It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Remind me again of your gun laws.

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
CX

posted on May, 11 2006 @ 11:50 AM
link   
In the most basic way possible, could someone explain to me or direct me to an explanation of why firearms are so easily accessible over there in the US. I often hear about the right to bear arms as the main reason, could someone give me more info on this please?

As an ex member of the forces i actualy find it fascinating that civillians can have so many weapons at thier disposal, especially people who have often had no formal training, yet are carrying more firepower than i had access to in the military!. Then again, when it comes to protecting yourself, your property and your family, i'd sooner face a burgalar with a hangun than a stick!
So in that sense, i envy you guys there in the US.

I owned a handgun years ago when i was serving, and really enjoyed the sport of pistol and rifle shooting too, however i was saddened to discover a while back how limited i am now. Since the Dunblane tragedy over here, i think we are left with airguns and thats about it! Just a shame for the sensible ones.

Thanks in advance,

CX.




posted on May, 11 2006 @ 12:07 PM
link   
Here's how i see it.

United States Constitution.

sanc



posted on May, 11 2006 @ 12:11 PM
link   
Not just guns man. We can legally own assault rifles here. Expensive, but most folks who want these are enthusiasts, or gun collectors. Whenever I get the money I'm going in the market to get a vintage B.A.R.

But anyhow, yes the second ammendment does guarantee the right for LAW ABIDING citizens to own guns of all sorts. The last line of the second ammendment, "shall not be infringed", is what I see as the reason for being able to own a gun of any kind here. I'm a proponent of the NRA, not a member yet, but will be. I wholeheartidly agree with them that these people who want to ban guns are doing it because of what criminals do with them. They see it as the guns killing people and not people killing people with them. And to me this is the reason we can have guns, to protect our lives and property. I'm just glad to see some states here are passing laws to protect people who use deadly force to protect themselves and others from violent criminals.

Are you in the UK?


CX

posted on May, 11 2006 @ 12:27 PM
link   
Thanks for the replies, and yep i'm in UK.


I agree with you on the fact that what most people don't like is what criminals do with the guns. Like here in the UK, loads of law abiding people now can't do the sports they love, whilst even though theres a ban on just about everything, criminals are'nt deterred by this.

Gun tragedies don't go away because they ban guns do they?

CX.



posted on May, 11 2006 @ 12:59 PM
link   
yeah but isn't there a way around the system?


i mean you could shoot someone in cold blood (someone you don't like) and say "yeah but i was defending my property" (when actual fact you wasn't)!

gun law in america gives you the right to open fire on someone trespassing on your premises, does it not?

if you live in the countryside or something (not many people around), you could easy get away with murder


[edit on 11-5-2006 by st3ve_o]



posted on May, 11 2006 @ 01:15 PM
link   
CX...very sorry to hear of your very restrictive gun laws. I am not familiar with that indident you refer to in that town called Dunblane. I shall have to look it up on the web.

The main difference here in the States at law..is the difference in Rights and priveleges.

Rights are something naturally that we have at law..We can volenteer away our rights ..but it is difficult to defend this kind of thing when it is so openly stated by our Bill of Rights. This is why our poor legislators and leaders have resorted to reinterpretation by judicial decree to wiggle their way around the intent of the framers.

In the UK you have priveleges granted by a Soverign. These priveleges can be changed modified and taken away at the will of the Soverign.

This is the main difference.

Here in the States they are trying very hard to enforce the will of the Soverign as law. It does not work well as us Yanks dont take well to this and our elected officials know this. This is why they must try to sneak in the back door by judicial decree..in order to " Hijack/ Steal " the intent of the framers.
We are not a Feudal baseed society as in the UK ..this is the main difference. Someone or someones is trying very hard to return us to this Feudal based system without us catching on. Our public school systems paid for and financed by the Government is in on the con job. Our schools are trying to indoctrinate our young people with the intent of the Soverign..not the intent of the people.

This buisness of sealing the borders against Illegal Aliens is textbook of the soverign dragging thier feet against the will of the public for the purposes of the government/sovergin/politics....without declaring to the public that this is what they are doing.

It is the same with guns. I too like to sport shoot at the target range.

Thanks,
Orangetom



posted on May, 11 2006 @ 01:32 PM
link   
Criminals will always have guns, their profession requires it.


CX

posted on May, 11 2006 @ 01:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by orangetom1999
CX...very sorry to hear of your very restrictive gun laws. I am not familiar with that indident you refer to in that town called Dunblane. I shall have to look it up on the web.


A terrible day, very much like many of your school shootings there, except this guy did it at a primary school and killed a load of 5 and 6 years olds and thier teacher


After this, you can kind of understand the outcry for a gun ban i guess, then again, we are'nt all like this idiot.


en.wikipedia.org...

CX.



posted on May, 11 2006 @ 02:04 PM
link   
Maybe this detracts the topic a bit, but contrary to the usual going of these debates, there are actually very many firearms in private ownership in Europe. the main difference is that in most cases, people need a license for these.

A license not only consisting of approval by the authorities (like in some US states), but also a certain degree of education on firearms (shooting and safety courses, licenses obtained in organized sport shooting associations, obligatory education for game hunters etc...). When these safety requirements are met, there is actually little limit on what firearms can be purchased (short of a .50 rifle...)

Now my question is this : what is your stance on obligatory EDUCATION on firearms, resulting in a license to own/carry? In most nations people need to do formal training for many activities that are potentially hazardous to themselves or others... driving licenses, diving school, heavy machinery licenses and the like.What is your stance on this?

Especially to american members: would you accept such a kind of obligatory education (maybe if it replaces the other higly questionable gun control laws like the Assault gun ban)?



posted on May, 11 2006 @ 02:40 PM
link   
We here in America, agree that the 2nd amendment is awesome, why you ask. Is it allows us to own a firearm. We can buy semi-autos and then buy some books to convert them to full-auto. Its sad, but like many americans it is to protect us from anyone that tries to take it away. This country was founded on rebelion. It was our fore fathers came to america for, to get away from the Kings and Queens of Europe. To start our own country. And look at us today, we are the youngest nation, but we are also the strongest to do so in what little time we had. It took some European countries several thousands of years to get to where they are today. It took America, about 300 years to get to where we are today. Thats why people hate us and love us. Hehe, back on topic. The Gun Laws here are meant for our protection. And if anyone tries to take em away, they will be sorry they tried.



posted on May, 11 2006 @ 02:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lonestar24
Now my question is this : what is your stance on obligatory EDUCATION on firearms, resulting in a license to own/carry? In most nations people need to do formal training for many activities that are potentially hazardous to themselves or others... driving licenses, diving school, heavy machinery licenses and the like.What is your stance on this?

Especially to american members: would you accept such a kind of obligatory education (maybe if it replaces the other higly questionable gun control laws like the Assault gun ban)?


personally I think if you do not understand how a gun works, you dont need one. I think this is the prevailing wisdom in regards to this.

for simple semi-automatic weapons no license is required.

however class 3 weapons (automatic or silenced) do require approval from the local and federal authorities in the US. It is a lengthy process which requires signature of the chief of police of your county, approval by the ATF, and a tax to be payed on the weapon.

even with assault rifles, provided they were semi-auto and previously had met the requirements of the brady bill(now expired) when the weapon was produced they could be owned. However, if the weapon was what was termed a 'pre-ban' weapon they did not have to meet this stipulation.

I dont know what kind of an embecil you have to be to need an "education class" to folow simply safety rules, but id be willing to allow a law that stated had an accident occured due to negligance on the part of the gun owner that he would then be required to complete a course would be fine with me.

I find the argument that americans are "barbaric" due to the gun laws we have to be a bit short sighted. Granted violent crimes can occur with guns, however most law abiding citizens are not the threat. Criminals who obtain weapons are, this is why our laws are geared towards not allowing criminals to own weapons.

Our constitution guarantees rule by the people becasue of the second admendment.

"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."

To me this tells me the framers intended the people are guaranteed their freedom, "being necessary for the security of a Free state", from their right to bear arms.


CX

posted on May, 11 2006 @ 02:42 PM
link   
As far as training is concerned, i would be in full support of this, however for civillians i would only like to see that taken to a certain level.

As an ex military policeman, i was not only trained to a high standard in the use of firearms, but i also frequently attended incidents where people had been killed or injured through misproper use of firearms. Most of these were adults funnily enough, but of course kids were often the casualties too.

In the military, the first thing that was ALWAYS drummed into us was SAFETY FIRST! I remember many a slapping on the ranges if i accidently pointed my weapon anywhere but down range lol, but then when i attended my first gunshot wound where a guy had accidently shot his kid, i suddenly understood why safety training was so enforced.
The business side of the weapon came later. I would like to see prospective firearms owners complete a compulsory safety course prior to owning any firearm. Some people here who have been on the receiving end of a bullet or witnessed the damage they can do may feel the same about this.

How it would be organised and monitored though i don't know. Especially somewhere like the US where so many firearms are out there already, to be honest i can't see it working there.

I would'nt want to see civilians trained in more than the saftey and marksmanship aspects of the subject. Specialist combat techniques and other specialist firearms techniques should be kept to the people who need them, not those who get themselves a black assault vest from the internet, run around thier flat THINKING they need these skills!

Good discussion anyway, thanks for the replies everyone, much appreciated.


CX.



posted on May, 11 2006 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by CX
Thanks for the replies, and yep i'm in UK.


I agree with you on the fact that what most people don't like is what criminals do with the guns. Like here in the UK, loads of law abiding people now can't do the sports they love, whilst even though theres a ban on just about everything, criminals are'nt deterred by this.

Gun tragedies don't go away because they ban guns do they?

CX.


I am afraid that I disagree with you as although the UK has strict gun laws it is not impossible to own a gun if you have a need (e.g. farmer) or shoot for sport at a range or a shoot.

There are exclusions like prohibitions on ex-criminals getting licenses to own guns and certain weapons are illegal, alogside tight rules on what you can and cnnot do. There are also different catagoies of license for shotguns or firearms and correspondingly different rules.

If you want to shoot for sport then you can - but not with a machine gun! You just have to go through rather alot of paperwork which if anything will demonstrate how keen you are.

I for one think the law is spot-on. Guns are bad, although I used to regularly shoot both shotguns and .22 rifles.

Regards


CX

posted on May, 11 2006 @ 03:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Harvestfreak
We here in America, agree that the 2nd amendment is awesome, why you ask.


If i'm really honest, i ask this question not because of the gun crime in the US, i mean we have that over here too and like many say it's mainly the criminals who spoil it for the rest and theres not much we can do about that. My reason for asking has more to do with the many videos i see on the internet of "law abiding" citizens, admittedly usually younger gun owners, doing amazingly stupid acts with firearms. I recall one where two friends were tesing out a bullet proof vest by putting it on his friend and unloading a shotgun into him! That to me is stupid, but by no means the worst i've seen. I just sit here sometimes thinking "How the hell was that person ever allowed to hold, let alone own a gun!?"

Sometimes when i see actions like this, i can't help but think the whole "right to bear arms" thing is a whole crock, and just an excuse for some people to mess about and play Rambo irresponsibly. I mean no offence by that to the people here who are responsible firearms owners, and i also understand how importantly you live by your country's history. I just feel that a lot of gun owners there are not fussed about the history side of things when they are acting like loons with loaded weapon. I find it amazing that you can own a .50 Barrett there, even if it does take a bit of a proccess to get one. I've had mates dropped by this weapon and see no reason for it to be on the civilian market. Then again it's a lovely weapon and i can see why any responsible fireams owner would like this in thier collection.

I appreciate that for me to understand this issue fully i would have to live in the US. My firearms training has been nothing but very structured, and now severely restricted.

Basicaly i'm jealous of you lot lol, and fed up with having to be the proud owner of a spud gun at best!


CX


CX

posted on May, 11 2006 @ 03:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by paraphi


I am afraid that I disagree with you as although the UK has strict gun laws it is not impossible to own a gun if you have a need (e.g. farmer) or shoot for sport at a range or a shoot.

There are exclusions like prohibitions on ex-criminals getting licenses to own guns and certain weapons are illegal, alogside tight rules on what you can and cnnot do. There are also different catagoies of license for shotguns or firearms and correspondingly different rules.

If you want to shoot for sport then you can - but not with a machine gun! You just have to go through rather alot of paperwork which if anything will demonstrate how keen you are.

I for one think the law is spot-on. Guns are bad, although I used to regularly shoot both shotguns and .22 rifles.

Regards


Hi paraphi, thanks for the info
I phoned the firearms licensing dept of the police
last year and i was informed that the most i could use was .22, other than that it's airsoft and shotgun for sport. I'm wanting to carry on with 9mm and other calibres of handgun shooting, is that possible with our new gun laws? If so, i'd love to get some info on this.

Thanks,

CX.

[edit on 11/5/06 by CX]



posted on May, 11 2006 @ 03:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by st3ve_o
yeah but isn't there a way around the system?


i mean you could shoot someone in cold blood (someone you don't like) and say "yeah but i was defending my property" (when actual fact you wasn't)!

gun law in america gives you the right to open fire on someone trespassing on your premises, does it not?

No.

There are laws that equal using equal force. If someone threatens your life with a gun, knife, or other weapon in your home...you could perhaps use deadly force, but you would want to be sure.

If some kid broke in and you shot him as he was running out with your TV, that is still murder. Many states have various other rules, but this is a pretty common one.

Also, the victim's family could sue...especially if they were outside your house. You have to prove you were basically trapped with no other option. If a person had a knife and you were out in the yard, you'd probably be screwed. It depends.

A cop once told me if you shoot someone breaking in, make sure they fall inside your house and not outside (ie: don't shoot someone while they're in the doorway...let them get inside more.)


if you live in the countryside or something (not many people around), you could easy get away with murder

You could do that now in almost any country in the world. There are many, many ways to kill someone. Shovel, axe, knife, club, car, poison, etc, etc...

Changing a gun law doesn't effect this.



posted on May, 11 2006 @ 03:23 PM
link   
In Arizona you can carry visible anywhere except government buildings, and it's not a good idea in banks. I never had any problems carrying a couple of 45 peacemakers on the hips and a 12ga double barrel in hand walking through town (i used to be a gunfight re-enactor, so i carried to and from "work" everyday). You still need a permit to carry concealed but you can legally carry as much firepower as you can strap to yourself as long as they're legal (no sawed off shotguns, grenade launchers, rockets or missiles, etc.) and visible. In towns where everybody has a colt 45 sagging off the hip, there's not much crime at all, and they're peaceful places.

There are a few isolated idiots who do stupid things, but that's stupidity, not guns. The same idiots wouldn't be any less dangerous without guns, they'll find other ways to create a hazard. No amount of gun law is going to deter a criminal from getting or using one. I mean if you're using a firearm to commit crime, are you REALLY going to think twice about breaking a law to obtain a gun to stick in someone's face and demand cash or protect yourself from drug rivals/gangs etc? I think at that point you got a bit more on your plate to deal with than a simple firearm posession charge.

Laws just keep honest people honest and lazt people in check, but anybody with any real motivation to do so will find a way around 'em.

I'd like to see some kind of firearm training for everyone at a young age. Whether you're pro or anti-gun, you live in a world with LOTS of guns. Even if you believe every firearm on the planet should be destroyed, you should know how to safely handle one in the event that you do come in contact with one you know what to do. In some countries every service-age adult citizen is issued a firearm and recieves training by their government for homeland security reasons.



posted on May, 11 2006 @ 03:29 PM
link   
Out here (Finland) you can get a gun licence if you are:
-over 18
-have no serious crimes committed
-have a reason to own a gun, besides self defence (no gun permits for defence only) so sport or hunting are the reasons


The education part is quite un-neccesary, since you need a hunting card to get a hunting weapons

plus 80% of mens in Finland serve 6-12 months in military (usually most gun owners belong to this group) so they know basic marksmanship and gun care...


in my opinion this is a pretyy good system for our Country



posted on May, 11 2006 @ 03:35 PM
link   
Let me just make this out, Gun Control laws are a load of crock. The only thing gun control laws do is make it easier for criminals to commit crimes and kill innocent people who lack the ability to defend themselves properly because of the gun control laws.

Getting rid of guns will not solve the problem. Getting rid of the people who cause the problems, that's a start.

Guns don't kill people, criminals and soccer moms do.

Assault Rifles aren't anything special, the only thing that makes a rifle assault is the full automatic and whatever little toys you want to add to it, be it a tactical grip or laser sight.

In my opinion, every person should have a gun. Technically, the 2nd ammendmant only protects your right to bare arms because at the time, the US didn't have a standing army, so they needed a militia, but now, America doesn't need a militia. So it is possible for someone to ammend the ammendment, you just need the right supreme court case.

Shattered OUT...



posted on May, 11 2006 @ 03:49 PM
link   
You have to remember gun laws in the US vary from state to state even city to city. My state bans guns that are legal in most of the rest of the country, Hawaii has bans that are akin to most of Europe. Cities like New York City and Washington DC have very strict anti-gun laws more restrictive then even some countries in Europe.



[edit on 11-5-2006 by ShadowXIX]




top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join