Gun control ... actual question

[JohnnySavage]

Public Announcement: The CMP is going to start selling surplus M1911s soon.

 

[Rightguide]

Public Announcement: The CMP is going to start selling surplus M1911s soon.

Great, after WWII you could buy one for $19. The price will, of course, be much higher this time around.

 

[Unabatable]

At risk of alienating myself on lit I would like to ask the question, who doesn’t North American adopt a similar approach to gun law as we have in the UK?

Last time you limeys tried that "similar approach to gun law" in North America was April 19, 1775. How did that turn out for you bozos?

Is it really that very hard for you wannabe tyrannical bastards to understand that YOU are the reason what makes America unique in the world - Amendment II - exists in the first place?

 

[richard_daily]

Public Announcement: The CMP is going to start selling surplus M1911s soon.

I'll believe it when I see it. Obama signed the order for M1 garands from Korea several years ago, and still nothing through the CMP.

 

[JohnnySavage]

I'll believe it when I see it. Obama signed the order for M1 garands from Korea several years ago, and still nothing through the CMP.

The have some beaters left

http://thecmp.org/cmp_sales/rifle_sales/m1-garand/

 

[richard_daily]

The have some beaters left

http://thecmp.org/cmp_sales/rifle_sales/m1-garand/

Yeah, way more than I'd want to spend with 30-06 being over a buck a round.

There were supposed to be several hundred thousand plus over a million rounds coming back from South Korea, but it never happened. I would buy a garand for a couple hundred, but not for close to $1000.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Yeah, way more than I'd want to spend with 30-06 being over a buck a round.

There were supposed to be several hundred thousand plus over a million rounds coming back from South Korea, but it never happened. I would buy a garand for a couple hundred, but not for close to $1000.

If you're spending that much you might as well go a few more bills and just get a spankin' new M1A, AR10 or really a whole slew of really nice 30 cal rifles.

Unless the whole point is the historical nostalgia factor...then you just pay the price.

 

[richard_daily]

If you're spending that much you might as well go a few more bills and just get a spankin' new M1A, AR10 or really a whole slew of really nice 30 cal rifles.

Unless the whole point is the historical nostalgia factor...then you just pay the price.

Exactly. And if I'm going for the historical factor, I'll pick up a 1903 bolt action... or something from russia for a couple hundred bucks, or something in 6.5 swedish.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Exactly. And if I'm going for the historical factor, I'll pick up a 1903 bolt action... or something from russia for a couple hundred bucks, or something in 6.5 swedish.

My gun collection dreams in the historical department are probably what you'd guess they would be.

M'uricuh as fuck....

Winchester Repeater, 1866...yellowboy

And of course the legendary long colt to go with it...1850~1860 Army issue.

 

[Weird Harold]

I concede my opinion may be contrived, but we don’t have the same problems in the UK and everyone who has a good reason to own a firearm has one and we have some of the best shooters in the world.

IF the news reports around the London Olympics were correct, your Olympic shooting teams had to leave the country to practice and then had trouble bringing their weapons back into the country because they were citizens and not covered by the exemption granted to Olympic teams from other countries.

England's "gun law" -- the attempt to disarm the colonists at Lexington -- is pretty much the reason we have a Second Amendment and a ban on ex post facto legislation. Those are the major stumbling blocks for the anti-gun lobby in the US; They have to word around the "shall not infringe" clause and can't outlaw existing guns.

 

[ryan8558]

Still pissed at my cousin for selling my uncle's M-1 Garrand without letting me make an offer on it. He didn't even get $300 for the rifle and it was in good condition! What an asshole!!!!

 

[KimGordon67]

At risk of alienating myself on lit I would like to ask the question, who doesn’t North American adopt a similar approach to gun law as we have in the UK?

We still have access to guns, we can still keep them in our home. However they need to be locked in a safe, registered with the local authorities and you need a really good reason to have one. Oh and you would never need a semi automatic assault rife because you just don’t and that’s a conversation I’m not even going to entertain.

Every country in the world is still feeling the effect of recession we are all looking for new and innovative ways of creating work to revive the economy. Think of the jobs and industry that would be created if America licensed firearms in a similar way to the UK.

I concede my opinion may be contrived, but we don’t have the same problems in the UK and everyone who has a good reason to own a firearm has one and we have some of the best shooters in the world.

Let me summarise for you:

• The Constitution - apparently this is an inalienable document that cannot be changed by any mere human, because 'natural rights' or God or something.
• You can't tell people they don't have the right to defend themselves, I think by whatever means necessary. (See 'natural rights'.)
• Don't tell ME what to do (in which the interests of 'ME' has far greater priority than society as a whole) - sometimes that's followed up by 'you socialist'.
• You need to be able to fight off the government if it all goes pear-shaped.
• Women are basically defenceless without a gun, and if we don't allow them to arm themselves, they will be sexually assaulted.
• Clearly high levels of gun ownership reduce crime rates. (I'm yet to see any actual evidence of this which isn't n=1, but apparently it's obvious.)
• The Constitution.

I may have missed one or two points, but that's mostly it.

 

[Unabatable]

Let me summarise for you:

• The Constitution - apparently this is an inalienable document that cannot be changed by any mere human, because 'natural rights' or God or something.

• No, the Constitution is not "an inalienable document".
• Yes, it "cannot be changed by any mere human". It can ONLY be changed by ratification in 38 State legislatures.
• No, it's simply one natural right - to keep and bear arms - that Amendment II COMMANDS government not to infringe (also known as negative empowerment, meaning government is constitutionally endowed absolutely no positive power to act).
• Yes, virtually exclusively, the framers believed the Creator endows all men naturally with certain unalienable rights.

I may have missed one or two points, but that's mostly it.

You mean "one or two points" in just your first item, right?

 

[KimGordon67]

• No, the Constitution is not "an inalienable document".
• Yes, it "cannot be changed by any mere human". It can ONLY be changed by ratification in 38 State legislatures.
• No, it's simply one natural right - to keep and bear arms - that Amendment II COMMANDS government not to infringe (also known as negative empowerment, meaning government is constitutionally endowed absolutely no positive power to act).
• Yes, virtually exclusively, the framers believed the Creator endows all men naturally with certain unalienable rights.

You mean "one or two points" in just your first item, right?

So we had the whole debate about 'natural rights' etc a while back in this thread - I'm summarising the various constitution-based arguments that were presented, not the actual constitution - I have no real idea how accurately those arguments represented the constitution itself.

 

[JackVettriano]

Last time you limeys tried that "similar approach to gun law" in North America was April 19, 1775. How did that turn out for you bozos?

Is it really that very hard for you wannabe tyrannical bastards to understand that YOU are the reason what makes America unique in the world - Amendment II - exists in the first place?

I can’t deny that I smiled when I read that reply. I just want to add that I’m not American and don’t profess to know, I’m only stating what I see as an outsider looking in. I feel encouraging reasoned arguments is a good thing on a subject that really polarises people.

 

[KimGordon67]

I can’t deny that I smiled when I read that reply. I just want to add that I’m not American and don’t profess to know, I’m only stating what I see as an outsider looking in. I feel encouraging reasoned arguments is a good thing on a subject that really polarises people.

If you can be arsed trolling back through the thread, there are actually moments of some quite interesting discussion. As also an outsider, I've learnt some things. My position has remained much the same, but I can see some of the logic of the counter-position, and I have a better understanding of why people might think that way.

 

[BotanyBoy]

I can’t deny that I smiled when I read that reply. I just want to add that I’m not American and don’t profess to know, I’m only stating what I see as an outsider looking in. I feel encouraging reasoned arguments is a good thing on a subject that really polarises people.

So what is the reasoned argument against semi-auto rifles....but only ones that look scary?

I'm really curious as to what peoples argument for banning rifle accessories is, especially considering in the US even roughly 90% of gun violence on any given year is done with pistols.

 

[KimGordon67]

I can’t deny that I smiled when I read that reply. I just want to add that I’m not American and don’t profess to know, I’m only stating what I see as an outsider looking in. I feel encouraging reasoned arguments is a good thing on a subject that really polarises people.

Oh, I also forgot another important one, that basically boils down to:

• the only reason the US is one of only three countries which constitutionally 'protects' gun ownership is because everyone other country = pussies.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Oh, I also forgot another important one, that basically boils down to:

• the only reason the US is one of only three countries which constitutionally 'protects' gun ownership is because everyone other country = communist pussies.

FYP...YW.

 

[richard_daily]

My gun collection dreams in the historical department are probably what you'd guess they would be.

M'uricuh as fuck....

Winchester Repeater, 1866...yellowboy

And of course the legendary long colt to go with it...1850~1860 Army issue.

I can't get into any of the cowboy stuff... interwar guns are cool, and some of the stuff right before WW1 is pretty ingenious. I have some rifles with elevator action and stuff that came after cowboy action. I had a Lebel carbine for a while (the first smokeless cartridge) and that was a blast. Most of it is a pain in the ass to feed, unless it's chambered in something common like .357 or .44 mag (for lever actions).

I wouldn't mind having a navy revolver, but it's the kind of thing I'd never really use, and I have too much clutter as it is.

 

[Unabatable]

So we had the whole debate about 'natural rights' etc a while back in this thread - I'm summarising the various constitution-based arguments that were presented, not the actual constitution - I have no real idea how accurately those arguments represented the constitution itself.

So as far your first list point above, now you've been introduced to actual constitutional accuracy. Alas, you continue to prove your cherished socialist bias is much more vital to you on this issue than any and all constitutional education you're factually presented with.

What still remains so strange to me is why socialist limeys occupy themselves so abnormally much with an American constitutional issue that practically concerns their noses not at all? I can't even forcefully conger up any British issue at all that concerns me at all. Well, that your government is vast degrees more draconian than even statist America's rises on my radar just a slight blimp.

Alas, not being a socialist, I don't share the same flavor of emotionally hyperbolic feelings as you lemmings do.

Don't you bozos need to pull your noses back into your own vital national interests and get busy polishing your knee pads for the next royal wedding sham coming up?

 

[KimGordon67]

So as far your first list point above, now you've been introduced to actual constitutional accuracy. Alas, you continue to prove your cherished socialist bias is much more vital to you on this issue than any and all constitutional education you're factually presented with.

What still remains so strange to me is why socialist limeys occupy themselves so abnormally much with an American constitutional issue that practically concerns their noses not at all? I can't even forcefully conger up any British issue at all that concerns me at all. Well, that your government is vast degrees more draconian than even statist America's rises on my radar just a slight blimp.

Alas, not being a socialist, I don't share the same flavor of emotionally hyperbolic feelings as you lemmings do.

Don't you bozos need to pull your noses back into your own vital national interests and get busy polishing your knee pads for the next royal wedding sham coming up?

It's puzzling as to why you'd feel the need to contribute to this thread then.

 

[Unabatable]

Oh, I also forgot another important one, that basically boils down to:

• = pussies.

• Projection.

Read your history books about how your tyrannical forefathers (eventually 2 Brigades of them, app 1,700 men) got their regular "pussies" retreated all the way back to Charlestown by a gaggle of completely unregulated but unalienably armed farmers when they tried your favored "gun law" crap on April 19, 1775.

 

[Unabatable]

It's puzzling as to why you'd feel the need to contribute to this thread then.

I'm sorry: do you fantasize this thread to be a much more collectively proper and progressively civilized venue than anywhere else on the GB just because your puzzled presence abides in it?

 

[KimGordon67]

I'm sorry: do you fantasize this thread to be a much more collectively proper and progressively civilized venue than anywhere else on the GB just because your puzzled presence abides in it?

Not at all. But given your obvious disdain for anyone who isn't American (or, more correctly, the English - I guess I'm extrapolating there), I don't really understand why you'd bother responding ... well, me, I guess. Do what you want in the thread - I don't own it, and clearly there are sub-conversations going on where guys are getting hard-ons over specific models of firearms. They're obviously having fun with that, so whatever. You engaged me specifically, and then proceeded to explain to me why my perspective on, I think, pretty much anything at all, but particularly on gun control, is invalid. So why bother?