Firearms refresher course

[tsmckenney]

Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

Is there a waiver you must sign committing to use this weapon on people only?

I would love to own this gun and I would never turn a gun on a person unless it was in self defense.

Jeff, I am now trying to picture you using your fully automatic Uzi to defend yourself. Let's set the scene here, uhm, you're at Target maybe. Or, waiting in line for an Orange Julius. Or...just about to test drive a Hummer.

Calmly step away from the Red Dawn dvd...

 

[tigger]

However, there are some guns that serve no purpose except to kill people: Example.

I don't see anyone getting killed in that picture. It looks like a shooting range to me. With inanimate targets.
PM will be sent to further discuss this stuff later today or tomorrow.

 

[CigarStone]

Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

Is there a waiver you must sign committing to use this weapon on people only?

I would love to own this gun and I would never turn a gun on a person unless it was in self defense.

Jeff, I am now trying to picture you using your fully automatic Uzi to defend yourself. Let's set the scene here, uhm, you're at Target maybe. Or, waiting in line for an Orange Julius. Or...just about to test drive a Hummer.

Calmly step away from the Red Dawn dvd...

Ya see that is just like you I never said anything about using that gun in self defense, you jumped to that conclusion all by yourself!

I also never said anything about where or when I would use a gun in self defense, your tiny little, singularly focused, brain conjured that one up all by itself too!

Self defense for me would most likely be in my home, most likely be a life threatening event, would most likely be a Glock, and would definitely be the last resort.

And yes, I would also like to own an Uzi.

Just so nobody gets the wrong idea, Mick and I are pals and even though he is severely misguided, we will stay pals

 

[Devil Doc]

Anyone, who expects someone else to protect him and his family, gets no respect from me.

Doc.

 

[Mike33]

My point is that, with the bans you mentioned below, the Gov. does have a right to restrict firearm ownership, both State and Federal. That is not in dispute. The thing that is not settled is a consensus as to what the 2nd truly means and how far the Gov. can regulate gun ownership. There are very strong arguments for both sides of the issue and both are in some respects, very valid.

While gun advocates love to trumpet the 2nd, there has yet to be a U.S. Supreme Court case to decide what exactly it means. Contrary to popular belief, it does not give individual citizens the right to carry any weapon, much less assault rifles or RPGs

A quibble. The Constituion doesn't "give" rights, excepted those granted to government by the the people.

Another quibble. True assault weapons, RPGs, and other destructive devices are already restricted by the National Firearm Act of 1934 and the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986.

Popular belief notwithstanding, the issue isn't nearly so settled on the side you seem to indicate: The Right to Keep and Bear Arms, Report of the Subcommittee on the Constitution.

Fortunately, we don't have to rely soley on the 2nd Amendment up here...

§ 19. Right to Keep and Bear 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. The individual right to keep and bear arms shall not be denied or infringed by the State or a political subdivision of the State. [Amended 1994]

Additionally, if it were ruled that the 2nd doesn't specifically protect an individual right, the question would still bear answering under the 10th...

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

As for trumpeting...I'm also quite fond of the 1st, 3rd, 4th...hell, I think all of 'em are pretty damn spiffy.

 

[grateful1]

Regulating gun ownership vs. regulating guns....2 different matters.

Also - as 'law' is a 'living breathing' entity....then this discussion will follow suit and will change over the course of time.

Now - you will notice I said 'law' and not Constitution...as that is document who's interpretations change over the course of time.

It depends on point of view...intent however may be seen by putting oneself in the shoes of those who wrote it....we are not in those shoes.

To not belabor this matter....Nobody's right if everybody's wrong!

Now:

 

[gunsandcigars88]

Thank you for that!!! In a time of more and more pressure to get rid of legally owned guns, it is good to see some people still have it right!!!

Don

I've got a pistol in my dresser drawer of which I have never felt any pressure of losing. I do not understand this statement. Who is applying this pressure? EDITED to remove possible political statement.

Since the US has more people in jail per capita then any other first world nation your guess about punishment doesn't seem to be correct.

True, we have more people per capita in jail than any other leading country which would "seem" to indicate that we punish our criminals, but what criminals do we punish?. We also turn a blind eye to virtually all crime and those who commit it unless there is money to be made by exploiting it. We therefore have more criminals on the street per capita than any other leading country. But.......................this discussion is going way beyond my ability to state factual stats so I will let it drop.

Jeff, my brother, that is just not true. The US Attorney's Offices throughout the country reprioritze the cases they try every year based on what's going on in the country. Right now they are prosecuting meth and crack cases (as always), white collar fraud cases, PSC-related cases (Project Safe Childhood), etc. I just don't understand your statement.

They can have my gun when they pry my cold dead fingers from around it.


Fish

Who's they? Again, I don't get it.

Just to play Devil's Advocate, how do you explain Japan, England and the EU gun deaths or lack thereof. ???

How about Rwanda, Darfur, and the like? Gun ownership would have been plenty helpful to all the people who have been hacked to death with machetes and the like.

You're talking about countries who are tribally divided and run by corrupt governments. You think they are going to allow opposing tribes to own guns? Nope. Although, perhaps it's better to be shot to death than slashed to pieces.

I'm all for gun ownership, like I said, I own guns myself; but most people shouldn't even handle fireworks.... The harder it is for people to own guns, IMO, the better. Nothing wrong with discouraging the stupid and lazy.

I will answer this question for you really quick. The Congress recently tried for the SECOND time to pass a bill that Bush Vetoed. It banned any and all firearms that were designed for millitary use. If you think about it ANY firearm is designed for military use. They have tried to ban every firearm from our possesion twice now. If you think that they were meaning something different then I don't agree with you. They were trying to get rid of our guns without us even noticing. what kind of a cowardly move is that. This claus that was in the bill was not noticed by MANY, and it almost cost us dearly. I am NOT willing to give up my guns under any means. For them to get my guns away from me I will have to be dead or out of bullets. That is a non-negotiable point for me. I bought them, I have a right to own them, and I will use them if required.
B

 

[gunsandcigars88]

I think there should be some safeguards from certain people from handling some firearms. However, there are some guns that serve no purpose except to kill people: Example. That is a completely legal rifle. You can try all you want to try and convince me that the Barrett .50 should be owned by everyday people but I don't think it will work. It is overkill for both hunting and self-protection purpose. No need to forget that if you pick up some armor-piercing rounds for that sucker, it will go in one window of the presidential limo and out the other from 500yds.

WRONG! This Barrett .50 BMG is not made for killing people. Is it used for that? Yes it is. This is made to be a highly accurate firearm at long range. it can shoot amazing groups at up to and exceeding 1000 yards. If you had done your research you would have known that this is a gun that is HIGHLY used in competition. It is also used on the battlefield yes, but it was not designed to kill people. It's purpose to shoot far and accurate, and what it is used for is decided by the owner. I can go out and purchase one of these myself, and hopefully one day I will. You need to understand that what a firearm is used for is decided by the operator and not the designer.
B

 

[grateful1]

For further reading!


...and for your enjoyment:

 

[CigarStone]

Are cars that go over the legal speed limit designed to kill people? Maybe we should ban all vehicles that weigh more than 1000 pounds and go over 55 MPH......I better shut up or some idiot will take that idea and run with it

Just like a fast car, the reason someone would want to own the Barret .50 is "because they get enjoyment out of it"

 

[gunsandcigars88]

Anyone, who expects someone else to protect him and his family, gets no respect from me.

Doc.

I meant to comment on this earlier Doc, but I forgot to. This comment is VERY well said. I agree COMPLETELY with this. It is our job to protect ourselves, and our families.
B

 

[tsmckenney]

I will answer this question for you really quick. The Congress recently tried for the SECOND time to pass a bill that Bush Vetoed. It banned any and all firearms that were designed for millitary use. If you think about it ANY firearm is designed for military use. They have tried to ban every firearm from our possesion twice now. If you think that they were meaning something different then I don't agree with you. They were trying to get rid of our guns without us even noticing. what kind of a cowardly move is that. This claus that was in the bill was not noticed by MANY, and it almost cost us dearly. I am NOT willing to give up my guns under any means. For them to get my guns away from me I will have to be dead or out of bullets. That is a non-negotiable point for me. I bought them, I have a right to own them, and I will use them if required.
B

Can you imagine the ATF trying to collect every single gun in this country? Never going to happen. Yeah, some people with too much time on their hands are going to make you try to put a lock on something, or prohibit the production of something that will blow up a small calf, but your pistols, rifles and shotguns are safe.

Anyone, who expects someone else to protect him and his family, gets no respect from me.

Doc.

I meant to comment on this earlier Doc, but I forgot to. This comment is VERY well said. I agree COMPLETELY with this. It is our job to protect ourselves, and our families.
B

That is precisely why I own a gun. So if shit ever hits the fan, I can protect my family from nutbags like you guys. :laugh: :laugh:

 

[puffstuff]

When you speak of the spirit of the Constitution and why it was written, maybe it's time to go back and read this document

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government"


Wait, Wait, here's a good one,

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.


This is why this Amendment of which we speak was so high on the list. Please take a minute to read before you say something like the courts have never ruled that the Second Amendment doesn't apply to self protection.

NBC News and news services
updated 7:32 p.m. ET, Fri., March. 9, 2007

WASHINGTON - In the most important ruling on gun control in 70 years, a federal appeals court Friday for the first time used the Second Amendment to strike down a gun law.

In a 2-1 decision, the court overturned the District of Columbia’s long-standing handgun ban, rejecting the city’s argument that the Second Amendment right to bear arms applied only to militias.

The majority held that the activities protected by the Second Amendment “are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual’s enjoyment of the right contingent” on enrollment in a militia.


The moral of this story is?

 

[Double D]

Ray,
Just an observation on England I get british Tv via satelite. There is a show called Ross kemp on gangs and he did several shows on British gangs most of which were heavily armed. They have also had a couple of police oficers shot and killed in the last couple of years. In England the police are also not allowed to carry guns unless specifically ordered for special cases then only for the time that the raid or action is being carried out.

Gun related violence in the UK is on the rise as well as here in Germany were guns are generally banned unless for hunting or sport shooting however, these types of permits are very difficult to obtain. Being a person who makes thier living partly through the legal use of fire arms I have mixed emotions about who should own what kind of firearm. I have seen some folks who just should never own a gun or be allowed to reproduce for that matter.

Dale

 

[MoeCizlak]

I think there should be some safeguards from certain people from handling some firearms. However, there are some guns that serve no purpose except to kill people: Example. That is a completely legal rifle. You can try all you want to try and convince me that the Barrett .50 should be owned by everyday people but I don't think it will work. It is overkill for both hunting and self-protection purpose. No need to forget that if you pick up some armor-piercing rounds for that sucker, it will go in one window of the presidential limo and out the other from 500yds.

One other aspect of gun ownership is that people collect cool things just for the sake of collecting. A Bugatti Veyron is not a practical method for getting your kids to soccer practice but people still buy them. A Barrett would not be a good choice to go duck hunting with but I'll bet people enjoy the hell out of taking it to a range and simply shooting it at nothing in particular.

 

[Mike33]

This is why this Amendment of which we speak was so high on the list. Please take a minute to read before you say something like the courts have never ruled that the Second Amendment doesn't apply to self protection.

I have read plenty on this issue in the past few weeks. I don't think anyone is talking about self-protection; I certainly am not. The issue is how far can the Gov. restrict gun ownership. The D.C. Circuit was only the 2nd court to ever rule the 2nd applied to individuals. Before 2001, NO FEDERAL COURT HAD EVER ruled this way. The 5th Circuit did so in 2001 and the 9th Circuit in 2002 refused to say the amendment applied to individuals. It was long held by all Federal courts that the 2nd amendment did not protect the individual right to have firearms. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court never gave a clear interpertation of the amendment in the Miller case.

So, please take a minute yourself and read a link Gary had earlier posted; this kind of sums it all up:

Linky

"In 2007, the D. C. Court of Appeals, in Parker v District of Columbia, struck down a Washington, D.C. ban on individuals having handguns in their homes. With its 2 to 1 ruling, the D. C. Circuit became the nation's second court of appeals (following the Fifth Circuit) to find that the Second Amendment creates an individual right to own firearms. Most other circuits courts had concluded the Second Amendment protects only the rights of states to maintain militias. The split in the circuits suggested that the time was finally be ripe for another Supreme Court decision on the issue. The Supreme Court granted cert in the fall of 2007 (the case has been re-named District of Columbia v Heller) and a decision is expected in June 2008."