U.S. Fire Arms laws and regulations

[ExpandMyMind]

I'm not worried about foreign powers, I am worried about domestic powers, which is a wise thing to be worried about..

The age of tyranny is never dead. People either get wise or dumb. Governments stay the same.

And governments have no conscience, only policy.

Governments have been the same since Machiavelli destroyed the morals inherent in politics in the 1532.

Governments aren't going to change and be your friend just because they promise you entitlements.

All of the examples you mentioned earlier were of totalitarian dictatorships - you live in a democracy, It's even a pretty decent democracy, as far as they go. You honestly believe that your military would support a dictator president? Your soldiers are sworn to protect the U.S. from threats, both foreign and domestic. To defend the Constitution.

Besides, Your tiny guns can't save you from scuds and napalm. If your government was totalitarian, had the army on their side and wanted to subdue the population, they could do so. VERY easily. Guns would make no difference. This isn't Syria. The U.S. have no one to answer to, and in such a paranoid and hypothetical situation wouldn't think twice about levelling whole towns or cities.

Guns do not protect you from your government, and far stricter gun laws would be a blessing to your deeply disturbed (in relation to crime) country.

[aztek]

Virginia murders were done by a guy who bought his own guns.

And if we're going to imprint fingerprint tech on all 300 million guns, might as well remove them all. It's safer.

another stupidity mixed with ignorance.

we tried that too, spend millions, on gun print program, and than later dropped it, it did not help to solve a single crime. it was police idea to abolish useless program.

before you tell what we need to change, it would be good if you knew what we already have\done before. mkay,

[Sakari]

Thanks for making it so difficult for me to quote you by the way.

Sorry...I usually do not do that.

Ok, there is confusion here.

The " 30 " examples, I mean examples of why we should have a right to have guns....Hunting, protection ( rural areas, not only against people, but guarding sheep and cattle , and putting them down if need be ), self defense, etc. I never meant stopping suicide attacks in planes.

As for teachers carrying guns, I was making a half smart ass example. And in reality, it would be true. If teachers were carrying guns ( no they should not ) at that school, he would have been stopped before anyone was killed, or at the least, minimum injuries / deaths. If there had been a teacher or parent there that had a concealed weapons permit, and had done just that, this conversation would be a complete 180 degree discussion. He or she would be a hero, and the NRA would be all over it, as well as many of us here.I was making a point from your comment.

Things like that have happened, people have stopped crimes, or saved themselves by doing just that. Again, no I am not saying teachers should carry guns, as I think is sucks we have Schools with metal detectors all ready. ( not just for guns mind you )

I do not say guns are the problem, I say the people abusing them are, and that is where it needs fixed.

I have pointed out at least three times now, other Counries allow guns, they are just permitted or licensed with stricter guidelines.They also have lower death per capita. So, something is working, and it is not a ban on guns.

[aztek]

Please dont make me post all the relevant info regarding the 2nd Amendment again.

the only relevant info is that.

2nd amendment protects individual right to bear arms unconnected with services in militia, that is how ussc sees 2nd, amendment.

and it is absolutely irrelevant what you and others like you think of it, deal with it.

[ExpandMyMind]

I have pointed out at least three times now, other Counries allow guns, they are just permitted or licensed with stricter guidelines.They also have lower death per capita. So, something is working, and it is not a ban on guns.

Stricter gun laws make a difference. It would also help, I believe, if your health business wasn't so quick to load people up with pills while ignoring the real causes of depression, anxiety, delusions, paranoia, psychosis. Bad mental health in general, really.

Edited December 18, 2012 by ExpandMyMind

[Sakari]

Using another recent mass murder (Cafe Racer in Seattle) as a comparison... his family and friends were NOT surprised he snapped... not at all. Theyd been screaming at law enforcement and the health community about it for years! No one listened. If I'm not mistaken James Holmes, the Colorado gunman also had fire arms registered to him, and he'd told a classmate that he planned to shoot up a bunch of people. But nothing could be done until both perps acted first. That is a PROBLEM. It is THE problem.

The point being that in the cases of these mass shootings... people who know the perps really aren't surprised! That has to stop, unfotunately, there is no way to stop it unless more can be done in terms of stopping these people before they act... right now, that's virtually impossible.

This is a bit of a non sequitur or a straw man. Guns ARE part of the issue.. they aren't the whole issue, but they are part of it. We have so few pipebomb, truckbombs, and mass poisoning that they aren't in the same category as gun violence.

People who are mentally ill are the LEAST able to pay for their own mental health care, they're also the least likely to seek help.

In crimes alone, yes guns are a issue, stolen guns mostly. ( depending on which of the 100's of stats you find ), When I refer to pipe bombs and such, I am talking the nut jobs, the suicide bombers, etc....You see it as much as I do on the news about pipe bombs, usually found before it happens. Take guns away, and those types of people will easilly go the route of bombing and poisining, and burning.

The example you gave, that is where I say stricter laws. With warnings like that, there needs to be a way to take away their guns, and mandatory psychological evaluation / treatment. With that many warnings, something should have been done. I can not blame the guns for that either.

There is a new topic here with someone seeing people and hearing people, 15 years old. If he is not lying, it is almost scary seeing him getting advice here ( a lot saying tell a school counselor ) this close to what just happened. Not saying it is someone that could do something like that, but is has crossed my mind, only because this event is fresh.

Something definitley needs to be done about crime in the US, that has been known for a while . ( although it has leveled off, and dropped a little, I expect this to change come February and past ) Taking guns away is not the answer, but taking them off the streets, and stopping illegal sales, and private sales, and stricter laws pertaining to illegal sales, and being caught with a stolen gun need to change.

Right now, even if some how the Government takes everyones guns, they will not be getting the thugs, the gangs, and the other criminals out there's guns.Hell, we can not even do that now. That would sure be a ugly thing wouldn't it?

[aztek]

Stricter gun laws make a difference.

lol, not in real world in usa they don't. learn the facts.

[Sakari]

Stricter gun laws make a difference. It would also help, I believe, if your health business wasn't so quick to load people up with pills while ignoring the real causes of depression, anxiety, delusions, paranoia, psychosis. Bad mental health in general, really.

That is another topic also, and one I agree with.....Yes, this Country is f'd up pretty bad, I will be the first to say it. But taking guns away is not going to fix it at all.

I can tell you, if there were a revolution tomorrow, I would join in.......That is another topic also.

[MiskatonicGrad]

Our country is broke (from a moral stand point) our kids are fed daily the double standards of our judicial system ( If you break the law it's bad unless you famous) I will name a few lyndsey lohan, micheal Vick and president clinton could we have got away with what they did and come out smelling like a rose like they did? no. so how are we suppose to react to that? how do our kids react to that? we have the immoral lifestyles paraded before us on a daily basis then when someone does something henious and immoral as this we react in horror and say if he didn't have access to guns this would have never happened. how bout if he had a moral compass this would have never happened? when the 2nd ammendment was written people had morals the last thing they were worried about was earthly justice they didn't plan on breaking any laws. the judgement of the hereafter was what they feared and how you acted in this life decided where you were going in the next. we have taken that away from our children and in some instances been down right fighting against it. so unless we have another great awakening in this country and a sense of moral obligation at all levels from the parent to the president we really can't be trusted with the freedoms so many have died to protect. But he had a mental disorder you say. No crap half the people I know have some sort of mental disorder and the freaking grocery list the shrinks come up with keeps getting longer. can you blame us all for being a little off balance the people ruling over us don't adhere to the document the swear to uphold. we have a invasion coming in from the south and our goverment decided it is a good plan to arm them and then preach to us abouit gun control. violence and depravity are bad unless it is in a movie or on tv then it is ok

[Maizer]

Too many logical points have been made in this thread, against your arguments. You must think the U.S. can be like China in some way, or worse, old communist Russia . Brother, we've got a hellvua long way, long after you and I have passed on and even when our children's children have passed on, before that even happens. And other's here will say that will never happen without a civil war and I totally agree. So dream on buddy!

This board isn't the only board I'm on, and the vast majority of the arguments made against mine have been laughed at or debunked everywhere else.

And I hope, for everyone's children s sake, that we won't have armed guards with RPG's in every kindergarten, which is what gun proponents would rather have than have their toys taken away.

[Drayno]

All of the examples you mentioned earlier were of totalitarian dictatorships - you live in a democracy, It's even a pretty decent democracy, as far as they go. You honestly believe that your military would support a dictator president? Your soldiers are sworn to protect the U.S. from threats, both foreign and domestic. To defend the Constitution.

Besides, Your tiny guns can't save you from scuds and napalm. If your government was totalitarian, had the army on their side and wanted to subdue the population, they could do so. VERY easily. Guns would make no difference. This isn't Syria. The U.S. have no one to answer to, and in such a paranoid and hypothetical situation wouldn't think twice about levelling whole towns or cities.

Guns do not protect you from your government, and far stricter gun laws would be a blessing to your deeply disturbed (in relation to crime) country.

I don't live in a democracy. I live in a constitutional Republic.

Soldiers have been used in the past against their people. It's not a new concept.

There will always be those that obey, and those that dissent.

Even if the resisting side was outmatched - it is about freedom. True believers in the principles of this country would stand up.

Some would call it stupidity, some would call it bravery.

I would call it standing up for one's beliefs, even if it would effectively be suicide.

Millions of men have died for much less than just that. I call it fair trade.

Edited December 18, 2012 by Drayno

[Sakari]

This board isn't the only board I'm on, and the vast majority of the arguments made against mine have been laughed at or debunked everywhere else.

And I hope, for everyone's children s sake, that we won't have armed guards with RPG's in every kindergarten, which is what gun proponents would rather have than have their toys taken away.

Can you share those boards so we can go and participate?

[MissMelsWell]

LIke I said Sakari I'm neither Anti nor Pro gun. I have many friends who own them responsibly, I have no quarrel with them at all. I have one friend who keeps a loaded shotgun by her unlocked front door due to the number of grizzy bears who like to peek in her windows. She has no neighbors or children in her home or any that visit her (in fact, not one ever visits her home to speak of) I have no problem with her either.

What I do have a problem with is unsecured firearms when the possibility exists that they could be stolen or wind up in the hands of people they arent registered to.

You want to stop crime and criminals. That's admirable, it really is, but I fear it's also a pipe dream. You'll have to secure your weapons so no one can get them but you before we can work on stopping the criminals.

[Maizer]

What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not get?

Their deaths have EVERYTHING to do with this! What planet are you from!?

OH WOW "shall not be infringed" !!!! That makes everything good!! Hey I'll make up a law. You will not burn your toast because toast has a right to be fluffy and it SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. Now let us make sure each bread's rights are not infringed, because IT SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. Even if toast tastes better it is not allowed because our founding farmers decided that IT SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. Therefore IT SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED, because there is a law that says IT SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED, even though they didn't know what toast was, because IT SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.F@#H@#fJ@#f@f

Can you share those boards so we can go and participate?

Nah, they have enough people arguing this to death and back.

Edited December 18, 2012 by Maizer

[Sakari]

I am looking at other Countries, mainly " hunting " sites to see what they offer...

I came across something interesting, very interesting......I urge everyone to read the entire thing.

This is from a Australian Site, not a US.

Australian Gun Laws.

Australians are allowed to own and use firearms for hunting. Much has been made of the tough approach adopted by the Australian Government following the terrible Port Arthur mass murder of 35 people in 1996 and the consequent vilification of Australia's law abiding firearms owners.

The government dictated that the population could not own semi automatic firearms or pump action shotguns except in very exceptional circumstances. Firearm owners were required by law to hand in these types of firearms, compensation was paid according to a valuation on the firearm.

Money for the compensation payments was taxed from the Australian population as part of a compulsory health benefits scheme. In effect, the government stole money from the people ($500m Aus) to pay for guns that they confiscated from law-abiding shooters.

It was an unforgettable experience to stand in a queue with other law abiding, honest citizens to hand in prized and much loved firearms for destruction! The Australian Prime Minister, dressed in a bullet proof vest, stood before a huge gathering of firearm owners and admitted that this disarmament would do nothing to prevent a future civilian massacre.

The Government also dictated that the population could not own firearms for self-defence purposes, and that all firearms needed to be registered and owners licensed. One of the conditions of license was that the licensee has to justify the need for the firearm. Hunting, target shooting, collecting, club use or tools for primary production (farm use, culling etc) are considered legitimate justification, self defence or protection is not accepted by the government as a reason for firearms ownership.

Handguns are not permitted for hunting and are strictly controlled for club or range use only. Only the Military, police or licensed security operatives are permitted to carry handguns in public in Australia. Criminal offences in Australia involving firearms have risen following implementation of these draconian laws. There is a lot of truth in the old saying, "when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns".

http://www.chuckhawks.com/hunting_down_under.htm

[aztek]

This board isn't the only board I'm on, and the vast majority of the arguments made against mine have been laughed at or debunked everywhere else.

link us to those boards.

OTOH, never mind.

Edited December 18, 2012 by aztek

[Sakari]

LIke I said Sakari I'm neither Anti nor Pro gun. I have many friends who own them responsibly, I have no quarrel with them at all. I have one friend who keeps a loaded shotgun by her unlocked front door due to the number of grizzy bears who like to peek in her windows. She has no neighbors or children in her home or any that visit her (in fact, not one ever visits her home to speak of) I have no problem with her either.

What I do have a problem with is unsecured firearms when the possibility exists that they could be stolen or wind up in the hands of people they arent registered to.

You want to stop crime and criminals. That's admirable, it really is, but I fear it's also a pipe dream. You'll have to secure your weapons so no one can get them but you before we can work on stopping the criminals.

That should be a law also....And I know where you stand, I am just talking to you because you like good music, and I am jealous of your local rock you have

I hope I am not coming across as angry, I am not, just discussing....

My Dad taught hunter safety, and I hunted most of my adult life, bow hunting more then anything, but rifles also. I know the responsibility needed when owning guns. I still see people with them in gun racks in their trucks unattended....p***es me off.

I believe you have seen my comment on how I had guns locked in a secure case, but my incident I am sure is very rare. And actually, just realized, could be avoided........Only combination locks, not keyed locks.....There, fixed.

[Sakari]

Nah, they have enough people arguing this to death and back.

Not sure about you, I am not arguing, I am having a discussion. If this were arguing, I would not be here, I would walk away.

With your comment there, I must say, I do not believe you on your previous comment now, but that is just my opinion.

[Maizer]

Not sure about you, I am not arguing, I am having a discussion. If this were arguing, I would not be here, I would walk away.

With your comment there, I must say, I do not believe you on your previous comment now, but that is just my opinion.

However you would like it. Most gun proponents I listen too actually question the process in which guns might be removed, the chances of home invasions, protection, the mental or social affects of removing guns, etc etc. They don't compare them with knives, bombs, planes or worship the second amendment like Moses did the 10 commandments or talk about the U.S. government going 1984.

Edited December 18, 2012 by Maizer

[Drayno]

OH WOW "shall not be infringed" !!!! That makes everything good!! Hey I'll make up a law. You will not burn your toast because toast has a right to be fluffy and it SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. Now let us make sure each bread's rights are not infringed, because IT SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. Even if toast tastes better it is not allowed because our founding farmers decided that IT SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. Therefore IT SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED, because there is a law that says IT SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED, even though they didn't know what toast was, because IT SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.F@#H@#fJ@#f@f

Nah, they have enough people arguing this to death and back.

"Shall not be infringed" is the warning sign, "don't throw a match into the woods."

Again, there was a reason this country was set up the way it was. They didn't warn, or explicitly make it clear that that law is not to be altered, just because they thought it would be a nice thing to have. They thought it was absolutely necessary to have for the survival of this nation and its ideals.

[lightly]

Funny fact, no US Citizen has the right to own a firearm. The second admendment apears to be directed towards members of the National Guard or the Army Reserve (both of which can be considered Well Regulated and Organized Militias.

~Thanato

Members of National Guard units and Army Reserve units are citizens? They are also people . "the People " have the right to "KEEP" arms.

People , including national guard members and army reservists ,when not on active duty, live at home. So, where may they KEEP arms?

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to KEEP and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Personally, I hate guns , but i understand the second amendment to say that it is legal for a people to keep a gun.

keep |kēp|verb ( past and past participle kept |kept| ) [ with obj. ]1have or retain possession of: my father would keep the best for himself | she had trouble keeping her balance.• retain or reserve for use in the future: return one copy to me, keeping the other for your files.• put or store in a regular place: the stand where her umbrella was kept.

retain |riˈtān|verbcontinue to have (something); keep possession of:

[Sakari]

However you would like it. Most gun proponents I listen too actually question the process in which guns might be removed, the chances of home invasions, protection, the mental or social affects of removing guns, etc etc. They don't compare them with knives, bombs, planes or worship the second amendment like Moses did the 10 commandments or talk about the U.S. government going 1984.

Did you read my post from Australia?.......

I would like to know your thoughts, as we can learn from that......

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=239299&st=450#entry4584966

[Maizer]

"Shall not be infringed" is the warning sign, "don't throw a match into the woods."

Again, there was a reason this country was set up the way it was. They didn't warn, or explicitly make it clear that that law is not to be altered, just because they thought it would be a nice thing to have. They thought it was absolutely necessary to have for the survival of this nation and its ideals.

Yes, they were called the British. I believe now the biggest threat they propose is mass invading of our newspapers with inevitable pictures of the soon to be born prince or princess. How cute.

Edited December 18, 2012 by Maizer

[Maizer]

Did you read my post from Australia?.......

I would like to know your thoughts, as we can learn from that......

http://www.unexplain...50#entry4584966

Yeah talk with Aussies and they'll say the gun ban was a great thing. In fact, I share my office with one. Oh and your article is from a site that says 'JOIN GUNS AND SHOOTING ONLINE' with no facts to back its statements up.

Look at Japan. less than 20 gun incidents a year.

Look at China. Man goes knife crazy at elementary school. 0 children killed.

Edited December 18, 2012 by Maizer

[Drayno]

Yes, they were called the British. I believe now the biggest threat they propose is mass invading of our newspapers with inevitable pictures of the soon to be born prince. How cute.

This country was set up the way it was to not repeat the mistakes of past nations.

Our founding fathers, although political geniuses, were still men, and susceptible to mistakes.

Popular sovereignty, fair representation, liberty, the right to redress the government, privacy, an efficient system of bicameralism...

These concepts are the basis of our country as the ideal intellectual, political, and religious platform...

And how are these concepts protected? By the average private, educated, and liberated arms wielding citizen.

Edited December 18, 2012 by Drayno