American Gun Control

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 13 2004 @ 06:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fry2
They are legal as well. Nearly as heavily regulated by the BATF. You need to pay a manufacturing tax of $600.00 last time I looked as well as fill out the forms explaining why you need/want one. It is considered a firearm in and of itself as well!!! Something to keep in mind...
I would love to have one for my handgun for teaching shooting to my family and friends at my summer place in the mountains but I do and will continue to abide by the law(even though this one bugs me) and not own one until such time.
Any of you who have gone shooting without "ears" knows what I'm talking about


I though the tax was $200.00 per item plus submitted fingerprints and then you have to wait 90 days minimum for the paperwork to go through. Then you have to pay the price of the weapon, which for silencers is anywhere from $600.00 upward. I believe this process goes for all class three devices, so fully automatic weapons, SMGs, silencers, etc.

The fingerprinting is the main thing keeping me from getting a silencer for any of my weapons. Plus, I can't really justify the cost of getting one right now.

[edit on 9/13/04 by para]




posted on Sep, 13 2004 @ 06:45 PM
link   

In Baltimore we have the some of the most strict gun laws. Including a ban on carrying guns in an automobile. But then we have the highest crime and murder rates.

You OBVIOUSLY need MORE gun control laws!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

(Best I could do for sarcasm.)



posted on Sep, 13 2004 @ 06:50 PM
link   
You may be right. It's been a while since I looked at it as an option.

I can't afford a class 3 so I just stick with my lawful firearms.
As for the silencer issue, I just deal with the big earmuffs and tell the people without "ears" to use thier hands. I know how to make one but I figure the risk isn't worth it
.



posted on Sep, 13 2004 @ 07:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
Since you live in Canada you dont have to worry about any law abiding citizen getting his hands on any of this stuff.


No, I have to worry about it crossing the border and ending up on Jane and Finch. A few months ago, a single mother was hit by a round fired from a Colt AR-15 (chambered to what, I have no idea) and was paralyzed from the waist down. Yeah, little bit of a legitimate worry there. More and more guns are turning up in that area of the city, and I'm getting worried since from there, it'll spread. Even in my little burb, several home invasions have occured. The trend towards violent crime of late is starting to worry me. I have no problem with law-abiding citizens owning weapons. There is, however, a point to which this should be carried. Milspec weapons cross that point.

Now, I have little objection to the bigger clips, obvious pistol grip, bayonet lug or muzzle brake. It's things like silencers, full auto weapons, bizzare ammunition and grenade launchers that really put me off. It was a miracle more people weren't killed when they hosed down that shop.

DE



posted on Sep, 13 2004 @ 07:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by DeusEx
Now, I have little objection to the bigger clips, obvious pistol grip, bayonet lug or muzzle brake. It's things like silencers, full auto weapons, bizzare ammunition and grenade launchers that really put me off. It was a miracle more people weren't killed when they hosed down that shop.

DE


Well, you don't have much to worry about since nearly all of this stuff is class three or a destructive device and tightly controlled by the BATF and unrealastic to own for Joe Citizen. Any criminal who is going to use these things would most likley procure them illegally, since it is much cheaper.



posted on Sep, 13 2004 @ 07:14 PM
link   

No, I have to worry about it crossing the border and ending up on Jane and Finch. A few months ago, a single mother was hit by a round fired from a Colt AR-15 (chambered to what, I have no idea) and was paralyzed from the waist down. Yeah, little bit of a legitimate worry there. More and more guns are turning up in that area of the city, and I'm getting worried since from there, it'll spread.


Could you give us a bit more info on this?
The Colt AR-15 uses a common NATO round AND a civilian round. Which was it? 5.56mm or a Win. .223 ? They are effectively the same but a bit different in design. Most importantly, where did you get the information? Media or someone without an agenda?



posted on Sep, 13 2004 @ 07:36 PM
link   
www.baystreettimes.com...

On April 21, Louise Russo stopped by a North York deli to buy a sandwich for her daughter who was waiting in the car outside. In the next instant, a bullet fired from outside the restaurant pierced her spine and left her paralyzed from the waist down.

Link 2

At least two weapons were used in the attack, police say - a Colt AR-15 carbine and some sort of handgun.

Detective Bryan Bott revealed that police recovered the rifle shortly after the crime. He would only say that it was found near the crime scene. The Colt AR-15 carbine is a type of assault rife principally used by the military and law enforcement personnel. The rifle is not typically purchased at gun shops.


No caliber listed. Might have been the 9mm spinoff for all I know, but hey...

What kills me is that it was stolen in Ontario.

DE



posted on Sep, 13 2004 @ 07:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fry2
Just curious...
Would you folks who say you are pro-Second Amendment but anti-"Assault Weapons" be OK with people owning "assault weapons" if there were licensing and tough background checks like in many states for handgun permits?
[edit on 13-9-2004 by Fry2]


I'd have no problem with that. Then the more dangerous rifles would be in the hands of those that can care for them properly.



posted on Sep, 13 2004 @ 07:47 PM
link   

What kills me is that it was stolen in Ontario.

What kills me more is that we're in a thread about american gun control and you are using a gun used in a crime in Canada that was stolen in Canada as an example to reinforce harsher gun control
!

Seems a bit ironic to me.



posted on Sep, 13 2004 @ 07:48 PM
link   
Indeed. But my view is surprisingly conservative, you might say. But ti does prove a point- an automatic can end up in criminal hands if they steal it from your house. Let's see your permit stop that!

DE



posted on Sep, 13 2004 @ 07:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid

Originally posted by Fry2
Just curious...
Would you folks who say you are pro-Second Amendment but anti-"Assault Weapons" be OK with people owning "assault weapons" if there were licensing and tough background checks like in many states for handgun permits?
[edit on 13-9-2004 by Fry2]


I'd have no problem with that. Then the more dangerous rifles would be in the hands of those that can care for them properly.


OK, I'm beginning to see your logic.
As long as the government has me registered with fingerprints (DNA to follow) I'm worthy of my second amendment rights. If I dare NOT register my identity with a power that I did not elect I have absolutely NO rights unless said goverment grants them.

Sounds a bit Totalitarian to me. I'll pass and go clean my guns in preperation for you folks
. just kidding



posted on Sep, 13 2004 @ 07:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid
I think that it's quite evident that I know about firearms, that I would not use them as cavalierly as you does not lessen my abillity. I do not recall baiting you. I do recall addressing a post that meantioned my views as lunacy. Did you think that would go unchallenged? Yes I am a Mod but that is immaterial here. Do you see me threatening you, no. I'm addressing your posts and when you can't handle an opposing view you start crying foul. Bad form.


I'm not crying foul, but clearly when a mod goes up against a mere member in a heated debate a power differential exists. The AWB is lunacy. It is insane. I makes no sense. It is irrational. It is meaningless. I've explained it in the plainest terms possible and those who refuse to understand or have never disassembled a firearm cannot be persuaded. When two firearms are identical except for a pistol grip and a bayonet lug or a flash suppressor, and one is legal and the other is illegal, it makes no sense, except to those whose agenda is to ban guns on the basis of anything that will get them banned. Preying on the lack of knowledge of the public and repeating the same lies over and over again is a very effective measure.

The assertion that I use firearms cavalierly is without basis and offensive, without some means by which the allegation can be substantiated.

I've stated my case.


[edit on 04/9/13 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Sep, 13 2004 @ 08:02 PM
link   

Indeed. But my view is surprisingly conservative, you might say. But ti does prove a point- an automatic can end up in criminal hands if they steal it from your house. Let's see your permit stop that!

DE

First!! I have to ask about your term "automatic". Do you think the guns we are taliking about are machine guns?

Second:
Can your drivers license stop someone from stealing your car and running someone else over? You know as well as I that cars cause many times more deaths than guns do. I have a lock on my car door and on my ignition.
I have a lock on my gun cabinet and a lock on each gun inside.

If I'm home I'll stop anything else with the gun that is with me almost all of the time.



posted on Sep, 13 2004 @ 08:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
I'm not crying foul, but clearly when a mod goes up against a mere member in a heated debate a power differential exists.

The assertion that I use firearms cavalierly is without basis and offensive, without some means by which the allegation can be substantiated.

I've stated my case.

[edit on 04/9/13 by GradyPhilpott]


If you think there is a power difference between us that is in your own mind. We are both members of this board with the difference that I have more responsibillity. I have not threatened you in any manner.

As to the cavalier manner I point to:


Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
In hunting, there are no one shot one kill scenarios. One should always have another round handy or another hunter to insure a clean kill. The Assault weapons ban does not address automatic weapons. In fact, all the weapons are semi-automatic.


No hunter worth his mettle would pull the trigger unless he was sure of dropping his quarry. One shot kills are the norm, not the exception.



posted on Sep, 13 2004 @ 08:10 PM
link   
I actually agree with Intrepid
I'm NOT a hunter though...
I don't see an AR-15 as an effective deer rifle. It's just too small of a bullet.
There are much more powerful rifles for such purposes.



posted on Sep, 13 2004 @ 08:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepidNo hunter worth his mettle would pull the trigger unless he was sure of dropping his quarry. One shot kills are the norm, not the exception.


This is an ideal and has no basis in reality. What ever the norm may be and I don't know where you get your data, there are always exceptions and to allow a wounded animal to get away because your "one shot-one kill" ethos won't let you pack anything but a single-shot weapon would be inexcusable. Animals move. There are unpredictable distractions, sudden gusts of wind and down right human error. I don't know what kind of utopia you live in, but I have never been there.

Frankly, I am the only person I personally know who owned and varminted with a single shot firearm. Every hunter I have ever hunted or varminted with used a semi-auto or bolt-action or lever action repeating rifle. I don't know any hunters now who use a single shot rifle, but I don't hunt anymore and all my firearms are intended for social work.

And whether or not you care to admit it, you are baiting me by attacking me personally regarding things about which you have no knowledge.

[edit on 04/9/13 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Sep, 13 2004 @ 08:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
And whether or not you care to admit it, you are baiting me by attacking me personally regarding things about which you have no knowledge.
[edit on 04/9/13 by GradyPhilpott]


"regarding things about which you have no knowledge."

Who's baiting who mate?



posted on Sep, 13 2004 @ 09:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid
Careful, guys. We are getting close to "trash" territory. Keep it clean.



posted on Sep, 13 2004 @ 09:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott

Originally posted by intrepid
Careful, guys. We are getting close to "trash" territory. Keep it clean.


That was early in this thread, it was getting close to racism. You weren't even involed in this thread yet.

Like I said, who's baiting who.



posted on Sep, 13 2004 @ 10:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fry2
I actually agree with Intrepid
I'm NOT a hunter though...
I don't see an AR-15 as an effective deer rifle. It's just too small of a bullet.
There are much more powerful rifles for such purposes.

Like an AR-10. .308/7.62, and it looks just like an AR-15! How cool is that.

Seriously though, I agree that the .223/5.56 round is a bit small for deer. It is excellent for small varmint and coyote control though.


Originally posted by DeusEx
Indeed. But my view is surprisingly conservative, you might say. But ti does prove a point- an automatic can end up in criminal hands if they steal it from your house. Let's see your permit stop that!

DE

The Colt AR-15 is not an automatic weapon, and it costs upwards of $3000 USD for an rDIAS to make it so. Besides, it was stolen to perpetrate a crime which means that the person who was using it had no intent of following the law. What if the gun was banned in Canada? There might have been a 30-06 bolt-action on the shelf to steal instead, and the woman might be dead today. Or maybe he would have just stabbed her with a kitchen knife.

Honestly, I feel bad for the woman, but you are blaming the gun and not the person behind it. An assualt rifle does not just hop into someone's hands and make them start killing people, you have to have that intent to begin with. He could have used a pencil to kill her if he wanted to bad enough. The problem is not the guns, it is the people who are sick enough to use guns for killing the innocent. We should focus more on getting them help than taking away anything that they might use as a weapon.





top topics
 
0
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join