposed a bill that would allow ANY PERSON who paid a $250 fee (and passed a background check, of course) to obtain a concealed carry license. No training or examination required. That would be even more idiotic than allowing people to drive without passing a driver's test, and somehow, of course, the gun lobbyist supported it. Stupid crap like that is why, even as a gun owner, I would never dream of giving money to the NRA.



First off, read the quotes in the link I provided.  Second off, poor "crime-control" laws are a separate issue, and don't change the fact that good crime control laws, PROPERLY ENFORCED, are needed.  This in no way justifies gun control.  It's also obvious you haven't examined the effectiveness of concealed carry legislation in the states that have it.  If a person hasn't committed any crimes, your opinion of their intelligence is moot.  The very fact that everywhere carry legislation has been passed, the predicted "Blood in the streets" hasn't happened, is quite telling.  In fact, crime has gone down.  You know, because the REAL criminals don't like to get shot.

I'm just glad you don't represent the majority of RESPONSIBLE gun owners.  The irresponsible ones tend to get weeded out.


----------



## Onnes (May 21, 2012)

Roose Hurro said:


> Read the quotes in the link I provided above.



No Roose, I'm not going to read a giant page of completely empty quotes. You live in a goddamn fairy land where if you take your hand off the trigger for one second someone is going to murder you and steal your car. There's no right to own a piece of modern killing technology. That idea is insane. You can say there's the right to defend yourself but that doesn't mean you get to keep around whatever crazy shit you want. By your argument everyone should be able to go out and buy a damn self-defense flamethrower. You're cheapening real rights by including such a silly concept among them.

EDIT: And just in case it isn't obvious, this is still concerning fundamental human rights. Rights under the law are, of course, a different subject.


----------



## Bipolar Bear (May 21, 2012)

If I ever did save up the money to go to AMERICA!, I would run into a gun store, buy a .357 Magnum, go to a shooting range, shoot it once, go back to Australia, crawl into my bed and forever think of that one guy I accidentally shot.


----------



## zachhart12 (May 21, 2012)

Bipolar Bear said:


> If I ever did save up the money to go to AMERICA!, I would run into a gun store, buy a .357 Magnum, go to a shooting range, shoot it once, go back to Australia, crawl into my bed and forever think of that one guy I accidentally shot.



*has 357* mmm ruger gp100. Mew. I haven't gone shooting in a while.


----------



## sleepyrat (May 21, 2012)

Bipolar Bear said:


> If I ever did save up the money to go to AMERICA!, I would run into a gun store, buy a .357 Magnum, go to a shooting range, shoot it once, go back to Australia, crawl into my bed and forever think of that one guy I accidentally shot.



Why would you buy a .357 instead of renting one at the range. Besides the legal difficulties any quality .357 magnum pistol or rifle is $$$$. Hell even some of the shit-tier ones are $$$$. Your post makes no sense.


----------



## Bipolar Bear (May 21, 2012)

sleepyrat said:


> Why would you buy a .357 instead of renting one at the range. Besides the legal difficulties any quality .357 magnum pistol or rifle is $$$$. Hell even some of the shit-tier ones are $$$$. Your post makes no sense.



It doesn't have to. I'm not from your country.


----------



## zachhart12 (May 21, 2012)

sleepyrat said:


> Why would you buy a .357 instead of renting one at the range. Besides the legal difficulties any quality .357 magnum pistol or rifle is $$$$. Hell even some of the shit-tier ones are $$$$. Your post makes no sense.



$$$$$$$$!!!!!


----------



## Roose Hurro (May 21, 2012)

Onnes said:


> No Roose, *I'm not going to read a giant page of completely empty quotes*. You live in a goddamn fairy land where if you take your hand off the trigger for one second someone is going to murder you and steal your car. There's no right to own a piece of modern killing technology. That idea is insane. You can say there's the right to defend yourself but that doesn't mean you get to keep around whatever crazy shit you want. By your argument everyone should be able to go out and buy a damn self-defense flamethrower. You're cheapening real rights by including such a silly concept among them.
> 
> EDIT: And just in case it isn't obvious, this is still concerning fundamental human rights. Rights under the law are, of course, a different subject.



Completely empty?



> Mohandas K. Gandhi: â€œAmong the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest. If we want the Arms Act to be repealed, if we want to learn the use of arms, here is a golden opportunity. If the middle classes render voluntary help to Government in the hour of its trial, distrust will disappear, and the ban on possessing arms will be withdrawn.â€ Mohandas K. Gandhi, Autobiography: The Story of My Experiments with Truth, Chapter XXVII, Recruiting Campaign, Page 403, Dover paperback edition, 1983.





> Admiral Yamamoto: â€œYou cannot invade mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass.â€ Advising Japanâ€™s military leaders of the futility of an invasion of the mainland United States because of the widespread availability of guns. It has been theorized that this was a major contributing factor in Japanâ€™s decision not to land on North America early in the war when they had vastly superior military strength. This delay gave our industrial infrastructure time to gear up for the conflict and was decisive in our later victory.





> Benito Mussolini: â€œThe measures adopted to restore public order are: First of all, the elimination of the so-called subversive elements. â€¦ They were elements of disorder and subversion. On the morrow of each conflict I gave the categorical order to confiscate the largest possible number of weapons of every sort and kind. This confiscation, which continues with the utmost energy, has given satisfactory results.â€ (address to the Italian Senate, 1931)





> Adolf Hitler: â€œThe most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So letâ€™s not have any native militia or native police. German troops alone will bear the sole responsibility for the maintenance of law and order throughout the occupied Russian territories, and a system of military strong-points must be evolved to cover the entire occupied country.â€ Adolf Hitler, dinner talk on April 11, 1942, quoted in Hitlerâ€™s Table Talk 1941-44: His Private Conversations, Second Edition (1973), Pg. 425-426. Translated by Norman Cameron and R. H. Stevens.





> Mao Tse Tung: â€œAll political power comes from the barrel of a gun. The communist party must command all the guns, that way, no guns can ever be used to command the party.â€ (Problems of War and Strategy, Nov 6 1938, published in â€œSelected Works of Mao Zedong,â€ 1965)





> Sen. Orrin G. Hatch: â€œIn my studies as an attorney and as a United States Senator, I have constantly been amazed by the indifference or even hostility shown the Second Amendment by courts, legislatures, and commentators. James Madison would be startled to hear that his recognition of a right to keep and bear arms, which passed the House by a voice vote without objection and hardly a debate, has since been construed in but a single, and most ambiguous Supreme Court decision, whereas his proposals for freedom of religion, which he made reluctantly out of fear that they would be rejected or narrowed beyond use, and those for freedom of assembly, which passed only after a lengthy and bitter debate, are the subject of scores of detailed and favorable decisions. Thomas Jefferson, who kept a veritable armory of pistols, rifles and shotguns at Monticello, and advised his nephew to forsake other sports in favor of hunting, would be astounded to hear supposed civil libertarians claim firearm ownership should be restricted. Samuel Adams, a handgun owner who pressed for an amendment stating that the â€œConstitution shall never be construed . . . to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms,â€ would be shocked to hear that his native state today imposes a yearâ€™s sentence, without probation or parole, for carrying a firearm without a police permit.â€
> 
> Senator Orrin Hatch: â€œIf gun laws in fact worked, the sponsors of this type of legislation should have no difficulty drawing upon long lists of examples of crime rates reduced by such legislation. That they cannot do so after a century and a half of tryingâ€“that they must sweep under the rug the southern attempts at gun control in the 1870-1910 period, the northeastern attempts in the 1920-1939 period, the attempts at both Federal and State levels in 1965-1976â€“establishes the repeated, complete and inevitable failure of gun laws to control serious crime.â€ Senator Orrin Hatch, Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on the Constitution, 97th Cong., 2d Sess., The Right to Keep and Bear Arms, Committee Print I-IX, 1-23 (1982).





> John F. Kennedy: â€œToday, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom.â€





> Benjamin Franklin: "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.â€ (Nov 11 1755, from the Pennsylvania Assemblyâ€™s reply to the Governor of Pennsylvania.)



Need I quote more?


----------



## Bliss (May 21, 2012)

Roose Hurro said:


> If a license can be granted, it can be taken away.  Rights cannot be taken away, they can only be given up by the individual.  And a right controlled is not a right.  Because "control", if it is not in the hands of the individual, makes that individual subservient to a "Master"... to the one who has that "control".





> False:  Rights are inherent, privilages are granted by a government.  And rights are not privilages.


Then rights are hogwash.



> And no:  A free poplulace is one that governs itself.


Id est: governed by the government of a liberal parliamentary/presidential democracy. So do as it says.


----------



## Onnes (May 21, 2012)

Roose, you're just quoting famous figures saying simple snippets that support your view. There's no substance there, just like there's no substance to your argument. You're still occupying the view that we in modern nations somehow need to all be armed to have any rights, which is completely absurd.


----------



## Ad Hoc (May 21, 2012)

Roose Hurro said:


> If a license can be granted, it can be taken away.  Rights cannot be taken away, they can only be given up by the individual.  And a right controlled is not a right.  Because "control", if it is not in the hands of the individual, makes that individual subservient to a "Master"... to the one who has that "control".
> 
> . . .
> 
> ...


Okay. Rights don't come from the government, people are born with them. That's a nice idea, I can dig that idea. There's one problem though: Who or what defines what the rights actually are? You?



Roose Hurro said:


> Exactly, but the thing is, if you don't have a means to protect yourself, you don't have a means to protect you property, either... this includes a car.  What good is it to have a right to transport, food... to anything... if anyone stronger than you can take it away by force?  To secure every other right, you must first have the means to protect your rights.  This is what the Second Amendment is all about.  To secure your rights... to secure your freedom... you must first have the right to defend it.  And the means.  Without the means, your rights are only what someone else tells you they are, rather than what you tell other people.
> 
> . . .
> 
> No.  There are priorities.  If you cannot defend your "adequate transportation", then it is not a right you can secure, because anyone stronger than you can take it away.  Again, this is the whole purpose of the Second Amendment, to secure the enumerated right to protect what is yours from those who would take it from you.


Or I call the cops to track my car down, and in the meantime, my insurance can reimburse me to rent or purchase a new one. In the event that society disintegrates into some kind of Mad Max anarchy and those safety nets aren't there, I'm sure that gun laws would become pretty irrelevant too; so I could just go get one. (Well actually we already have some but that's beside the point.) 

Or say we get fascism instead of anarchy, and I've got to worry about the government breathing down my back. Well, honestly, I hate to sound defeatist, but my pa's Mauser rifle (I should note here that my family is military, owns guns, and hunts) is only going to defend us against people that don't better weapons than a Mauser rifle, or don't outnumber us, or whatever. Even if I had legal access to all the weapons the American military has, I sure-shit wouldn't be able to afford them. I'd have to be pretty naive to think that a cabinet full of whatever guns is going to help me against the American government should it decide to go all Handmaid's Tale on me. I don't think it's relevant. 



Roose Hurro said:


> Also, you mentioned PT as being government-run/controlled.  All forms of transport are government-run/controlled.  You can lose your license, or be refused transportation if you don't follow someone else's rules and regulations.  Oh, correction... your ability to walk is not controlled by the government... that's a freebie.


No, no, you missed my point. "You can just walk" is just as inadequate for many situations as "you can just throw a punch." I'm disabled and live in a rural area. On a good day I can go maybe 5 miles before something gives out--much less on bad days. The things that I actually need to go frequently make a 10-100 mile round trip. There isn't even a bus station in walking distance, I've checked. There's a private taxi business in town, but it's extremely expensive, I couldn't afford it regularly. 

So for doing things like going to the doctor, getting food, going to work, going to school, etc., I really do need full use of that "freedom of movement" right. I'm still not upset that it's regulated--I'm actually glad that it's regulated. It would not be a pretty thing if any yahoo could drive a car without even basic instruction or proof of competency.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (May 21, 2012)

Ad Hoc said:


> Okay. Rights don't come from the government, people are born with them. That's a nice idea, I can dig that idea. There's one problem though: Who or what defines what the rights actually are? You?


His imaginary friend.


----------



## thoughtmaster (May 21, 2012)

That is the main problem, who is the master decider? For people who are religious they would say it is god but if that doesn't exist, then what?


----------



## Mentova (May 21, 2012)

Roose Hurro said:


> If this is the way you feel, then you obviously need a refresher on American History.  What we need is crime control, not gun control.  And you need to understand that, with freedom, there come certain risks.
> 
> I suggest you read these for a start:  http://www.sightm1911.com/Care/Gun_Quotes.htm
> 
> Because criminals don't respect the law, if you don't control the criminal, then you don't control the crime.  The only thing gun control laws affect are the law-abiding.


You seem to be assuming that I said I want all guns to be banned, which I don't. Firearms are one of my bigger hobbies. I love shooting, reading about guns, learning how the work, etc. My point is, they should be regulated. Sure, it makes it harder for a law abiding citizen to get a hold of them, but that is a good thing in my opinion. I've heard way too many stories of careless gun owners leaving their loaded firearms out so their kid can blow their heads off and other blatant disregards for the basics of gun safety. Strict gun laws makes it so it is harder for these fools to get their hands on a gun. People like you and me who still have a passion for such things can still get them, it'll just be a bit harder, which is a good trade off IMO. Also strict gun laws makes them less common, and with my prediction, would make it harder for criminals to get them. Which means less gun crimes. This seems like a win-win situation to me.


----------



## Ad Hoc (May 22, 2012)

Kit H. Ruppell said:


> His imaginary friend.


Well that's even more curious. I don't think any of the Abrahamic tomes have much to say about guns.



thoughtmaster said:


> That is the main problem, who is the master decider? For people who are religious they would say it is god but if that doesn't exist, then what?


George W. Bush is the decider. :V

No. Decide it democratically or through some similar social mechanism.


----------



## Roose Hurro (May 22, 2012)

Lizzie said:


> Then rights are hogwash.



This is exactly the attitude causing all the world's problems, because to governments, this statement is true.  Because governments believe they grant rights, not that rights are inherent in The People.




Lizzie said:


> Id est: *governed by the government of a liberal parliamentary/presidential democracy*. So do as it says.



A government created by The People.  Which has unfortunately gotten bloated with so much power and corruption, it's ready to burst.  Why?  Because people like Onnes have given all their rights and power to the government, just so they can feel "safe".




Onnes said:


> Roose, you're just quoting famous figures saying simple snippets that support your view. *There's no substance there, just like there's no substance to your argument.* You're still occupying the view that we in modern nations somehow need to all be armed to have any rights, which is completely absurd.



You're free to hold this opinion, Onnes, but your opinion is just that.  You are the one making an argument with no substance.  So, you're a greater, wiser, more experienced man than Gandhi, Yamamoto, Mussolini, Hitler, Mao, Hatch, Kennedy and good old Benjamin Franklin?  I don't think so.  By casually dismissing their words, and the words of those still waiting in that link, you have in no way proven your own point.  And yes, we do need to be armed, because those who have the arms are able to protect their rights... keep them from being taken away.  Rights always need to be protected, because rights are not given, they are inherent.  In everyone.  Those who think they "give" inherent rights can also "take" those same rights from you, either by force, or by making you believe it's for your own good.  Doesn't matter if it's the 18th or the 21st century, human beings are still human beings, and governments are still governments.  Nothing has changed.  Nothing ever will change.

Crying "Modern!" is just an excuse to ignore reality.




Ad Hoc said:


> Okay. Rights don't come from the government, people are born with them. That's a nice idea, I can dig that idea. There's one problem though: *Who or what defines what the rights actually are? You?*



No, the Founding Fathers.  Look up what they said about the Second Amendment, and you will see just exactly what its definition is.  Look up what they said about the entire Constitution, while you're at it.  After all, the first Ten Amendments are not called THE BILL OF RIGHTS for nothing.






Ad Hoc said:


> *Or I call the cops to track my car down, and in the meantime*, my insurance can reimburse me to rent or purchase a new one. In the event that society disintegrates into some kind of Mad Max anarchy and those safety nets aren't there, I'm sure that gun laws would become pretty irrelevant too; so I could just go get one. (Well actually we already have some but that's beside the point.)
> 
> Or say we get fascism instead of anarchy, and I've got to worry about the government breathing down my back. Well, honestly, I hate to sound defeatist, but my pa's Mauser rifle (I should note here that my family is military, owns guns, and hunts) is only going to defend us against people that don't better weapons than a Mauser rifle, or don't outnumber us, or whatever. Even if I had legal access to all the weapons the American military has, I sure-shit wouldn't be able to afford them. I'd have to be pretty naive to think that a cabinet full of whatever guns is going to help me against the American government should it decide to go all Handmaid's Tale on me. I don't think it's relevant.



You don't get it.  If some scumbag wants to take something from you by force, WHILE YOU ARE THERE, then it is prudent to be armed.  If you aren't there and they steal your car or whatever, then yeah, nothing you can do but make an insurance claim.  But if they're trying to steal your car while your in it, you need some means of defending life and property.  Just as an example.

As for your pa's Mauser:



> Paul Hager: â€œOne of the arguments that had been made against gun control was that an armed citizenry was the final bulwark against tyranny. *My response had been that untrained, lightly-armed non-soldiers couldnâ€™t prevail against a modern army. I had concluded that the qualitative difference in firepower was such that all of the previous rules of guerilla war no longer applied. Both Vietnam and Afghanistan demonstrated that wasnâ€™t true.* Repelling an armed invasion is not something that American citizens are likely to face, but the possibility of a despotic government coming to power is not wholly unthinkable. One of the sequellae of Vietnam was the rise of the Khmer Rouge and slaughter of perhaps a million Cambodian citizens. Those citizens, like the Jews in Germany or the Armenians in Turkey, were unarmed and thus utterly and completely defenseless against police and paramilitary. An armed minority was able to kill and terrorize unarmed victims with total impunity.â€ â€“ Paul Hagar, â€œWhy I Carryâ€






Ad Hoc said:


> No, no, you missed my point. "You can just walk" is just as inadequate for many situations as "you can just throw a punch." I'm disabled and live in a rural area. On a good day I can go maybe 5 miles before something gives out--much less on bad days. The things that I actually need to go frequently make a 10-100 mile round trip. There isn't even a bus station in walking distance, I've checked. There's a private taxi business in town, but it's extremely expensive, I couldn't afford it regularly.
> 
> So for doing things like going to the doctor, getting food, going to work, going to school, etc., I really do need full use of that "freedom of movement" right. I'm still not upset that it's regulated--I'm actually glad that it's regulated. It would not be a pretty thing if any yahoo could drive a car without even basic instruction or proof of competency.



Oh, no, I didn't miss your point, I simply redirected it to make my own point.  You may believe you have a right to a car... a right to "adequate transportation"... but it is not a right to privately own a vehicle, it is a privalege.  However, it is a right to be privately armed, and that right was written down in The Bill Of Rights.  In the Second Amendment.  A BASIC, INHERENT right.  Even if you believe adequate transportation is a right, it is not an inherent right.  And probably not even a basic right, but that point is debatable.

When it comes to guns, this is a good quote:



> Sen. Hubert Humphrey: â€œCertainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of citizens to keep and bear arms. This is not to say that firearms should not be very carefully used, *and that definite safety rules of precaution should not be taught and enforced*. But the right of citizens to bear arms is just one more guarantee against arbitrary government, and one more safeguard against a tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible.â€ Sen. Hubert Humphrey, Know Your Lawmakers, Guns Magazine, Page 4, Feb. 1960.



Thing is, anyone who wishes to own a gun also has easily and widely available "definite safety rules" they can receive right there in the gunshop.  As well as from other gun rights organizations.  And since we have the Web at our fingers, gun safety rules can be found in a matter of seconds:

http://www.nrahq.org/education/guide.asp

There, was that so hard?  There are even programs available geared for children:

http://www.nrahq.org/education/guide.asp

Not to mention, every gun LEGALLY purchased already requires paperwork and a background check, which, thanks to the Web and an established database, can be done "instantly".  Which I have no objection to.




Mentova said:


> You seem to be assuming that I said I want all guns to be banned, which I don't. Firearms are one of my bigger hobbies. I love shooting, reading about guns, learning how the work, etc. My point is, *they should be regulated*. Sure, it makes it harder for a law abiding citizen to get a hold of them, but that is a good thing in my opinion. I've heard way too many stories of careless gun owners leaving their loaded firearms out so their kid can blow their heads off and other blatant disregards for the basics of gun safety. Strict gun laws makes it so it is harder for these fools to get their hands on a gun. People like you and me who still have a passion for such things can still get them, it'll just be a bit harder, which is a good trade off IMO. Also strict gun laws makes them less common, and with my prediction, would make it harder for criminals to get them. Which means less gun crimes. This seems like a win-win situation to me.



They already are... but, you see, I live in California, a state that only allows "approved" guns to be sold.  Meaning all guns sold in the state have to go through extensive, EXPENSIVE testing.  Meaning the same identical gun, if it has a different barrel-length, finish...  I'm not sure if they do it for caliber... but, well, those have to be tested too, if dealers want to sell them and people want to buy them.  Same gun, one blued steel, one stainless, one nickeled, all three have to be independently tested and approved.  And if it doesn't pass approval, I won't be able to buy it.  This is also why guns are so expensive, because the manufacturers have to make up for the cost of testing.  Some just don't bother, which means, in my state, my right to Keep and Bear Arms is being "regulated" out of existance.  Do you understand?  This is how government operates:  If you can't ban it "regulate" it out of existance by making in so expensive, only the rich can afford a gun.  If the regulations don't simply reach the point were the manufacturers can no longer do business in the public sector.

Not to mention all the crap government has tried to get ammo banned.  If you can't get ammo for your gun, either because it is unavailable or too expensive (have you kept track of ammo prices lately?), then what good is your gun?  I've been around fifty years now, I've seen the huge jump in ammo prices ever since 9/11.  It ain't pretty out there.  So, the "regulating" shouldn't make it difficult for the law-abiding to get hold of a gun, only difficult for the NON-law-abiding to do so.

Oh, and if you bothered reading up on the subject, you'd realize that strict gun laws increase crime, because, you see, criminals don't obey the law.  That's the definition of the NON-law-abiding.  Strict gun laws mean the law-abiding lose big time.  Like I said, crime-control, not gun-control.  Because, if you support gun-control while owning guns, then you really need to educate yourself on the facts.




Ad Hoc said:


> George W. Bush is the decider. :V
> 
> No. *Decide it democratically or through some similar social mechanism.*



This was already done, or were you not aware that is why the Second Amendment exists in the first place?


----------



## sunshyne (May 22, 2012)

Roose Hurro said:


> Read the quotes in the link I provided above.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I read some of your quotes... it would have been nice if you'd read my post. I agree with the basic premise of concealed carry. Never said that I didn't. I just think there is something common-sense about checking a person's competence to operate a device DESIGNED TO KILL A HUMAN before you let them walk around with it in public. I'm not talking about past crimes (at least minor non-violent ones)... I don't give a rat's ass if you have a DUI or a shoplifting charge from years ago, you should have a right to defend yourself. All I said was that criminal record alone is a piss-poor indicator of a person's fitness to possess a firearm. And you didn't really disagree with me about that, yet you're still arguing. 

What you apparently have a problem with is my crazy idea that we should make people take a few commonsense steps before being allowed to carry a concealed handgun in public. I mean christ, a car is intended to get you from place to place. It's not intended to kill people. But in the wrong hands, it could easily kill someone. And for this reason, it would be considered crazy to give someone the license to drive a car without making them pass a simple exam. So why in the fuck does anyone think it is a halfway rational idea to make concealed carry an unequivocal right for anyone who can come up with $250? I say take me to the range and make me show you I can hit a simple target from 15 feet away. Make me show you that I know how to load, chamber, and unload my gun. Make me answer a few simple, written questions. And THEN give me a CCW license. That's not gonna kill me, and I will feel safer knowing there are fewer morons out there, with guns, who may.

(and for that sentiment I'm among the "irresponsible" gun owners... you've got to love gun nuts)



Roose Hurro said:


> They already are... but, you see, I live in California, a state that only allows "approved" guns to be sold.  Meaning all guns sold in the state have to go through extensive, EXPENSIVE testing.  Meaning the same identical gun, if it has a different barrel-length, finish...  I'm not sure if they do it for caliber... but, well, those have to be tested too, if dealers want to sell them and people want to buy them.  Same gun, one blued steel, one stainless, one nickeled, all three have to be independently tested and approved.  And if it doesn't pass approval, I won't be able to buy it.  This is also why guns are so expensive, because the manufacturers have to make up for the cost of testing.  Some just don't bother, which means, in my state, my right to Keep and Bear Arms is being "regulated" out of existance.  Do you understand?  This is how government operates:  If you can't ban it "regulate" it out of existance by making in so expensive, only the rich can afford a gun.  If the regulations don't simply reach the point were the manufacturers can no longer do business in the public sector.
> 
> Not to mention all the crap government has tried to get ammo banned.  If you can't get ammo for your gun, either because it is unavailable or too expensive (have you kept track of ammo prices lately?), then what good is your gun?  I've been around fifty years now, I've seen the huge jump in ammo prices ever since 9/11.  It ain't pretty out there.  So, the "regulating" shouldn't make it difficult for the law-abiding to get hold of a gun, only difficult for the NON-law-abiding to do so.



Ok, California "gun control" laws have never been about actually regulating guns, just about making an obscene amount of money for the state government, like most of the laws there. Nobody's ever accused anything in California of making sense, so that's a kind of poor example for the larger debate. 

And second, ammo prices aren't rising because of a government plot to make ammo unobtainable. They're rising because ultra right-wing gun nuts are convinced that Obama is out to take away their guns (or round them up and take them off to a Muslim-run concentration camp, who the hell knows what those people think), and therefore they are buying all the ammo. It's not a coincidence or a conspiracy theory that the prices are going up and availability is going down. It's supply and demand.


----------



## Onnes (May 22, 2012)

Since you ignored my original argument I'll just post it again. You seem to have gone from insisting that gun ownership is universal, necessary right, to gun control is just another thing in the Bill of Rights. Just being in the Constitution doesn't mean something should be a universal right. The founding fathers could have tossed all sorts of crazy shit in there if they wanted to. (And they arguably did.)



Onnes said:


> No Roose, I'm not going to read a giant page of completely empty quotes. You live in a goddamn fairy land where if you take your hand off the trigger for one second someone is going to murder you and steal your car. There's no right to own a piece of modern killing technology. That idea is insane. You can say there's the right to defend yourself but that doesn't mean you get to keep around whatever crazy shit you want. By your argument everyone should be able to go out and buy a damn self-defense flamethrower. You're cheapening real rights by including such a silly concept among them.



Substitute IED or RPG for flamethrower if you want something more realistic. Why don't we just give everyone grenades while we're at it? Saying that gun ownership is such a fundamental right is just as silly. 
It's like you're living in some ultra paranoid alternate reality where the only thing preventing the commies from taking over are a bunch of untrained survivalists sporting small arms. Or maybe you think you're going to wage a guerilla war against the US government. I can't tell which is crazier.

You want to know what our lack of gun control laws lead to? Around 70% of the guns recovered from cartels in Mexico are from the US. We're fueling a massacre of unimaginable proportions.


----------



## Lunar (May 22, 2012)

Though not exactly practical, I love the Colt SAA's.  They look so pretty and fancy~ I'd have one just for show.  Not exactly the best firearm to use for self-defense.


----------



## Saiko (May 22, 2012)

Why am I not surprised the thread fell to this debate? The answer isn't particularly hard to figure out in my opinion.

Onnes, Roose's quotes are quite valid; and there is sufficient substance to draw conclusions. Three that stand out to me are Senator Hatch's, Hitler's, and Mussolini's. Hatch's quote sheds light on the context of the Second Amendment, indicating that "the right to bear arms" included firearms. Hitler and Mussolini blatantly illustrate that disarming the public is a viable method of subduing a population. (If I remember correctly, Machiavelli said this as well in _The Prince_, which adds even more validity.) Now, take this information back to the Bill of Rights. The document's intention is to protect the people from the government, and it does so by declaring actions that the government cannot take. It declares rights for the population and laws for the lawmakers. Hitler and Mussolini were tyrants as you well know. They had no limitations and gave their populations few to no rights. Obviously one of their methods for maintaining power was disarming their subjects, and this method had been recognized centuries before. The founding fathers were well aware of it. Considering the purpose of the document, other similar propositions from the time, and the consequences of lacking access to firearms; it is quite apparent that the Second Amendment refers to firearms and thus protects private/personal ownership of them. Not only is denying the general population legitimate access to firearms a tool of tyranny, it is also unconstitutional and thus cannot even be considered.

Conversely, unrestricted access to them is foolish as well. There is no debating that firearms are frequently used in crime and effectively so. Naturally, making it easier to obtain a weapon makes it easier to commit a crime with that weapon. The Second Amendment protects the population's ability to defend itself, but of course the side effect is the ability to attack. When 300,000,000 people have that ability, there *will* be those who abuse that ability (just as Hitler and Mussolini did). By allowing easy access to the tools, you are allowing easy completion of the task; and once that task is complete there is often no way to "make things right." Pure adherence to the Second Amendment would protect the people from the government, but it would put it in danger of itself and thus be counterproductive. The solution? Prevent unregulated access to firearms - "gun control." Keep those who would abuse their ability from obtaining that ability.

However, you cannot do this via a blanket ban for reasons stated above. You have to take a moderate approach, one that allows access to the people who would use them properly but disallows it from those who would not. Now the question is how moderate of an approach is correct. This depends on the time and place. An area with higher crime rates would obviously need a more stringent approach. This is why the matter is decided on a state-by-state basis. What works for California probably won't work for Alabama and vice versa.


----------



## Rilvor (May 22, 2012)

Why don't we just give every US citizen a monofilament whip and leave it at that.


----------



## Aetius (May 22, 2012)

Onnes said:


> You want to know what our lack of gun control laws lead to? Around 70% of the guns recovered from cartels in Mexico are from the US. We're fueling a massacre of unimaginable proportions.



Then again the vast majority of weapons used by cartels are untraceable or stolen from the Mexican army themselves. But that is another topic.


----------



## Roose Hurro (May 22, 2012)

Sorrry to those I haven't replied to, but I'm in the middle of moving, have to be out of my present residence by the end of this month, so I'm not sure if I'll have the time... gotta start cracking down on the packing.  And I won't have internet service for some time once I'm moved out, so:



Lunar said:


> *Though not exactly practical*, I love the Colt SAA's.  They look so pretty and fancy~ I'd have one just for show.  Not exactly the best firearm to use for self-defense.



What?  The Colt SAA is incredibly practical.  As for self-defense:  http://www.defensivecarry.com/forum/defensive-carry-guns/18180-colt-saa-ccw.html

And:  http://archives.gunsandammo.com/content/single-action-self-defense

And then we have this man:  http://www.sixguns.com/range/munden.htm

And video:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=thCl_mYIUBE




Aetius said:


> Then again the vast majority of weapons used by cartels are untraceable or stolen from the Mexican army themselves. *But that is another topic.*



Indeed it is, just Google "fast and furious".


----------



## Not_a_Fox (May 25, 2012)

Saiko said:


> "....Conversely, unrestricted access to them is  foolish as well. There is no debating that firearms are frequently used  in crime and effectively so. Naturally, making it easier to obtain a  weapon makes it easier to commit a crime with that weapon... When 300,000,000 people have that ability, there will  be those  who abuse that ability (just as Hitler and Mussolini did). By  allowing  easy access to the tools, you are allowing easy completion of  the task...



However, taking into consideration that the definition of a criminal  is someone who doesn't obey the law makes for the expectation for a  law-abiding criminal an oxymoron;  leaving the law-abiding citizen to  obey laws that they wouldn't otherwise break without being criminals  whom don't obey laws to begin with.

It's faulty to equate the abusers amongst the 300mil. equal to those  two totalitarians, those assumed to be such would need the political  ability to strip the right from the others.  However, I see lax gun  control a self-sustaining system;  it would be that a very small  minority of the hundreds of millions who would be criminal, but facing a  majority populace of also gun wielding individuals outnumbered would  deter criminal activity.  Even if half the majority chose not to  carry a gun, a 50% chance for each individual present and later involved  during a crime committed might be carrying a weapon are bad odds for  the bad guys.


As for prevent unregulated access to firearms?

California  Fun Fact:  The AR-15/10 has two receivers that are detachable and  interchangeable.  In CA, only the lower receiver (stripped, i.e devoid  of any parts) is registered; however the upper receiver (stripped, but  where barrel is installed) isn't.
BONUS Fun Fact:  Same can be said about most automatic pistols.  

What I'm saying is is that regulation is a joke when the main part crucial to tracking and linking fired rounds to a weapon can be removed and/or replaced.   It's ignorance of the population and political figures jumping on any  bandwagon that can get them more votes that skew the facts about weapon  ownership and what responsibilities each of us have to each other.



And to be somewhat on-topic, I own quite a few weapons which include a WWII Mosin-Nagant sniper rifle and an FN FAL .308.


----------



## Coty-Coyote (May 26, 2012)

I think I own about 40 guns at this time. Not much of a hunter though.


----------

