Hello all,

I've read and seen media about the gun laws in the United States and I'm curious:

-What guns require a permit? I read that a small caliber hunting rifle doesn't need a permit. Are there other exceptions.

-What guns are available to ordinary citizens? I read that any citizen can acquire assault weapons like AK-47 and Uzi.

-Was the original reason behind the 'right to bear arms' to allow ordinary citizens to bear arms to overthrow the government in case the government would impose a dictatorial government or is this nonsense?

Sincerely,
Martyn van Halm

-What guns require a permit? I read that a small caliber hunting rifle doesn't need a permit. Are there other exceptions.

This depends on what you mean by "permit." In the United States, firearms laws are divided into federal laws, which apply to all the states, and state laws, which apply only in the states where they are enacted.

All firearms buyers in the United States must fill out federal forms and pass an "instant background check" when they purchase a firearm of any kind from a federally licensed dealer.

In the United States, handguns are regulated more tightly than are long guns. Many states require a license for possession of a handgun, though it is much easier to own a rifle or a shotgun.

Because of the differences from state to state (and even from city to city), there is no one answer to your question. I have a pistol permit for New York State that is invalid in New York City, for example, and which does not apply to other states. That means I can carry a pistol, but not into NYC, and not across the border of my own state. One exception would be Vermont, a state in which no permit is required for handguns.

-What guns are available to ordinary citizens? I read that any citizen can acquire assault weapons like AK-47 and Uzi.

This is a product of media misinformation. An assault weapon is, by definition, a select fire weapon capable of automatic fire. No private citizen in the United States may easily possess such an automatic weapon. While it is theoretically possible to become a "Class Three" license holder and possess such arms, it is not easy and it is not common.

Semi-automatic versions of various "assault weapons" -- that is, rifles that are cosmetically similar to such military arms but which fire only one round for each time the trigger is pulled -- are still legal for most citizens of the United States. The weapon in the picture below is a MAK90, a Chinese semi-automatic rifle based on the AK47. It is not an "assault weapon."

http://www.themartialist.com/images/philrifle.jpg

Was the original reason behind the 'right to bear arms' to allow ordinary citizens to bear arms to overthrow the government in case the government would impose a dictatorial government or is this nonsense?

According to the writings of the Founding Fathers, this was indeed the purpose of the Second Amendment. The Framers of the US Constitution believed very strongly in the right of citizens to be armed, both for their individual defense and for their defense against tyrannical government.

Sorry, but your post sounds like you are either baiting for an arguement or that your are intentionally misunderstanding the "Right to Keep and Bear Arms"

Every state has somewhat different laws, governed by a larger law governed by the Federal statutes, i.e., no automatic weapons (except in exceptional circumstances), or grenade launchers for the most part, silencers are illegal (without the proper license), etc.

By and large hunting is still a huge sport in the USA. Most weapons include shotguns, and small game rifles up to deer and elk sized rifles. Many children learn how to shoot or get merit badges at camps for participating in gun safety and shooting classes, etc. Of course I am from Texas, so my perceptions may be askew.

Handguns are not prohibited in the home, for defense only, you cannot carry them overtly in public, with the exception of in Arizona. Many states now have concealed handgun licenses, that require certification and background checks. You can carry a gun in your car in many states, if you are travelling a significant distance, this does not mean to and from work, etc.

The number of illegal handguns in the US is monsterous, and an increadable number of crimes are committed to secure, or are committed with these handguns.

Yup,

The Bill of Rights, which are the first 10 Ammendments of the Constitution, are reserved for the people. The right to keep and bear arms is #2 on that list.

The U.N. does not believe we should have this right anymore. To them, we look like terrorists. Small arms are the next target of the U.N. and ours are no exception. The U.N. in NYC has a statue of a gun with the barrel twisted in a knot.

I guess time will tell.

If you want to know what weapons are legal in which states of the USA and what their laws are--whether a permit is required, a good website to look at is:

http://www.packing.org

This website will also tell you which states recognize other states' permits (reciprocity).

- Ceicei

I think Phil hit it pretty well.

Originally posted by Michael Billings
Sorry, but your post sounds like you are either baiting for an arguement or that your are intentionally misunderstanding the "Right to Keep and Bear Arms"

Obviously there is much debate about to rights to have our guns. While the 2nd amendment is a hot topic right now, I personally have to agree with Phil, I think the founders really did envision everyone who wanted a gun having a gun so that it was impossible to get caught with a tyranical government again. It has been brought up that they couldn't have forseen the future and the new "need" to regulate firearms.

Originally posted by Michael Billings
Handguns are not prohibited in the home, for defense only, you cannot carry them overtly in public, with the exception of in Arizona. Many states now have concealed handgun licenses, that require certification and background checks. You can carry a gun in your car in many states, if you are travelling a significant distance, this does not mean to and from work, etc.


I know our state allows open (overt) carry of any legal firearm, however most major cities have ordinances against this and I suppose a LEO could pull you in for disturbing the peace, menacing, inciting a riot, or any other "blanket law". Also in our state it is perfectly legal to carry a fire arm in your car at any time, but there are specific rules you must abide by (ammo or magazine has to be stored in a "separate compartment", firearm must be visible breech open or stored in a case, ect).

I don't mean to pick on Mr. Billings' post, I just figured I state some other laws and freedoms.

Concerning my last question - on the second amendment to the bill of rights - I wished to confirm something I read, that the right to bear arms was directly related to counter the dictatorial oppression the founding father had suffered under the rule of the English [who forbade any citizen from bearing arms - which makes it easier to suppress them, of course].

I checked out the packing.org link - very informative, thanks.

Originally posted by Reprobate
Concerning my last question - on the second amendment to the bill of rights - I wished to confirm something I read, that the right to bear arms was directly related to counter the dictatorial oppression the founding father had suffered under the rule of the English [who forbade any citizen from bearing arms - which makes it easier to suppress them, of course].

I checked out the packing.org link - very informative, thanks.

Just a minor correction.

The Second Ammendment is to the U.S. Constitution. The First Ten Admendments make up the Bill of rights. There are no Admendments to the Bill of Rights

Good Questions
:asian:

Thanks for the corrections, Rich. I'm not up on US laws as I am on the Dutch :D.

Originally posted by Sharp Phil
Semi-automatic versions of various "assault weapons" -- that is, rifles that are cosmetically similar to such military arms but which fire only one round for each time the trigger is pulled -- are still legal for most citizens of the United States. The weapon in the picture below is a MAK90, a Chinese semi-automatic rifle based on the AK47. It is not an "assault weapon."

http://www.themartialist.com/images/philrifle.jpg


Phil, I read somewhere that anyone with an above average technical bent can transform these semi-auto weapons into fully-auto. As I'm not knowledgeable in this area, what is your opinion? Do you have to be a 'gun-smith' to alter the function of a semi-auto to a full-auto?

Originally posted by Reprobate
Phil, I read somewhere that anyone with an above average technical bent can transform these semi-auto weapons into fully-auto. As I'm not knowledgeable in this area, what is your opinion? Do you have to be a 'gun-smith' to alter the function of a semi-auto to a full-auto?

This is absolutely true. You can turn "fake silencers" into real silencers also too. At gun and knife shows, I can always find a few guys who are more then willing to impart the knowledge.

But...so what. People in america are killed all the time, but you almost never hear on the news that someone was killed with an automatic weapon. It just doesn't happend often enough to consider banning these weapons.

Here in the U.S. we believe and protect the right to bear arms very dearly (well, about half of us do, anyways). The purpose of having our second amendment right is that WE (citizens) have the right to arm ourselves, create a militia, and overthrow our government if an Adolf Hitler type individual fanagles himself into power.

Now, my personal opinion (as stated on another thread) I think we should be able to outright own and carry any damn thing we want; automatic, silencer, double edged blades, or whatever. But, I think that we should have to regester firearms under a license so if I decide to murder someone, they can easily trace it back to me. Gun nuts usually think I am too drastic when it comes to what I think we should be able to own and carry, but they think I too "left winged" when I talk about licensing. Ah well....

.

Originally posted by Reprobate
Phil, I read somewhere that anyone with an above average technical bent can transform these semi-auto weapons into fully-auto. As I'm not knowledgeable in this area, what is your opinion? Do you have to be a 'gun-smith' to alter the function of a semi-auto to a full-auto?

IMHO Anyone with half a brain, access to a machine shop, and a has taken basic metalworking in highschool can probably do it.

Ive read the conversion manuals for many of these firearms, and as long as you can follow the specs they give you it should be Relatively simple. To oversimplify, It usualy involves making a basic replacement part, (no complicated moving parts) and "dropping" it into the lower reciever.

From a legal standpoint I would not reccomend doing it however.:eek:

Originally posted by PAUL
Here in the U.S. we believe and protect the right to bear arms very dearly (well, about half of us do, anyways). The purpose of having our second amendment right is that WE (citizens) have the right to arm ourselves, create a militia, and overthrow our government if an Adolf Hitler type individual fanagles himself into power.

A little pop gun isn't going to do much against a cruise missile. This is the biggest farce in todays gun culture. "Over throw the government!" I don't think so. As long as the rich control the symbols of power and rhetoric, nothing will happen. We could have concentration camps tomorrow (they are already built) and it would just be part of the "war on terror." Just think about this...

Anyone can modify a weapon into, well, a modified weapon. In doing so one crosses from state into federal jurisdiction and immediately begins looking at SERIOUS federal time.
Also, for what its worth, I have only rarely recovered guns from criminals that I would not be embarrassed to have in my own safe.

Chad

Originally posted by upnorthkyosa
A little pop gun isn't going to do much against a cruise missile. This is the biggest farce in todays gun culture. "Over throw the government!" I don't think so. As long as the rich control the symbols of power and rhetoric, nothing will happen. We could have concentration camps tomorrow (they are already built) and it would just be part of the "war on terror." Just think about this...


Ok, if the Governement can launch a cruise missile at me, let them. The question then stands, what is the problem with me having a gun?

And before anyone paints a picture of me being a NRA gun owning Rigth Wing Conservative, I do not own a gun, at all. I may in the future, but I have not owned one so far in my life. Nor do I have posession of one either.

If you want this changed, then put up a Referendum, in each state to get it passed, or have each state propose a bill and have 37 states pass it. I believe that is enough to make an Admendment to the US Constitution. Have one that repeals the second admendment or modifies it the verbage.

Anyone has the power to proceed. And of course you will say that no one can because the money players will prohibit them. And I say BS to that. Slavery and womens' right to vote was controlled by the money players aka the land owners at one time. Yet things have changed for the better. It is people who believe that change will not or cannot happen and give into the apathy that are the real cause of the problem. We all know them. They will not take the time to go out and vote. Yet they will complain all the time about the guys in power. Yet, they will nto take the time to either go vote.

Also the people that go and vote a party line or religious line, are at least out voting. These people that are blindly following others, are the ones helping to make the decisions.

The only way to make it different is to get out there and do something about it.

Just My Opinion

"Weapons of Mass Destruction" are of limited use when attempting to pacify a populace that is armed and willing to use force to fight an aggressor, domestic or foreign. We could simply "launch a cruise missile" at various sections of Iraq, but that would kill countless people we don't want to kill. By the same token, you could nuke Chicago because there are certain people within the city fighting an oppressive government, but then, you'd be killing everybody there. Put yourself in the position of marauding tyrant: What's the purpose of ruling a population that is all dead because you used your superior military force to annihilate everyone at the cruise missile level?

Regarding the conversion of firearms:

What we have to remember here is that the technology for firearms does not come from space aliens. If you have access to a machine shop, you can manufacture firearms yourself. It's also much easier to manufacture a full-automatic weapon than it is to make a semi-automatic weapon, because the latter requires a more complicated mechanism to stop the firing sequence after a single round with the trigger still depressed.

Ammunition is harder to manufacture by a large margin than the firearms that fire it, and even ammunition can be manufactured relatively easily.

Banning firearms and passing laws against them does absolutely nothing to prevent crime. All it does is place law-abiding citizens at a disadvantage when it comes to self-defense.

Any martial artist who supports "gun control" isn't a martial artist at all, because he or she fails to grasp the entire concept behind self-defense.

Banning firearms and passing laws against them does absolutely nothing to prevent crime. All it does is place law-abiding citizens at a disadvantage when it comes to self-defense.


I agree with this. I do still advocate proper liscensing, but that to me isn't "against" firearms. If anything, I feel that this would make them more easily accessable to law abiding citizens. But that's jsut my opinion.

Originally posted by Sharp Phil
"Weapons of Mass Destruction" are of limited use when attempting to pacify a populace that is armed and willing to use force to fight an aggressor, domestic or foreign. We could simply "launch a cruise missile" at various sections of Iraq, but that would kill countless people we don't want to kill. By the same token, you could nuke Chicago because there are certain people within the city fighting an oppressive government, but then, you'd be killing everybody there. Put yourself in the position of marauding tyrant: What's the purpose of ruling a population that is all dead because you used your superior military force to annihilate everyone at the cruise missile level?


There are many cases in history where warring factions would have had no quams about killing the entire population of their enemy's territory. The issue isn't the loss of life, but the loss of property and resources. Ruling a city of dead people is easy, just ship in your own people to take over, the problem is that there has to be something worth moving to, something worth ruling, something salvagable. Nuclear weapons leave nothing.

Originally posted by Sharp Phil
Any martial artist who supports "gun control" isn't a martial artist at all, because he or she fails to grasp the entire concept behind self-defense.

Martial arts and self-defense are not mutually exclusive. While most people involved in martial arts do it for self-defense, not all do so, and self-defense is only one aspect of martial arts. Some martial arts were designed to be used solely in aggressive warfare and aren't made for self-defense at all, others are based in conflict, but not self-defense like so-called sport martial arts, some have evolved into excercise or dance or cultural expression. There is no art in a rape-prevention class, but it is still self-defense. I don't call a hunter a martial artist because he can shoot well.

martial
SYLLABICATION: mar·tial
PRONUNCIATION: AUDIO: märshl
ADJECTIVE:
1. Of, relating to, or suggestive of war.
2. Relating to or connected with the armed forces or the profession of arms.
3. Characteristic of or befitting a warrior.
ETYMOLOGY: Middle English, from Latin Mrtilis, from Mrs, Mrt-, Mars.
OTHER FORMS: martial·ism —NOUN
martial·ist —NOUN
martial·ly —ADVERB

Even by straight definition, ignoring the current generally accepted meaning, the word martial is associated with war and warriors, which are not necessarily associated with self-defense.

Originally posted by Sharp Phil


Any martial artist who supports "gun control" isn't a martial artist at all, because he or she fails to grasp the entire concept behind self-defense.

Bravo Phil.

Remind me sir, If you are ever in the Chicago area to take you out for a Cold Glass of whatever you drink.

[Please take into account that I'm from the Netherlands, where guns are strictly controlled, before you judge my comments.]

Originally posted by Sharp Phil
Banning firearms and passing laws against them does absolutely nothing to prevent crime. All it does is place law-abiding citizens at a disadvantage when it comes to self-defense.I agree that in a country where handguns are abundant, gun control would only aid the criminal, but in a country where guns are strictly controlled, the amount of criminals carrying guns would also be limited, due to the dire consequences of being caught with a firearm. Hence, most criminals in the Netherlands carry knives/clubs, not guns. This, of course, is a different situation from the US.

Originally posted by Sharp Phil
Any martial artist who supports "gun control" isn't a martial artist at all, because he or she fails to grasp the entire concept behind self-defense. I agree, but with reservations. What kind of gun would be strictly self-defense? In my opinion it would be something like a Derringer .357. Powerful enough to stop an assailant, but not a gun to shoot someone who's standing half a block down the road. Furthermore, is a gun/projectile weapon necessary for self-defense? Couldn't one defend oneself with, for instance, a stunning weapon - electricity, teargas, something like that? Most guns are still designed to seriously maim. If you want to put down an attacker without harming him [too much], one wouldn't resort to a gun, right? Or maybe a gun with rubber bullets?
Killing a mugger and ending up in jail, instead of losing your wallet, would suck, wouldn't it?

This is just my opinion, but bearing arms often causes people to throw caution in the wind. Just as some martial artists, confident in their skills, enter into situations beyond their control, when it would be more prudent to keep distance or avoid the situation altogether.

Martial arts and self-defense are not mutually exclusive.

No, they're not. A "martial" artist who supports gun control, however, fails to grasp the concept of self-defense.

Phil, I really like your site and I agree with you totally on gun control, but I don't entirely agree with your statement that "Any martial artist who supports "gun control" isn't a martial artist at all, because he or she fails to grasp the entire concept behind self-defense." I think they can be a martial artist and be horribly wrong at the same time. I agree that gun control is suicidal and could lead to the subjugation of the entire world, and I don't think gun control advocates realize just how dangerous this is, but I don't think that that alone can disqualify them from being martial artists. Can I be a martial artist and not wear my seat belt? Can I be a martial artist and not tie my shoes? Can I be a martial artist and not look both ways before crossing the street? Can I be a martial artist and make a really stupid mistake? I hope so.

-Rob

This depends on what one means by "martial." To me, the term speaks to a certain mindset. You can be an effective empty-hand fighter and support gun control, sure -- but you lack a very important mental component. That component is the rationality necessary to recognize effective self-defense tools as tools and not as mechanical monsters waiting in cupboards to jump out and murder the children.

Take, for example, a hypothetical military commander -- a general who believes airplanes cause violence and who therefore does not believe his military force should have air power. He might still be a skilled commander of ground troops and a brilliant infantry tactician -- but he's not a general at all because he has a glaring mental blindspot, an irrational inability to face reality.

A "martial" artist who supports gun control lacks the mindset necessary to be considered martial at all. He or she is some other kind of artist, some sort of technician of certain physical skills.

Originally posted by Sharp Phil
This depends on what one means by "martial." To me, the term speaks to a certain mindset. You can be an effective empty-hand fighter and support gun control, sure -- but you lack a very important mental component. That component is the rationality necessary to recognize effective self-defense tools as tools and not as mechanical monsters waiting in cupboards to jump out and murder the children.

Take, for example, a hypothetical military commander -- a general who believes airplanes cause violence and who therefore does not believe his military force should have air power. He might still be a skilled commander of ground troops and a brilliant infantry tactician -- but he's not a general at all because he has a glaring mental blindspot, an irrational inability to face reality.

A "martial" artist who supports gun control lacks the mindset necessary to be considered martial at all. He or she is some other kind of artist, some sort of technician of certain physical skills.

I guess the reason I'm disagreeing with you here is because of your use of the term martial artist. I agree with the martial aspect of it, but I think you're ignoring the artist part. If you used the term "martial combatant" I'd be in complete agreement with you here, but to me the term martial artist refers to someone who excercises self expression through the use of combative technique. Certaintly, some of us are more concerned with self defense, and some of us even carry firearms, but does that mean that if I practice tai chi I'm not a martial artist because I don't practice realistic, effective, street influenced self defense? Let's be serious for one moment, most martial arts aren't based around winning fights. If you can knee, elbow, and poke someone in the eye, you can win a fight. Isn't a martial artist concerned with something more?

I want you to understand that I'm not disagreeing with your stance on gun control, in fact I whole heartedly agree, and even saved some of your posts on the subject due to their logical arguements. I just wanted to discuss this aspect of the issue.

-Rob

That's just it, though -- a "martial" artist who supports gun control may indeed be an "artist" of some kind, but not of anything martial. ;)

Those arts that call themselves "martial" arts but which do not teach effective fighting are, in fact, not martial arts at all. If you practice Tai Chi, you're not a martial artist. You're some sort of fitness technician.

Forgetting the "Martial" in "Martial Artist" (http://www.themartialist.com/martialist.htm)

Strong words Phil. I respect that you've stuck to your guns on this one and I want to thank you for the discussion. So I will.

Thanks.

-Rob

Nice discussion guys....
Just to point out another facet of the debate...property rights. If a total ban on civillian ownership were passed tomorrow, and universal confiscation put into place we would face one of two issues. Either the government gets to take millions upon millions of dollars worth of personal property without compensating the owners (rather flies in the face of the american way...) or we see a huge cash outlay, which would be funded how????
just food for thought.

Originally posted by dearnis.com
Nice discussion guys....
Just to point out another facet of the debate...property rights. If a total ban on civillian ownership were passed tomorrow, and universal confiscation put into place we would face one of two issues. Either the government gets to take millions upon millions of dollars worth of personal property without compensating the owners (rather flies in the face of the american way...) or we see a huge cash outlay, which would be funded how????
just food for thought.

But, how often does the government pay out for siezure of property... ?

And I still agree with Phil's assessment that a martial artist that overlooks the neccessity of having weapons equal to or better than our enemies are, well, in MY words, Foolish.

Great posts Phil. Thanks.

Just to point out another facet of the debate...property rights. If a total ban on civillian ownership were passed tomorrow, and universal confiscation put into place we would face one of two issues. Either the government gets to take millions upon millions of dollars worth of personal property without compensating the owners (rather flies in the face of the american way...)

Yup... that is just what happened in Australia. Well first they told people they had to register their guns, then license them, after they had a full database of all the law abiding guns... they went and took them... including family heirlooms of a priceless nature to individuals.

I agree that in a country where handguns are abundant, gun control would only aid the criminal, but in a country where guns are strictly controlled, the amount of criminals carrying guns would also be limited, due to the dire consequences of being caught with a firearm.
They are criminals... if they were motivated by concerns of punishment, they wouldn't commit crimes at all.


What kind of gun would be strictly self-defense? In my opinion it would be something like a Derringer .357. Powerful enough to stop an assailant, but not a gun to shoot someone who's standing half a block down the road.
What kind of gun would be strictly for self defense... the same as any empty hand technique... one that is used in that context. I can kill with a knife, my hands, even a frying pan... simply having one of these other lethal items does not make it an offensive monstrosity. I can chose to murder with them, defend myself with them or even cook with them... only my choices and actions define the tools nature.

The type of cooking utensil is as irrelevent to motivation as is the type of gun.

Arthur
PS Somewhere in the thread I heard mention of the increased lethality of guns (vs. knives, etc.)... I think if you look up some statistics you'll find that doesn't quite "pan" out.
PPS sorry about the "pan" pun;-)

I agree with that too.

If I did not have access to a firearm, and wanted to kill someone I would blow them up. I can get everything I need to build a car bomb at Toys R Us, and it doesnt take a genious to figure it out.

What are we gonna do, ban Toys?

If I couldnt blow them up I would buy a crossbow.

Cant get that? A hammer. An Axe. A Garden Hoe.

A BUTCHER KNIFE. A chainsaw. Some gasoline to burn them alive in their house. Poisoned Pepsi like that voodoo freak who killed his neigbors.

I could do it with a car, I could do it in a bar. I could do it here or there, I could do it anywhere. I wouldnt need to own a gun, but I could kill them, everyone.

I agree with the sentiment, but I'd be careful about posting that in a public forum. If you ever did need to kill someone that could be used to demonstrate pre-meditation. You know "they" are listening.

Everyone check your foil hats.

-Rob

"PS Somewhere in the thread I heard mention of the increased lethality of guns (vs. knives, etc.)... I think if you look up some statistics you'll find that doesn't quite "pan" out. "

I can't remember where I read this but the article stated that on a percentage basis, more people who are attacked with a knife die than people who are attacked with a gun.

In the Netherlands, guns have always been strictly controlled [from the beginning of their appearance in the country]. And criminals tend to carry sharp/blunt implements rather than guns.

Of course, those intent on killing someone will not be detained by any law concerning the illegality of guns - there has been a series of gangland executions where the victim [a criminal] was killed in a hail of bullets.
Still, these killings are done by, ehm, 'professional' killers. The average thug on the street - mugger, robber, whatever - will prefer a weapon that will not automatically sling his @ss in jail, so they tend to avoid guns.

In reply to a few posts on killing - the methods described do rely to some degree on knowledge [making bombs out of Toys 'r Us products], skill [killing with sharp implements has to be done at closer range than with guns], or a disregard for innocent bystanders [torching a house with several occupants to kill one person].

Originally posted by 928Porsche
"PS Somewhere in the thread I heard mention of the increased lethality of guns (vs. knives, etc.)... I think if you look up some statistics you'll find that doesn't quite "pan" out. "

I can't remember where I read this but the article stated that on a percentage basis, more people who are attacked with a knife die than people who are attacked with a gun.

Hey...I am really interested where you found this statistic. I mean, like, REALLY interested.

Please let me know if you can remember where you got it from.

Thanks!

PAUL

Originally posted by Arthur


Yup... that is just what happened in Australia. Well first they told people they had to register their guns, then license them, after they had a full database of all the law abiding guns... they went and took them... including family heirlooms of a priceless nature to individuals.



Wow...I didn't realize that this has happend before. I need some more information, but I think I might be changing my views on licensing if it really can lead to banning and seizing. The point of tighter licensing/registration for me is to make us more free, not less. I figured with tighter licensing/registration, we could own anything we want because if we used it to kill someone, it would be easy to trace.

I always believed that our 2nd amendment would protect us against a ban and sieze....and I don't believe Australia had such an amendment.

Yet it looks like I need some more intel.

Originally posted by PAUL
Wow...I didn't realize that this has happend before. I need some more information, but I think I might be changing my views on licensing if it really can lead to banning and seizing. The point of tighter licensing/registration for me is to make us more free, not less. I figured with tighter licensing/registration, we could own anything we want because if we used it to kill someone, it would be easy to trace.

I always believed that our 2nd amendment would protect us against a ban and sieze....and I don't believe Australia had such an amendment.

Yet it looks like I need some more intel.

Didn't the same thing happen in Britain. They told the people to register and then started the outlawing process. Mabey some of our british forumite can help.

This is what most people don't understand. The reason we (the gun owners) are againsts such steps is because they are just that: Steps. One thing leads to another.

The average thug on the street - mugger, robber, whatever - will prefer a weapon that will not automatically sling his @ss in jail, so they tend to avoid guns.

That can be done without actually making the weapon (guns) illegal. I think it was Virginia that started a program wherein they automatically added years if a person committed a crime with a gun. Gun violence decreased.

I can't remember the name of this program...anyone?


Regards,


Steve

Originally posted by hardheadjarhead
That can be done without actually making the weapon (guns) illegal. I think it was Virginia that started a program wherein they automatically added years if a person committed a crime with a gun. Gun violence decreased.

I can't remember the name of this program...anyone?


I believe in some places, the federal program is called Project Exile. In other places, it is known as Project Safe Neighborhoods.

I don't know about the statistics part, but the enforcement of adding charges by merely possessing a gun while in commission of a crime was covered in today's newspapers in Utah. Apparently, there aren't enough people aware of this law.

http://www.sltrib.com/2004/Jan/01042004/utah/126034.asp

- Ceicei

Originally posted by Jmh7331
This is what most people don't understand. The reason we (the gun owners) are againsts such steps is because they are just that: Steps. One thing leads to another.

Yup. Ever see the movie Red Dawn? When the invading army got hold of the firearms registrations, all they had to do was go door to door.

To be fair, there's a very low probability that will happen. Historically, however, registration records have always been used to confiscate the registered items -- by the governments claiming to protect their citizens, rather than by foreign invaders.

We'd all like to think our enemies are out there, external -- alien entities easily identifiable by their "other-ness."

Our most dangerous enemies, however, are right here. They are martial artists who fail to grasp the reality of force. They are American citizens who spit on the freedoms for which those who came before them fought. They are Statist politicians who believe government control is the answer to all ills.

They are us.

Originally posted by Sharp Phil
To be fair, there's a very low probability that will happen. Historically, however, registration records have always been used to confiscate the registered items -- by the governments claiming to protect their citizens, rather than by foreign invaders.

We'd all like to think our enemies are out there, external -- alien entities easily identifiable by their "other-ness."

Our most dangerous enemies, however, are right here. They are martial artists who fail to grasp the reality of force. They are American citizens who spit on the freedoms for which those who came before them fought. They are Statist politicians who believe government control is the answer to all ills.

They are us.

This is true, in that they are often "us." I have changed my views a bit since keeping an eye on these few threads. I still like the idea of proper registration for many reasons, but not if it leads to mass banning of firearms. I wouldn't want any legislation requiring manditory registration unless we could somehow safegaurd against a "mass banning".