Not One More !

I can have any lever action or bolt action rifle I want if I have a feral pest problem as a primary producer I can have a semi-auto or if I am a professional hunter a semi-auto,I can have a semi auto pistol if I go to the range 6 times a year as a sports shooter what I cant have is a military assault weapon,if thats draconian then so be it.

originally posted by: khnum
I can have any lever action or bolt action rifle I want if I have a feral pest problem as a primary producer I can have a semi-auto or if I am a professional hunter a semi-auto,I can have a semi auto pistol if I go to the range 6 times a year as a sports shooter what I cant have is a military assault weapon,if thats draconian then so be it.

Just so we understand where you are coming from what is the difference in your mind between a 'semi-automatic' rifle and a 'military assault weapon'.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

full automatic as vs as fast as you can pull the trigger

originally posted by: khnum
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

full automatic as vs as fast as you can pull the trigger

Sigh.

Another foreigner who thinks machineguns are sold at Walmart.

originally posted by: khnum
The gun laws in NYC are about the strictest in the US,

No .. that would be Washington DC. You know ... where the DC Sniper was able to get off so many kill shots because there was no one armed to stop him. Crime in Washington DC

a reply to: thisguyrighthere

No but you probably could get an AR15 with 60 round magazine and laser sights

originally posted by: khnum
a reply to: thisguyrighthere

No but you probably could get an AR15 with 60 round magazine and laser sights

Still not a machinegun.

And what's with the laser sight? What do you think laser sights do?

originally posted by: khnum
full automatic as vs as fast as you can pull the trigger

Ohhhh.

Glad you cleared that up. There have been no new automatic weapons put into circulation in close to 30 years and the ones available are insanely expensive and closely regulated.

originally posted by: thisguyrighthere
And what's with the laser sight? What do you think laser sights do?

it raises the scary factor to 11.

a reply to: thisguyrighthere

Sorry I just had to mention the false flag weapon of choice

originally posted by: khnum
Sorry I just had to mention the false flag weapon of choice

You watch too much television and believe it. Most people are killed with handguns.

And let me clarify, that is when they are actually killed with a gun. More people die via vehicular causes than with firearms.

voyger2:

NOT ONE MORE, You have the power to change this, and You Should!

You are quite right, Voyager2, Americans do have the power to change it, but not the will or the desire, they are too scared and too paranoid, to do what is right for themselves individually, or as a nation. Very few Americans wanting to maintain gun rights will never admit to either anyone else or to themselves that they are scared and paranoid, but it is quite true, fearful of the government and fearful of the horrendous crime rates and statistics.

Fact is...the 2nd Amendment needs to BE REPEALED. It is an anachronistic throwback to a time when its premise may have served a purpose. The country was young, the government new, and things had not settled down fully. Various states still needed to work through the Constitution and unite with the other states that had already accepted it, so things were still in flux, and thus the 2nd amendment as it was meant at that time was good to have.

Unfortunately, over the couple of hundred years that America has been around, it has changed and modernised, but the 2nd Amendment remains as it was when it was written into the Bill of Rights, but has been reinterpreted to suit each side. It will take an advocate for neither side to provide an objective view to propose a way through the gun control dilemma. However, all sides will need to understand that the 2nd Amendment needs to be repealed and abolished...it is the only and obvious (and probably painful) way forward to a satisfactory conclusion.

The repeal of the 2nd Amendment would necessarily need to be phased in, but the whole project could be done over a 50 year period.

One of the first things to do is to make it unlawful to carry a gun in public, openly or concealed. Public areas would have to be made strictly 'gun free areas'. Parks, beaches, fairgrounds, cinemas, theatres, sporting events, bus and rail stations, airports and harbours, shopping malls, and especially schools and hospitals, etc. Americans need to get used to being in public unarmed, and that will take time.

Simultaneously, as you disarm the general populace, that is to say they leave their gun/s at home (locked away securely), you also remove guns from the police in public areas, leave them with tasers and batons and mace, and always in twos at least. The general population need to be confident that the police do not remain armed as they give up their gun/s.

Allow gun owners the option to take their gun/s and ammunition (separately) to the police station to be destroyed in front of them, and pay gun owners for doing so. You could begin with a general federal law, which each state could tweak for themselves, but leading to the same result at the same rate as the other states...the removal of guns from the street in lawful terms.

Certain law enforcement agencies, such as SWAT, would have to remain armed to answer to calls where a gun incident is or has taken place. The other agencies like the FBI, CIA, NSA can be made to follow a 'no gun' protocol in public, except in instances where a gun is involved, but once the event has been resolved all guns are taken from the agents and returned back to the station.

Of course, one aspect that this would entail is that the gun industry would go into something of a decline, and would obviously fight any form of gun control rabidly, especially the NRA, but once the 2nd Amendment is repealed, it becomes a whole different ball game. Americans have to face a number of harsh realities and face-to-face truths. The 2nd Amendment is the stumbling block, the obstacle to eradicating gun rampages and gun crime in America. Whatever crime is occurring in other parts of the world is irrelevant to the argument or debate. When it comes to a foreign threat, America has the largest and technological military to deal with it. The argument or debate on gun control is entirely predicated as a domestic one, and is specific to America and Americans.

Many gun owners state that the gun is not the problem, but that warped and twisted mentality is the issue. This is too simplistic and argument for the case, but it shows that mindset certainly has two faces. On one face there are gun rampages occurring way too often, and being explained away as mental deficiency, but that argument itself is a mental deficiency, because it upholds the right to have a gun, rather than the right for people to not be shot by one. It is twisted logic to place the gun higher than a person's life.

The gun was invented as an extension of the spear and the bow and arrow with one purpose in mind, to maim or kill with efficiency and at a greater distance so as not to place the shooter in equal harms way. It is excellent for the battlefield during war, but during peace time at home, it is not one of man's best inventions, and he has invented so very nasty ways to take life.

I do not for one minute expect any gun owner to accept anything I have written here, but if America could find a way to implement some of the ideas I have raised, then in years to come, what I have written here may make sense.

originally posted by: elysiumfire
I do not for one minute expect any gun owner to accept anything I have written here, but if America could find a way to implement some of the ideas I have raised, then in years to come, what I have written here may make sense.

No, no we will not accept one word.

Not unless you can absolutely promise me that no one, repeat, no one, will ever attempt to harm me or my family or deprive us of our rights, freedoms and possessions.

Can you make that promise?

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Look I dont begrudge responsible citizens a decent weapon in Switzerland every sane male of military age has a military weapon in his house making the place uninvadeable,but Switzerland does not have a gun violence culture for some reason they dont have the crazies your society and to a lesser extent mine generates which means there has to be steps to prevent crazies getting guns,my nation went about it one way a way which is not necessarily transferable to other societies; you must admit there is a problem with mass killings and also isolated random violence killing how your nation addresses that is its perogative but as of yet the world hasn't seen much action in that department perhaps the emphasis could be a concerted effort to go after unregistered weapons.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus


Will you guarantee me that my son will not be killed by a diagnosed mentally ill person with a gun bought at a store or show?

I would bet that our forefathers made sure their citizens were not terrorized for long by such people. There was mental illness then too and in the wild west.

You, as a all or nothing gun owner of guns have no right to expect all citizens to constantly be war mode in our communities.

I hate it that we have to act like victims.

originally posted by: khnum
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Really I interpret your second amendment that here should be a well armed militia comprised of citizens to keep the government in check who are accorded military weapons,not every citizen...so where is this militia?

All of us. The militia was intended and clearly stated to be all of the people.

a reply to: khnum

There are glaring differences between the Swiss and the Americans I can see from my remote perspective. The Swiss do not have a history of civil war, revolutions against colonist monarchies, or any near the racial differences or socioeconomic disparity of the United States. Given these factors the gun culture of the US is likely to be very different than any other nation on the Earth. The factors of the evolution of the ideas of individual liberty in that nation are not and never were present in any other nation of the world in the written history of mankind.

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus


Will you guarantee me that my son will not be killed by a diagnosed mentally ill person with a gun bought at a store or show?

I would bet that our forefathers made sure their citizens were not terrorized for long by such people. There was mental illness then too and in the wild west.

You, as a all or nothing gun owner of guns have no right to expect all citizens to constantly be war mode in our communities.

I hate it that we have to act like victims.

Yet you insist on acting like one. Ironic, isn't it?

a reply to: elysiumfire

What you just wrote makes a lot of sense my friend. You just cleared the water.

When I was reading all the posts I felt lot of anger, turbulence, agitation and arrogance in the majority of the replies. Until all the confusion from gun owners and defenders replies, suddenly stopped in your post. For me You do understand the problem the Americans have to solve to end Fear in there society.

I urge all of good will to read elisiumfire reply and meditate on that, we wrote far better then i ever will.

originally posted by: elysiumfire
voyger2:

NOT ONE MORE, You have the power to change this, and You Should!

You are quite right, Voyager2, Americans do have the power to change it, but not the will or the desire, they are too scared and too paranoid, to do what is right for themselves individually, or as a nation. Very few Americans wanting to maintain gun rights will never admit to either anyone else or to themselves that they are scared and paranoid, but it is quite true, fearful of the government and fearful of the horrendous crime rates and statistics.

Fact is...the 2nd Amendment needs to BE REPEALED. It is an anachronistic throwback to a time when its premise may have served a purpose. The country was young, the government new, and things had not settled down fully. Various states still needed to work through the Constitution and unite with the other states that had already accepted it, so things were still in flux, and thus the 2nd amendment as it was meant at that time was good to have.

Unfortunately, over the couple of hundred years that America has been around, it has changed and modernised, but the 2nd Amendment remains as it was when it was written into the Bill of Rights, but has been reinterpreted to suit each side. It will take an advocate for neither side to provide an objective view to propose a way through the gun control dilemma. However, all sides will need to understand that the 2nd Amendment needs to be repealed and abolished...it is the only and obvious (and probably painful) way forward to a satisfactory conclusion.

The repeal of the 2nd Amendment would necessarily need to be phased in, but the whole project could be done over a 50 year period.

One of the first things to do is to make it unlawful to carry a gun in public, openly or concealed. Public areas would have to be made strictly 'gun free areas'. Parks, beaches, fairgrounds, cinemas, theatres, sporting events, bus and rail stations, airports and harbours, shopping malls, and especially schools and hospitals, etc. Americans need to get used to being in public unarmed, and that will take time.

Simultaneously, as you disarm the general populace, that is to say they leave their gun/s at home (locked away securely), you also remove guns from the police in public areas, leave them with tasers and batons and mace, and always in twos at least. The general population need to be confident that the police do not remain armed as they give up their gun/s.

Allow gun owners the option to take their gun/s and ammunition (separately) to the police station to be destroyed in front of them, and pay gun owners for doing so. You could begin with a general federal law, which each state could tweak for themselves, but leading to the same result at the same rate as the other states...the removal of guns from the street in lawful terms.

Certain law enforcement agencies, such as SWAT, would have to remain armed to answer to calls where a gun incident is or has taken place. The other agencies like the FBI, CIA, NSA can be made to follow a 'no gun' protocol in public, except in instances where a gun is involved, but once the event has been resolved all guns are taken from the agents and returned back to the station.

Of course, one aspect that this would entail is that the gun industry would go into something of a decline, and would obviously fight any form of gun control rabidly, especially the NRA, but once the 2nd Amendment is repealed, it becomes a whole different ball game. Americans have to face a number of harsh realities and face-to-face truths. The 2nd Amendment is the stumbling block, the obstacle to eradicating gun rampages and gun crime in America. Whatever crime is occurring in other parts of the world is irrelevant to the argument or debate. When it comes to a foreign threat, America has the largest and technological military to deal with it. The argument or debate on gun control is entirely predicated as a domestic one, and is specific to America and Americans.

Many gun owners state that the gun is not the problem, but that warped and twisted mentality is the issue. This is too simplistic and argument for the case, but it shows that mindset certainly has two faces. On one face there are gun rampages occurring way too often, and being explained away as mental deficiency, but that argument itself is a mental deficiency, because it upholds the right to have a gun, rather than the right for people to not be shot by one. It is twisted logic to place the gun higher than a person's life.

The gun was invented as an extension of the spear and the bow and arrow with one purpose in mind, to maim or kill with efficiency and at a greater distance so as not to place the shooter in equal harms way. It is excellent for the battlefield during war, but during peace time at home, it is not one of man's best inventions, and he has invented so very nasty ways to take life.

I do not for one minute expect any gun owner to accept anything I have written here, but if America could find a way to implement some of the ideas I have raised, then in years to come, what I have written here may make sense.

And your whole presentation is overly simplistic and unworkable in it's face. It makes no sense because it does not address the root problem--that those who choose to do wrong will not comply with any of those things. All you achieve is to disarm the law abiding and responsible people and you have succeeded nothing but making the law abiding even more in danger from the criminal element.

What we need to do is punish violent criminals severely. We need to end the worthless war on drugs that is the root of the vast majority of violence in the US now just as prohibition was the root cause of the violence then.