POLL: Gun Ownership

Remove all ads!

@ tal - thats funny! the liberals have been lying for years about this and you want us to trust them? look at any study by the brady group , handgun control they blatantly lye, look at what they are saying about florida right now.

@nonsequitur - you should know that the bjs stats are based on surveys of 75000 people in 42000 households . they are not the raw #'s that you get if you go to the department of justice website &/or the fbi website. very different numbers.
check out this site http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st/st176/
this is a nonprofit nonpartisan group , in fact some of their stuff i don't agree with.

@t2bruno - wasn't calling you a liberal i was just observing a kinda funny fact
and by the way......... whats wrong with barry goldwater he he he

one thing most anti-gun people like to overlook is the research by kreck and lott that shows that more guns equates to less crime in american situations.
there are almost 20 thousand gunlaws on the books and they have done very little to stop crime because only law abiding citizens follow them NOT CRIMINALS less than 1 in 6 firearms used in criminal activity was lawfully bought.

check the website for c&e gunshows for some of the crap that BATF has been doing in virginia.they were going to the shows and following around any young minority females and watching what they were purchasing and also asking them lots of questions as to who they were buying for. then ,without a warrant ,they were going to these womens residences demanding to see the firearms that they had recently purchased. no proof that any of them had done anything wrong but in the batf's eyes a young minority female buying a gun = a "straw purchase" this is when 1 person buys a weapon for someone who cannot. luckily the judges took a dim view of these activities and batf had to issue an apology.

as far as the legality of the gun gontrol act of 1934... hmmm what do you think of a law that puts a 200 dollar tax on a 5 dollar gun or a silencer thats costs about 3 dollars?
the law was written and designed to force massive numbers of people into noncompliance, thus giving all of the agents formerly busting liquer runners under prohibition (which had recently been repealed.) something to do.
oh by the way the first ten articles to the constitution are not amendments and cannot be changed or revoked. these are the rights that the founding fathers said were inseperable from the people.

 

Actually, I believe membership in the NRA is free, and they don't get any money from gun sales (unless they actually directly sell guns). The real question is: how is this not like the pro-life/pro-choice "lying" debate? Both sides lie.

 

Actually, Martaug, a tax of $200 on a $3 silencer may seem a lot, but it has some justifications:
- a silencer is not something you need to ward thugs off or defend yourself - after all, half of what a gun can do for you in such cases is scare people off so you don't have to shoot. On the other hand, a silencer is perfect if you want to kill someone and not be detected, which I'd say is why it was invented in the first place. So yes, putting a prohibitive tax will at least ensure that people can't easily get one. I may be somewhat biased against guns, but I fail to see why would you want a silencer if your only concern is self-defense.
- then again, according to the laws of supply and demand, we may hope that most people who are not that intent on getting a silencer in the first place will simply be dissuaded from purchasing it . You could say that the extra 200 dollars are just for dissuading the neighborhood hoodlum-wannabes. Not necessarily a bad thing, imo

As for guns - well, as far as I know, a Mercedes SLK costs no more than $ 15, 000 to make, wages included. The rest is branding, advertisements, and profit margins. Two hundred dollars aren't that much in comparison

[ March 10, 2006, 19:16: Message edited by: The Shaman ]

 

Damn! They cost as much as an SPS membership, and I dare say it wouldn't be worth nearly as much. Not that I had a terribly high opinion of them before, but jeez. My dad's a member, and as much of a pinch-penny as he is I just can't imagine him shelling out $750 for a lifetime membership, but I guess he must have at some point. He always told me it was free, though...meh.

Still, one side being a complete sleeze doesn't mean that the other side is a saint (just comparing Bush and the Dems can confirm that ). As I said before, both sides lie.

 

@ tal- for the simple reason that a certain type of people live to tell others how they have to live their life. most of the anti-gun groups are also very socialist in the philosophies about government. they want the governmentr to tell them what to do from cradle to grave.sorry , the government should guard the shores and deliver the mail. I was gifted a life membership to the NRA as a pre-teen but a haven't seen one of their magazines in years

@ shaman - please note that this was a $200 tax in 1934 on silencers(more properly called a muffler , which is what it is) that were sold in most hardware stores.the average wage at that time was $12 -$30 /WEEK. the reason they were bought then(and wanted now by most) was because you could shoot whenever you wanted and not have to worry about damaging your or anybody elses hearing. contrary to hollywood , there are few ,if any, actual cases of a gun equipped with a silencer being used in a crime. if you want to muffle the shot just wrap a pillow around the end of the muzzle , messy but very quiet.

felinoid is right,,, both sides do lye(sorry, misinterpret the stats and facts to help their on side) BUT, when the antigun side does it and deprives an honest citizen of the means to protect themselves, they are causing harm to others. when the progun side does it they are trying to help protect a citizen and harm a criminal.


sorry it took me awhile to answer your posts but one of my clerks has been missing since friday and we have been trying to locate him

 

The antigun view tries to help protecting citizen by making less guns available for children and criminals. Now if that's the correct view is another story. Also calling the antigun side socialist is painting them with an all too wide brush, I don't think that most anti-gun movements even have any real political agenda other than gun control and the last time I checked that's not enough to qualify as a socialist movement.

Now then. I don't think gun control is really necessary and nor do I think it helps much but I really dislike the gun advocating culture where it's your responsibility to protect yourself and your family against everything with the power of a gun. I don't like it simply because it spreads unnecessary paranoiah and fear and it makes many who really can't be responsible gun owners get one. I've seen quite a few cases in the army whom I would really not trust with a gun in an unsupervised enviorment.

If an individual decides that he or his family is in such a danger that he needs a gun then fine I won't deny him a gun, I will think him as paranoid (unless they really live in a neighbourhoods with very high crime rates in which case it's understandable) but it should be within his rights, given that he first goes through some tests that measure his responsibility with guns. Hunting and and target shooting are completely OK in my eyes.

 

tal,
1) assault weapons have not been available since the gun control act of 1968. at that time the government had a 30 day "amnesty" in which you could register all nfa(national firearms act) weapons without paying the $200 tax on each. unfortunately, another provision did not allow for the registering of any nfa weapons after this period. so if you did not register your guns at this time you could NEVER register your guns. didn't matter if you were sick inthe hospital,on vacation or out of the country at this time, if you missed it too bad.
the full auto weapons used by the bank robbers in the north hollywood shootout were new manufactures illegally shipped over from europe.

2) in 1986 an amendment was added to the omnibus crime bill in the last minutes that was badly worded and did nothing. it stated "there shall be no machine gun transfers except under the authority of an agency of the us government" well every transfer is already done on a federal form under the auspices of the dept of the treasury. what they wanted to put in was " no machine gun transfers except TO an agency of the us government".however, BATF started refusing all transfers except to police depts and agencies of the government. it took several lawsuits(& several years) until they started approving transfers again.

3)if you are referring to "assault weapons" as defined by the omnibus crime bill ,you are talking about how a weapon looks and not how it functions. having 3 or more of the following( a pistol grip,detachable magazine,muzzle brake(mistakenly called a flash suppressor),bayonet lug &/or a folding stock) no more makes a gun an assault weapon than bolting steel plates on your truck makes it a tank! oh, and these awful assult weapons are used in less than 1/10 of 1% of all gun crimes.

4)as to waiting periods, if i want to get a class 3 weapon , even though i have already been cleared several times by the government , i would still have to fill out all the forms and wait up to 180 days to see if i am approved or not. And no i did not list my class 3 weapons earlier. just talking about the difference between a full auto weapon and the semi-auto versian has brought charges of conspiracy to violate federal gunlaws from the ATF in the past.

5) most of the guns i have bought in the last few years have all been europian or south american manufacture. glock,taurus,rossi, etc.

as far as stupidity in gunlaws :
glock makes excellent guns, however, 2 of their models can't be imported into the us.
what huge ungodly powerful cartridge most these guns shoot!!!


wait for it


umm.. the humble .380

yep, the model 25 & 28 dont meet enough batf import points to be allowed in. forget about the fact that the only difference between a glock 19,23,32 & the 25 is the (smaller!)caliber. the 28 is the same size as the 26,27,33models

also you cant import a revolver in .38 caliber with a 2" barrel. so what taurus ,rossi and all the other non american manufactures have to do is ship them in with a 3" barrel, which is then removed and replaced with a 2" barrel. the 3" barrels are then shipped back to the factories overseas. he he.. some of these barrels have made the trip dozens of times.
want to know why? they are classified as "saturday night specials" cheap handguns of small caliber and inferior workmanship. there is nothing inferior about any glock ever made.
helluva gun, i've put over 10,000 rds through my glock 21(.45) without cleaning it before and never had a problem.

any fine holland & holland rifle with the ivory front sight(about the size of a grain of rice) is illegal to import and will be siezed and destroyed upon entering the country. a 75-150 thousand dollar gun destroyed because of ivory the size of a grain of rice?? sheer stupidity!

 

Ummm... not really. Do you have any idea what the Constitution even says? Allow me to enlighten you about some facts you seem to be unaware of:

1. There were not TEN articles in the original Constitution that was signed and adopted by the then 13 states - there were only SEVEN.

2. Nothing in the original SEVEN articles says anything about a people's right to bear arms.

3. When you are referring to the right to bear arms, you are specifically referring to the Bill of Rights, which is not part of the original Constitution - in fact the right to bear arms is the second amendment to the Constitution. So even if your statement that the original articles of the Constitution could not be changed were true - and incidently you're wrong about that too - it wouldn't apply to the right to bear arms as that was not an original article.

4. There is nothing "special" about the amdendments in the Bill of Rights other than the fact that it was the only time we had that many amendments to the Constitution adopted all at once. The process for changing them is the same as for changing any other original article or amendment. I'm not sure where you got the idea that there is some item anywhere in the Constitution that couldn't be changed. Granted, we don't erase amendments or articles from the Consitution - even a repealed amendment would still be there (see Prohibition as a prime example)- they would just add an additional amendment onto the end of the Constitution repealing an earlier article/amendment.

 

actually aldeth, if you read the preamble to the bill of rights you will see that in the second paragraph they are clearly called articles.

1)the articles of confederation were in effect from march1,1781 till march4,1789 when the constitution went into effect. these included enumerations of most of the rights as set forth in the constitution and the bill of rights (art. 11 - canada was included? okay who was taking bribes from the canucks!)

The fact that the Constitution did not include a bill of rights to specifically protect Americans' hard-won rights sparked the most heated debates during the ratification process. To the Federalists, those who favored the Constitution, a bill of rights was unnecessary because the Federal Government was limited in its powers and could not interfere with the rights of the people or the states; also, most states had bills of rights. To the Anti-Federalists, those who opposed the Constitution, the prospect of establishing a strong central government without an explicit list of rights guaranteed to the people was unthinkable. Throughout the ratification process, individuals and several state conventions in their formal ratification of the Constitution demanded a bill of rights; others ratified the Constitution with the understanding that the bill of rights would be offered.it was ratified on dec.19,1791 .
as envisioned by the framers , which you can verify by reading their statements made about it, the bill of rights would be inviolate.

while it is true that you could technically change them. Can you honestly see being able to get 3/4 of the states to ratify an amendment to get rid of the double jeopardy protection of the 5th ,or the right to peaceful assembly of the 1st, or the right to a jury trial of the 7th , or any of the other protections offered by the first ten? it would be political suicide.

what was the event(final straw as it was) that ignited all the tension between the colonies and england? the attempt on april 19th,1775 by the british to destroy the colonists firearms at concord. which they did and look what happened. sorry guys , americans seem to understand that an armed populace can change an oppresive government & are citizens while those who are unarmed are simply subjects.
i would gladly lay done my life to defend anothers rights and freedoms just as i wouldn't stand by and let mine be trampled.

 

martaug,

I have to admit that I've never actually read an original copy of the Bill of Rights. The only thing I have seen are ones printed in text books, so I suppose it's possible that they are listed as Articles, and not Amendments. However, in any government or political science class, the "Articles" refer to the original seven, and the "Amendments" refer to everything else, starting with the Bill of Rights and including everything after that. Ask a poli sci professor, and he will tell you the right to bear arms is located in the 2nd Amendment - not the 9th Article.

It is true that changes to the Constitution are rare in general. There have only been 27 total Amendments (yes, that counts the 10 in the Bill or Rights), which means there have actually only been 17 amendments to the Constitution in the last 215 years. We only average an amendment every 12 years or so. Assuming you are somewhere near my age (born in the 70s), there have been no more than two amendments to the Constitution in your lifetime, although if you're somewhat older than me (born in the 60s) you could have seen as many as five.

Having said all that, I agree that the 10 amendments in the Bill or Rights are pretty much carved in stone. Not only do you require ratification by 3/4 of the states, but before it even goes to that vote, you also need 2/3 of Congress to agree on a change, and I highly doubt that you would get that agreement. I have no idea what the number is, but I imagine a good number of Congressmen are card carrying members of the NRA.

The point of all this though wasn't to see whether you or I know more about the Constitution. Many of the people in this debate with you aren't from America, and have probably not read the U.S. Constitution, so they take your statement that you can't change the original articles at face value, and assume that's a fact - which it isn't.

Technically, every amendment, regardless of when it was adopted, is a change to the original articles - that's why we call them amendments. All four of the points I made in the previous post are accurate, and there was nothing in your response that refuted any of them. It was an effort to level the playing field and let other people who may not be as well versed in the Constitution as you are gain a better understanding of what is actually contained in the U.S. Constitution.

 

Hehe, agreed, Aldeth.

As for Berettas... they have a good reputation, yeah... my sucky one might just be an exception to the rule, I guess. I've sent it for repair, so it'll work like a brand new.

But it's still Desert Eagle all the way for me.

And as for the laws on firearms... what an absurdity. I should be able to carry a damn gun if I want to. But there's no point arguing on that, as it seems unlike the said laws will change. But they won't prevent me from carrying my own damn gun if I want to.

 

@DotW - Out of curiosity, how to you conceal a Desert Eagle in the summer time? I mean in the winter, a trench coat with deep pockets would work, but I can't imagine you wear a trench coat in mid-July. I mean a Desert Eagle is, as I said, a big mother f'ing gun. It doesn't fit in a normal sized pocket.

 

@Aldeth - Hmm, I must say I didn't thought of that. Well, I'll just carry my soon-to-be-fixed Beretta during the summer. I hate hot weather, however, and I'm looking to move some place cold all year around where I could wear my trench all year around. Wouldn't that be great? Carry a «big mother f`ing gun» all year around. *sigh* A few more years to go and this'll be a dream come true. But enough off-topicing now.

 

aldeth - just went back and reread my earlier post and it should have been "the first ten articles ADDED to the constitution" hate when i miss a word.

i wasn't trying to make this come off as to who knows more than the other and if my tone or anything i typed suggested that i do apologise.

i agree with your point that more people should know what is in the constitution. sometimes i forget that some(most?) of the posters here aren't from the ole usa.

@DotW - i hope you get a chance to shoot a desert eagle before you buy one. they are very broad in the grip area and you need really big hands to fire it accurately one-handed (mine aren't big enough and i need a 2-handed grip to fire one rapidly). it seems to be a really good gun but dang it's big!
if you like them big ,try out a .500 S+W magnum revolver.
500 grain bullet at 1500FPS and 2500ftlb.s of energy!
kicks like a freakin' mule!

 

I originally was going to make a long post, but seeing as how such as Darkwolf and halfogremagi have already said much of what I was going to say, there isn't a point.

I currently own a Lee-Enfield No.1 Mk.III* rifle (.303 British), a Russian SKS carbine (7.62x39mm), a Winchester Model 190 rifle (.22 short, long, and long rifle), a Norwegian M1914 pistol (.45, essentially a Colt 1911), Walther P22 pistol (.22 long rifle), and Tanfoglio TA76 revolver (.22 long rifle). While I technically don't own it, I also have free access to a Argentinian Browning High Power (9x19mm). In addition to the firearms I own, I also have a hunting slingshot for small game, two katanas (one that is sharp, the other that can't be sharpened and is for martial arts competitions), a naginata, two pair of escrima sticks, and a wave blade dagger. As you might surmise from this list, I like collecting weapons all kinds, which is why I selected "Other" in the poll. Also, I am planning to go to school to become a gunsmith in the not too distant future.

 

@Zara, I was looking forward to your post, but oh well...

The next time you are ever near the SLC area, bring your P22 and we'll go to a shooting range. I haven't been able to shoot my P22 for far too long...

You can also see what's wrong with mine...it likes to jam up on the 1st round after loading the mag with 10 rounds. It never does it with 9 rounds...