| Guns
Posted: 10/21/2006 12:16:48 AM | | we use to have a ban on weapons like the ones that you have mentioned but it didn't stop people from getting them illegaly on the street. the fact is in the US a gun is a GUN and people will use whatever they can to kill you with it. i think overall there are far more handgun deaths in the US but there are still the times when someone just opens up on a group or an individual with an automatic weapon. | |
|
| Guns
Posted: 10/21/2006 8:14:25 AM |
My mistake in saying they were sold as fully-auto, but would I be wrong in saying that anyone with a basic knowledge of engineering could convert such a weapon to fire fully-auto?
For any semi-auto version of a full-auto firearm sold in the USA manufactured in the past 30+ years, yes you would be wrong.
To have a semi version certified by the BATFE for general sale, the maker has to submit design documents along with pre-production samples to the BATFE , when then will attempt to make the gun into a full-automatic.
Consequently, AR-15s, AKS-47s which can be legally sold in the USA over the counter have very few if any mechanical parts in common with their full-auto version which they were derived from.
Now in years past (40+) it was possible for a master machinist/gunsmith to modify some semis into machineguns; however since 1968 and 1986 the BATFE is looking a lot closer at semiauto guns to assure they can't be converted to machineguns. | |
|
| Guns
Posted: 10/21/2006 8:30:24 AM | Montreal_Guy said:
Whatever Americans want to do with the gun issue is their own problem, and no one elses. They will have to live with any plus or minus that occurs from that decision. The only responsibility they have is to try and help ensure that those same guns stay within their own borders. That's the only "gun control" I expect from them.
So what do you expect "Us Americans" to do to keep American guns from being illegally brought into Canada that we aren't doing now?
In the USA we have the Neutrality Act which places strict controls on the export of arms and ammunition, both military and sporting ( including .22 calibre rimfire).
If a Canadian citizen comes to the USA and purchases a firearm (s)he is breaking US law.
If Canada complains to the BATFE about transnational gun-running where the guns are being bought in the USA by "straw" buyers for smuggling into Canada, BATFE *will* take action. | |
|
| Guns
Posted: 10/21/2006 9:29:29 AM | To have a semi version certified by the BATFE for general sale, the maker has to submit design documents along with pre-production samples to the BATFE , when then will attempt to make the gun into a full-automatic.
I believe that USED to be the case. Gun legislation passed during the Clinton administration stopped that legal conversion. I believe as the law stands now, there can be no new full auto weapons manufactured for private sector Class 3 liscense holders. Whatever number of full autos are registered in the USA, those are the only ones now allowed to exist. If you want to go the procedure of owning a full auto, you must purchase one already in existence and transfer ownership to you, via BATF, from the current Class 3 owner, etc. In essence, full autos are techinaclly banned, except for this grandfather/transfer clause.
I dont remember if this was a part of the "Brady" act or not. If it was, perhaps it has expired and I stand corrected?? | |
|
| Guns
Posted: 10/21/2006 5:56:56 PM | | I own a CZ75, AR15 auto.Hungarain AK auto,Gun's are your wall!!!!!! | |
|
| Guns
Posted: 10/21/2006 5:59:54 PM | | Your wall against your "government".Hold on to your guns!!! | |
|
| Guns
Posted: 10/21/2006 6:13:01 PM | | OWN YOUR SOUL!! | |
|
| Guns
Posted: 10/21/2006 6:18:18 PM | OWN YOUR CULTURE
SOMETHING you can steer, as opposed to be a slave to. | |
|
| Guns
Posted: 10/21/2006 6:23:30 PM | | No "government" is going to enslave me!!! Ill fight back.Fvck all government. | |
|
| Guns
Posted: 10/21/2006 6:33:50 PM | If it takes me holding up in mountains of Ireland , with an AK47 and a CZ75,a tent ,a knife and half a brain.SO BE IT!!!!! How long would you last on my soil??? | |
|
| Guns
Posted: 10/21/2006 6:37:04 PM | Boom!
Depleted Uranium
You loose.
Toe the line?
Or die.
...d'uh | |
|
| Guns
Posted: 10/21/2006 6:42:17 PM | | A Design for life???When we exist there is hope?!! Im stronger than mensa! | |
|
| Guns
Posted: 10/21/2006 10:15:59 PM | One word....
Waco.
You can "Red Dawn" all you want, but you will be outgunned no matter what you own. This isn't 1776 where two sides are firing muskets at each other.  Remember Ruby Ridge ?
You have twenty full auto machine guns ?
They have Apache's, Hellfire missiles, and some stuff you haven't even heard of yet. 
You can dream all you want, but even one hundred men fully trained with an armoury are not going to win when you get the full force of the government against them. It would make the Alamo look like a grade one play.
Ovenight, you'd be branded as a terrorist, and you'd be tracked down like a wild animal by everyone else that bought the company line. Against an enemy like that, you have zero chance.
The illusion that Americans have that they could repel a hostile government by force is just that - an illusion. Many Americans are even afraid to speak out now, so imagine what would happen to anyone who directly took up arms against the government.
Non-violent protest is the only real solution. | |
|
| Guns
Posted: 10/21/2006 11:15:37 PM | i think these stats may shed a little light to your discussion... in 98 canada had a population of 30.2m and the us 270m 8.9 times more. number of firearms in canada 7.4m the us 222m 20 times more than canada. Total firearm deaths in Canada 430,000 the us 1.14m 2.7 times more. Given these facts... the population is 8.9 times greater but firearm deaths are only 2.7. That must mean canada have a little problem with guns...?
Suddles I think your stats are off a little. In 2002 there were only 816 deaths do to firearm injuries in Canada, (including suicides). That's a lot less than 430,000. Unless you're including all the dear, ducks, and moose in your stats? | |
|
| Guns
Posted: 10/22/2006 9:59:40 AM | Seems like a complete contradiction to your attitude toward the Iraq mess. Iraq “Wacos” ok, but others are not?
Most of the damage in Iraq is not due to firearms, it's due to IED's. You have a couple of really good Iraqi snipers, that American counter-snipers teams haven't tagged.... yet .
If the Iraqi insurgents had just used firearms, there would be a lot less dead Americans - and many more dead Iraqi insurgents. Against the technology the American military has today (as I mentioned above), the Iraqis had to evolve towards something more effective.
In America, the fact that many will support the government's position ( especially if those revolting are painted as traitors by propoganda) means that any violent opposition would be turned in rather quickly - unlike the model in Iraq.
You can list a lot of valid reasons ( in an American context) that I could agree with (in that same cultural context) , but defending against some domestic tyranny with firearms won't be one of them. | |
|
| Guns
Posted: 10/22/2006 10:06:21 AM |
Curious as to where you got that little “fact”.
See the OPs second post.
Or this one.
See OP
“OWN YOUR CULTURE”
Understand the OP | |
|
| Guns
Posted: 10/22/2006 11:11:45 AM | neopol wrote:
I believe that USED to be the case. Gun legislation passed during the Clinton administration stopped that legal conversion. I believe as the law stands now, there can be no new full auto weapons manufactured for private sector Class 3 license holders. Whatever number of full autos are registered in the USA, those are the only ones now allowed to exist. If you want to go the procedure of owning a full auto, you must purchase one already in existence and transfer ownership to you, via BATF, from the current Class 3 owner, etc. In essence, full autos are technically banned, except for this grandfather/transfer clause.
What you refer to above was a law signed by Pres. GHW Bush around 1989,
which prevents any full-auto firearm or other Class 3 weapon manufactured or imported to the USA after 1986 from being transferred to other than military or law enforcement.
What Clinton signed into law in 1994 was the infamous "Assault Weapons Ban", which outlawed guns with certain features such as collapsible/folding stocks, threaded barrels, flash suppressors and banned sales of magazines manufactured after 1994 which held more than 10 rounds. This law had a 10-year sunset period; in 2005 Congress declined to renew this ban.
-Herb | |
|
| Guns
Posted: 10/22/2006 11:46:16 AM | congress declined to renew the ban because what is true now was true 10 years ago. attacing classes of guns soley based on their appearance will do little to deter crime. the only thing new laws on guns ever seems to do is penalize and marginalize gun owners who OBEY the laws, who are not part of the problem in any way. The best way to end gun crime is to punish criminals more effectively - the gun courts in NYC are a good idea - get caught using a gun in a crime, you get extra penalties on top of what youre already being charged f
Just because I own military-like firearms does not mean they have identical functionality to those used in the military. Secondly, the argument of 'not needing' a certain kind of gun is pointless - you don't determine what i need - the constitution guarantees my rights to bear arms (not nukes, not howitzers but arms that can be found carried by your standard infantryman). | |
|
| Guns
Posted: 10/23/2006 3:00:55 PM | bratt777 here is a link to Statistics Canada:
http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/82-003-XIE/0040482-003-XIE.pdf
Surprisingly death by firearm has decreased over the last 10 years in Canada. | |
|
| Guns
Posted: 10/23/2006 6:26:31 PM | | Montreal,I would rather be taken down in a shower of hellfire missile's and cluster bombs, or be hit with a bullet from a sharp shooter as long as i put up a fight. I wont wait for my fate sitting on my hand's.I can see whats comeing, it's not far fetched! Will you sit on your hands? | |
|
Jay152
|
Joined: 10/11/2006
Msg: 46 | |
| Guns
Posted: 10/24/2006 1:43:42 AM | jacksmart You talk the talk; yet there is a great amount of fear in your words......have you ever been in a fire fight? You have no clue what your up against if your government turns on you. Quit beating you chest and use your brain.
How are you going restore your freedom if you get yourself wacked? You make yourself sound like the kind of person that is not responsible enough to own one.
Yes own a gun....but plan ahead....and remember your not that important..keep it that way. | |
|
| Guns
Posted: 10/24/2006 9:58:27 AM |
This is one of those subjects where the cultural filters divide us, and we have to accept them.
Americans have gun ownership as part of a central core of basic beliefs, as a general rule. That's untouchable, for more than one reason, and everyone has to accept that fact - because it's never going to change, or at least not in our lifetimes.
Msg #17
I am speaking from a Canadian position, but I also understand the American one. That's why you won't see me pushing "gun control" for the USA in any way. That's your internal decision, as long as you help us keep guns out of my country. That seems to be working reasonably well, but perhaps could be better. Whatever you people want to do with guns inside your borders is your business, and the same applies for Canadians.
I don't think killing is ok for anyone. Sometimes it might be needed in a self-defense situation, and I can agree to that.
My point was that any American gun owner that thinks his weapons collection is going to really allow him any chance of fighting back against the government - well, that's just delusional.
There are many other arguments for gun ownership I could agree with (based again on the American cultural viewpoint) but, as I said , you'll never convince me that Americans will ever be able to overthrow their own government by force of arms should it become necessary in their opinion.
Non-violent revolution ? Certainly.... | |
|
| Guns
Posted: 10/24/2006 1:35:55 PM | | brat777 - Sorry it's is a long document. The firearm death stats are from page 39 to 46 and on page 44 it details the number of deaths. Hope that helps. | |
|
| Guns
Posted: 10/24/2006 9:54:08 PM | I am speaking from a Canadian position, but I also understand the American one. That's why you won't see me pushing "gun control" for the USA in any way. That's your internal decision, as long as you help us keep guns out of my country. That seems to be working reasonably well, but perhaps could be better. Whatever you people want to do with guns inside your borders is your business, and the same applies for Canadians.
I have the identical position, further; I am also a firearms owner, I own:
.22 Savage varmint rifle
.223 Ruger ranch rifle
410ga Remington Model 1100
When my daughter is old enough, I'll teach her how to shoot, and handle them responsibly, these weapons are in secure storage, and locked away, and registered.
I'n not anti-gun.
I am, on the other hand, pro-gun control, and pro-gun registration.
Our system works in Canada, I have no wish to see it change, unless it again needs to evolve to meet the necessities of NEED. | |
|
| Guns
Posted: 10/25/2006 5:50:37 AM | I am not anti-gun either. Unlike Late, I don't possess any firearms. I'm not against anyone else having them either, if those people are screened carefully and legally obliged to take courses and keep their weapons secure.
I see it very much like owning a car, and no one has any problems with controlling cars. Now, far more people use cars than firearms every day - and no one has the slightest problem with tests, licenses, and legal obligations to possess them.
Actually, at one point I was looking into getting a firearm (about 20 years ago). I'd visited a gun club on a sales call, and asked if I could keep a rifle there in a secure locker, if I bought one. I don't hunt, and that would be the only place it would ever be used.
That wasn't possible, so I didn't proceed any further. I would not want a gun in my house, unless I lived somewhere in the backwoods, where there MIGHT be a reason to have one.
I have a standing invitation from an ex-Army friend in Oregon that I can drop in anytime, and he will take me out to the firing range and teach me how to use all the various (and impressive) firearms he has.
I mean, how many times does a guy (especially a Canadian guy) get a chance to shoot an M-82 with a scope ? 
To do that once would be fun, especially with someone who is highly trained and responsible with weapons (as he is). | |
|
Home
login 
