Gun Rights: Should you be allowed to own an RPG?
01-03-2013, 10:21 AM
#281
Mexico and Canado both HEAVILY control and restrict firearms sales.
Specifically, Mexico prohibits civilian posession of firearms outside the home for any cause except transportation to/from a hunting/shooting club. There is an exhaustive and complicated permitting process for both weapons and ammo, full registration, purchase limits, ammo limits, time requirements, and you name it. Weapon types and calibers are also very limited. In other words, it's very hard for the average person to legally own a firearm in Mexico unless you're rich.
In Canada, gun-rights just this past year won a major victory with the elimination of national gun-registry for non-prohibited guns... ie, your average pistols, rifles, shotguns. Individual provinces can have their own laws (guess which one is most restrictive... hint: they speak French there). It's still fairly complicated to actually buy a gun, but they no longer have to register them with the gov't. CCW is non-existant unless you are a professional bear-handler. They also have a 5rd limit on semi-auto rifles, and 10rd limit on handgun mags. I also know that suppressors and bullpups are banned.
AND, NO HANDGUNS WITH A BARREL LESS THAN 4.1", which is the big one for the average consumer and essentially limits you to full-size handguns and revolvers... which I guess isn't that bad since you can't CCW anyways.
That's what I can remember off the top of my head. Also, I think I remember that both Canada and Mexico have more restrictive gun-laws because back in the day, they were specifically trying to keep guns out of the hands of "natives" or some such **** that were causing trouble out in the "territories/desert" and needed a way to confiscate the weapons and jail the people. IN OTHER WORDS, a gov't removing firearms from the hands of civilians in order to eliminate their ability to fight back.
Specifically, Mexico prohibits civilian posession of firearms outside the home for any cause except transportation to/from a hunting/shooting club. There is an exhaustive and complicated permitting process for both weapons and ammo, full registration, purchase limits, ammo limits, time requirements, and you name it. Weapon types and calibers are also very limited. In other words, it's very hard for the average person to legally own a firearm in Mexico unless you're rich.
In Canada, gun-rights just this past year won a major victory with the elimination of national gun-registry for non-prohibited guns... ie, your average pistols, rifles, shotguns. Individual provinces can have their own laws (guess which one is most restrictive... hint: they speak French there). It's still fairly complicated to actually buy a gun, but they no longer have to register them with the gov't. CCW is non-existant unless you are a professional bear-handler. They also have a 5rd limit on semi-auto rifles, and 10rd limit on handgun mags. I also know that suppressors and bullpups are banned.
AND, NO HANDGUNS WITH A BARREL LESS THAN 4.1", which is the big one for the average consumer and essentially limits you to full-size handguns and revolvers... which I guess isn't that bad since you can't CCW anyways.
That's what I can remember off the top of my head. Also, I think I remember that both Canada and Mexico have more restrictive gun-laws because back in the day, they were specifically trying to keep guns out of the hands of "natives" or some such **** that were causing trouble out in the "territories/desert" and needed a way to confiscate the weapons and jail the people. IN OTHER WORDS, a gov't removing firearms from the hands of civilians in order to eliminate their ability to fight back.
Reply
0
0
01-03-2013, 10:35 AM
#282
Mexico and Canado both HEAVILY control and restrict firearms sales.
Specifically, Mexico prohibits civilian posession of firearms outside the home for any cause except transportation to/from a hunting/shooting club. There is an exhaustive and complicated permitting process for both weapons and ammo, full registration, purchase limits, ammo limits, time requirements, and you name it. Weapon types and calibers are also very limited. In other words, it's very hard for the average person to legally own a firearm in Mexico unless you're rich.
In Canada, gun-rights just this past year won a major victory with the elimination of national gun-registry for non-prohibited guns... ie, your average pistols, rifles, shotguns. Individual provinces can have their own laws (guess which one is most restrictive... hint: they speak French there). It's still fairly complicated to actually buy a gun, but they no longer have to register them with the gov't. CCW is non-existant unless you are a professional bear-handler. They also have a 5rd limit on semi-auto rifles, and 10rd limit on handgun mags. I also know that suppressors and bullpups are banned.
AND, NO HANDGUNS WITH A BARREL LESS THAN 4.1", which is the big one for the average consumer and essentially limits you to full-size handguns and revolvers... which I guess isn't that bad since you can't CCW anyways.
That's what I can remember off the top of my head. Also, I think I remember that both Canada and Mexico have more restrictive gun-laws because back in the day, they were specifically trying to keep guns out of the hands of "natives" or some such **** that were causing trouble out in the "territories/desert" and needed a way to confiscate the weapons and jail the people. IN OTHER WORDS, a gov't removing firearms from the hands of civilians in order to eliminate their ability to fight back.
Specifically, Mexico prohibits civilian posession of firearms outside the home for any cause except transportation to/from a hunting/shooting club. There is an exhaustive and complicated permitting process for both weapons and ammo, full registration, purchase limits, ammo limits, time requirements, and you name it. Weapon types and calibers are also very limited. In other words, it's very hard for the average person to legally own a firearm in Mexico unless you're rich.
In Canada, gun-rights just this past year won a major victory with the elimination of national gun-registry for non-prohibited guns... ie, your average pistols, rifles, shotguns. Individual provinces can have their own laws (guess which one is most restrictive... hint: they speak French there). It's still fairly complicated to actually buy a gun, but they no longer have to register them with the gov't. CCW is non-existant unless you are a professional bear-handler. They also have a 5rd limit on semi-auto rifles, and 10rd limit on handgun mags. I also know that suppressors and bullpups are banned.
AND, NO HANDGUNS WITH A BARREL LESS THAN 4.1", which is the big one for the average consumer and essentially limits you to full-size handguns and revolvers... which I guess isn't that bad since you can't CCW anyways.
That's what I can remember off the top of my head. Also, I think I remember that both Canada and Mexico have more restrictive gun-laws because back in the day, they were specifically trying to keep guns out of the hands of "natives" or some such **** that were causing trouble out in the "territories/desert" and needed a way to confiscate the weapons and jail the people. IN OTHER WORDS, a gov't removing firearms from the hands of civilians in order to eliminate their ability to fight back.
I would have also accepted "North American Nations" and "Ends in a Vowel" as correct answers.
Reply
0
0
01-03-2013, 11:56 AM
#283
Elite Member
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 3,201
Total Cats: 145
You guys are seriously paranoid gun fetish freaks. RPG in civilian hands, give me a break.
Or are you just refighting the civil war where an oppressive Federal government imposed its will on the 'freedom' (sic) loving South.
Which country is more likely to slip into totalitarian dictatorship or anarchy, gun shy Canada or gun crazy Mexico?
Or are you just refighting the civil war where an oppressive Federal government imposed its will on the 'freedom' (sic) loving South.
Which country is more likely to slip into totalitarian dictatorship or anarchy, gun shy Canada or gun crazy Mexico?
To assume that our founding fathers didn't envision a time like the present is gross negligence. History is the key to the future, please brush up on your history.The Second Amendment Explained
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.”
I was recently involved in yet another conversation with a liberal who tried as hard as he could to convince me the second amendment was never intended to allow private citizens to keep and bear arms. He argued that the framers use of the term militia was a reference to a government military unit similar to today’s National Guard.
The fact that we now have a National Guard he contends, is reason enough to repeal the second amendment. After all, if a private citizen wants to keep and bear arms, he should enlist in the National Guard.
In order to fall for this line of reasoning, four things need to be in place:
Ignorance of what the term “militia” meant at the time. (Hint: It meant ordinary citizens with the capability to band together to fight back threats to their liberty, whether from an external threat or a threat from within, like an over-reaching government.)
Ignorance of the stated views the framers had regarding a well-armed citizenry.
An ability to completely ignore the second part of the statement; i.e. “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.“
Ignorance of the history of tyranny. Any student of history knows the first right that is abolished on the way to tyranny is the right of free citizens to bear arms. When the tyranny fully take root, any guns left in the hands of the citizens are quickly rounded up. Why do you think they do that?
I will concentrate here on my second point and provide what the framers said they meant, in their own words.
Thomas Jefferson spoke to the topic directly with his comment,
“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” Jefferson’s justifications for his statement are found in comments like “when the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty,” and “force is the vital principle and immediate parent of despotism.”
Jefferson also wrote,
“For a people who are free, and who mean to remain so, a well-organized and armed militia is their best security.” He expounded on his point when he stated “the strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”
Is there really any question as to where Jefferson stood on this issue?
John Adams was rather direct when he stated the following:
“Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion… in private self-defense,” and even more controversial and bold when he offered “the right of a nation to kill a tyrant in case of necessity can no more be doubted than to hang a robber, or kill a flea.”
Was John Adams too ambiguous?
Thomas Paine told us:
Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property… Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them.”
George Washington said:
“The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference – they deserve a place of honor with all that’s good.” Then he seemingly justified his belief with the statement “it will be found an unjust and unwise jealousy to deprive a man of his natural liberty upon the supposition he may abuse it.”
James Madison went right to the point of the current debate when he observed:
“Americans have the right and advantage of being armed – unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” Then he made sure to warn us as to why the first statement is needed when he argued “A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained in arms, is the best most natural defense of a free country.”
Samuel Adams told us:
“The Constitution shall never be construed… to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.”
Patrick Henry said:
“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.” And to see the first statement not come true Henry said “The great object is that every man be armed.”
So there you have it in the framers’ own words. The next time someone starts telling you the framers never intended for ordinary citizens to carry guns, just refer them to this article and ask, “then why did they write all these things?”
A final quote from Rush Limbaugh – “You know why there’s a Second Amendment? In case the government fails to follow the first one.”
Last edited by jacob300zx; 01-03-2013 at 12:07 PM.
Reply
1
1
01-03-2013, 12:23 PM
#286
Jacobs' post highlights a true and significant issue that is often at the root of controversy... that people are simply uninformed, either of straight facts or worse, of history. The internet is both a blessing and a curse... The speed at which information can flow is a fantastic tool, both of true facts or agenda facts. I realize im speaking to the choir, just remember that with anti-gun people, the only thing they really want is to not turn on the tv and see bad things. Facts, stats, law, history, personal responsibility, liberty, etc, dont matter because guns are the root of all evil. You have to start at the very beginning with these people and they're just not interested in listening... And no matter how well you demolish their reasoning or crush their agenda facts, nothing will change their mind because you'll never get them past the emotional aspect... And they'll resent you personally as somebody who clearly enjoys seeing kids killed onTV. Just saying, its a vertical uphill battle with most anti-gunners.
Reply
0
0
01-03-2013, 12:46 PM
#287
Elite Member
iTrader: (21)
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 6,593
Total Cats: 1,259
Which is why you need to train your kids and spouses to handle firearms.
Me talking to the neighbor lady is just another guy with his guns and tools and loud cars and such. However, my wife gushing about how much fun it was at the range to get her first bullseye and the best grouping she's ever done is another thing entirely.
Me talking to the neighbor lady is just another guy with his guns and tools and loud cars and such. However, my wife gushing about how much fun it was at the range to get her first bullseye and the best grouping she's ever done is another thing entirely.
Reply
1
1
01-03-2013, 01:07 PM
#288
That's crazy talk, you must be a militia loving separatist who can't wait to gun down a National Guardsman who was ordered into your home to take your guns from you! Besides, that kind of thing hasn't happened since the Civil War, and certainly could never happen in this country. Just ask Bootz, he'll tell you all about.
And clearly if the bad guys don't have guns, then the good guys don't need them either. What we really need is to do is confiscate all guns from everybody, and then enforce a law that says everybody in the country must wear inflatable sumo-suits 23.5hrs a day (.5 for showering and pooping), including inside the home... that way when an intruder breaks in, both the good guy and bad guy are wearing the suits and can't hurt eachother. Then make it a capital offense for a suit-wearing violation to enforce compliance on everybody.
We also need to specifically design all new cars to accomodate sumo-suits, and confiscate/destroy all older cars.
Think of how safe we'd all be then.
And clearly if the bad guys don't have guns, then the good guys don't need them either. What we really need is to do is confiscate all guns from everybody, and then enforce a law that says everybody in the country must wear inflatable sumo-suits 23.5hrs a day (.5 for showering and pooping), including inside the home... that way when an intruder breaks in, both the good guy and bad guy are wearing the suits and can't hurt eachother. Then make it a capital offense for a suit-wearing violation to enforce compliance on everybody.
We also need to specifically design all new cars to accomodate sumo-suits, and confiscate/destroy all older cars.
Think of how safe we'd all be then.
Reply
0
0
01-03-2013, 01:08 PM
#289
Elite Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 2,799
Total Cats: 179
I'm almost certain Thomas Jefferson would own an RPG To assume that our founding fathers didn't envision a time like the present is gross negligence. History is the key to the future, please brush up on your history.
The Second Amendment Explained
To assume that our founding fathers didn't envision a time like the present is gross negligence. History is the key to the future, please brush up on your history.The Second Amendment Explained
Originally Posted by samnavy
Jacobs' post highlights a true and significant issue that is often at the root of controversy... that people are simply uninformed, either of straight facts or worse, of history. The internet is both a blessing and a curse... The speed at which information can flow is a fantastic tool, both of true facts or agenda facts.
To Sam's point about the internet and agenda pieces, it is easy to pick a few individual sentences out of a broader body of work to fit whatever agenda you are pushing.
Reply
0
0
01-03-2013, 01:20 PM
#291
Boost Czar
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,493
Total Cats: 4,080
I find it interesting, that the only sniper attack of 2011 was done with a hundgun and not a rifle:
FBI — Expanded Homicide Data Table 11
FBI — Expanded Homicide Data Table 11
Reply
0
0
01-03-2013, 01:21 PM
#292
Obviously you haven't read about what happened in Wisconsin over the past year now that 150,000 people are carrying concealed. There has been bloodshed everywhere as people randomly shoot it out in city parks where kids are playing and police are afraid to leave their cars! It's a shoot-first-ask-questions-later wild-west!
Oh wait, that's what they said WAS going to happen... what actually happened is the only CCW holder event was righteous shooting where a holder shot 2 guys robbing a grocery store.
Here's an article about the horrors Michigan has had to deal with after 10 years of SHALL ISSUE:
10 years after Michigan's new shall-issue CCW law into effect.
Reply
0
0
01-03-2013, 01:53 PM
#293
Well Said:
Senator Dianne Feinstein,
I will not register my weapons should this bill be passed, as I do not believe it is the government’s right to know what I own. Nor do I think it prudent to tell you what I own so that it may be taken from me by a group of people who enjoy armed protection yet decry me having the same a crime. You ma’am have overstepped a line that is not your domain. I am a Marine Corps Veteran of 8 years, and I will not have some woman who proclaims the evil of an inanimate object, yet carries one, tell me I may not have one.
I am not your subject. I am the man who keeps you free. I am not your servant. I am the person whom you serve. I am not your peasant. I am the flesh and blood of America.
I am the man who fought for my country. I am the man who learned. I am an American. You will not tell me that I must register my semi-automatic AR-15 because of the actions of some evil man.
I will not be disarmed to suit the fear that has been established by the media and your misinformation campaign against the American public.
We, the people, deserve better than you.
Respectfully Submitted,
Joshua Boston
Cpl, United States Marine Corps
Senator Dianne Feinstein,
I will not register my weapons should this bill be passed, as I do not believe it is the government’s right to know what I own. Nor do I think it prudent to tell you what I own so that it may be taken from me by a group of people who enjoy armed protection yet decry me having the same a crime. You ma’am have overstepped a line that is not your domain. I am a Marine Corps Veteran of 8 years, and I will not have some woman who proclaims the evil of an inanimate object, yet carries one, tell me I may not have one.
I am not your subject. I am the man who keeps you free. I am not your servant. I am the person whom you serve. I am not your peasant. I am the flesh and blood of America.
I am the man who fought for my country. I am the man who learned. I am an American. You will not tell me that I must register my semi-automatic AR-15 because of the actions of some evil man.
I will not be disarmed to suit the fear that has been established by the media and your misinformation campaign against the American public.
We, the people, deserve better than you.
Respectfully Submitted,
Joshua Boston
Cpl, United States Marine Corps
Reply
1
1
01-03-2013, 03:35 PM
#294
Posted this in the gun thread and not politics thread yesterday.
From the Illinois law that will be voted on very soon. (As in today or this week)
It grandfathers in individuals owning items and they can be given to heirs but they can't sell them in the state. Companies and individuals can sell them out of state. It also adds additional requirements to registering guns. This is ridiculous.
The law http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/full...AID=11&Session
Underlined is what talks about banning
Just read it again. It bans any pistol or rifle with a detachable magazine. Overreaching much?
From the Illinois law that will be voted on very soon. (As in today or this week)
It grandfathers in individuals owning items and they can be given to heirs but they can't sell them in the state. Companies and individuals can sell them out of state. It also adds additional requirements to registering guns. This is ridiculous.
The law http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/full...AID=11&Session
Underlined is what talks about banning
Just read it again. It bans any pistol or rifle with a detachable magazine. Overreaching much?
It is very reassuring to me that even the anti gunners from Chicago can't get a bill like this passed on the state level. Gives me hope for the national level.
Reply
0
0
01-03-2013, 03:38 PM
#295
Tour de Franzia
iTrader: (6)
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Republic of Dallas
Posts: 29,085
Total Cats: 375
I find it interesting, that the only sniper attack of 2011 was done with a hundgun and not a rifle:
FBI — Expanded Homicide Data Table 11
FBI — Expanded Homicide Data Table 11
Reply
0
0
01-03-2013, 03:45 PM
#296
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: chicago
Posts: 693
Total Cats: -33
one of the reasons there is such a divide on the issue is that some citizens can not picture a time when the government could ever loose control. in the case of Chicago, the city is 18 months past due on bills. what do you think is going to happen when the welfare checks start bouncing? or if food prices go through the roof. I'm not saying it is going to happen, but if it were to happen, **** would go bad real quick and when desperate people think they can take your stuff little resistance they will. why are the states in the worst financial shape the anti gun states?
Reply
0
0
