2nd Amendment Ruling

[Spreedizzle 1]

Nice bolt gun Spree. I've been meaning to pick up something like a 700 but it hasn't made it's way up the list yet.

The amazing thing about the 700 is that from the bottom of the line blued barrel, syn stock to the top of the line, the bolt, trigger, and barrel action are identical. You can literally get a new 700 from $450 up to about $2000. And easily one of the most accurate bolt actions of all time.

[Spreedizzle 1]

My latest purchase :D

WWII German issue FG42??

[DavidT 11]

WWII German issue FG42??

Close, MG42.

[Spreedizzle 1]

WWII German issue FG42??

Close, MG42.

I was close. The 8mm belt fed Mauser is one NASTY round.

So that is a deer gun.....right?? ;)

[Monty22 833]

Wow DaveT- you don't see those everyday. Is it in origional working condition?

[Spreedizzle 1]

Wow DaveT- you don't see those everyday. Is it in origional working condition?

Surely not "original"......as I highly doubt that they can sell it in any other fashion other than semi-auto.

[DavidT 11]

Wow DaveT- you don't see those everyday. Is it in origional working condition?

Its a fully transferrable NFA machine gun, Gun was made in 1944. Currently has a late phosphate top cover etc, but overall is a good condition shooter/play toy.

Surely not "original"......as I highly doubt that they can sell it in any other fashion other than semi-auto.

Its a machine gun. Machine guns are perfectly legal to own so long as the were registered pre 1968, during the Amnesty of 1968, or pre May 19, 1986 and as long as your state allows. There's a little more paperwork involved, but if you can buy any regular gun in your state; odds are you can almost buy a machine gun, destructive device, silencer, Short barelled rifle/shotgun, etc.

It's the second of my 2 beltfeds.

My M60:

[Monty22 833]

NFA stuff is legal in a lot of states, just VERY expensive. Not just the "taxes" on them, but the firearms themselves make it a cost prohibitive endeavor for most. Not to mention feeding the thing.

[Spreedizzle 1]

I can't think of a more enjoyable way to blow through $200 in 10 seconds. Nice pieces.

So you are saying that they are bird guns....right?? ;)

[Jason Harris 31]

I read an interesting article today referring to the SC's ruling. I was surprised to learn that murders are not generally the highest percentage of firearm deaths. Apparently, suicides have led murder rates in 20 of the past 25 years (55.4% in 2005, the latest year measured), and are 3-5 times more likely to occur in houses with firearms.

[DavidT 11]

I can't think of a more enjoyable way to blow through $200 in 10 seconds. Nice pieces.

So you are saying that they are bird guns....right?? ;)

If by birds you mean abandoned cars, washing machines, and the likes. Yeah.

[Monty22 833]

This is the last paragraph from the CDC story you mention Jason , Kind of makes me questions the validity of those figures.

Both sides agree there has been a significant decline in the last decade in public-health research into gun violence.

The CDC traditionally was a primary funder of research on guns and gun-related injuries, allocating more than $2.1 million a year to such projects in the mid-1990s.

But the agency cut back research on the subject after Congress in 1996 ordered that none of the CDC's appropriations be used to promote gun control.

Vernick said the Supreme Court decision underscores the need for further study into what will happen to suicide and homicide rates in the district when the handgun ban is lifted.

Today, the CDC budgets less than $900,000 for firearm-related projects, and most of it is spent to track statistics. The agency no longer funds gun-related policy analysis.

[Trooper 8]

It shows correlation, not causation. Japan has the highest suicide rate in the world at 30,000+ annually and also has among the strictest gun control in the world.

[Jason Harris 31]

But the agency cut back research on the subject after Congress in 1996 ordered that none of the CDC's appropriations be used to promote gun control.

Isn't that a little bit like saying Congress will donate money for sex education, as long as the teenagers are taught to dance eight inches apart.... :D

Regarding the statistics, if they had been compiling the statistics for 25 years, but the funding was cut 9 years prior to the latest information, I would imagine that they should be fairly accurate overall.

[Jason Harris 31]

It shows correlation, not causation. Japan has the highest suicide rate in the world at 30,000+ annually and also has among the strictest gun control in the world.

I don't think the article was attempting to show causation, although it said John Paul Stevens cited these figures in his dissent, so he obviously was showing correlation.

Here's my take on things. Japan has a higher suicide rate, but stricter gun control, so it's obvious that guns don't necessarily lead to suicide. On the other end, I've heard that Switzerland issues guns to all adult males, yet their murder rate is much lower than ours, so it's obvious that guns don't necessarily lead to murder. However, the murder rate by handguns in the US is tragically high, so it's obvious that guns can lead to murder.

The question is how do we do a better job of screening to prevent those who border on unstable from acquiring guns? If the answer is "We can't," then I lament the SC's decision. If the answer is better enforcement of existing (or new) regulations, then we need to provide better funding to make sure that happens.

Regardless of anyone's stance on this issue, I believe we all can agree than any collateral damage is too much.

[Chadd 916]

Regarding the statistics...

There are three kinds of lies: Lies, damn lies and statistics. - Benjamin Disraeli

[Chadd 916]

It shows correlation, not causation. Japan has the highest suicide rate in the world at 30,000+ annually and also has among the strictest gun control in the world.

I don't think the article was attempting to show causation, although it said John Paul Stevens cited these figures in his dissent, so he obviously was showing correlation.

Here's my take on things. Japan has a higher suicide rate, but stricter gun control, so it's obvious that guns don't necessarily lead to suicide. On the other end, I've heard that Switzerland issues guns to all adult males, yet their murder rate is much lower than ours, so it's obvious that guns don't necessarily lead to murder. However, the murder rate by handguns in the US is tragically high, so it's obvious that guns can lead to murder.

The question is how do we do a better job of screening to prevent those who border on unstable from acquiring guns? If the answer is "We can't," then I lament the SC's decision. If the answer is better enforcement of existing (or new) regulations, then we need to provide better funding to make sure that happens.

Regardless of anyone's stance on this issue, I believe we all can agree than any collateral damage is too much.

The issue is the culture of violence in the US, not the guns themselves. If there was some magical way for guns to stay out of the hands of inner city gangs, things would be groovy. You know, criminals not being able to buy guns like the laws say. Unfortunately, there is no way for that to happen at this point without violating the rights of every other person in the country. At the very least people should be permitted to defend themselves. And if they somehow manage to off themselves in the process, chalk it up to natural selection and move on. If it's possible for the government to repeal the second ammendment, what's to stop them from repealing the first?

[mrusse01 0]

[The issue is the culture of violence in the US, not the guns themselves. If there was some magical way for guns to stay out of the hands of inner city gangs, things would be groovy. You know, criminals not being able to buy guns like the laws say. Unfortunately, there is no way for that to happen at this point without violating the rights of every other person in the country. At the very least people should be permitted to defend themselves. And if they somehow manage to off themselves in the process, chalk it up to natural selection and move on. If it's possible for the government to repeal the second ammendment, what's to stop them from repealing the first?

But isn't the government already violating the rights of every American by not permitting them to own fully automatic (new) weapons? Obviously the inner city gangs are able to procure such weapons on the black market, so to properly defend themselves, shouldn't regular citizens be able to respond with comparable firepower?

[Chadd 916]

[The issue is the culture of violence in the US, not the guns themselves. If there was some magical way for guns to stay out of the hands of inner city gangs, things would be groovy. You know, criminals not being able to buy guns like the laws say. Unfortunately, there is no way for that to happen at this point without violating the rights of every other person in the country. At the very least people should be permitted to defend themselves. And if they somehow manage to off themselves in the process, chalk it up to natural selection and move on. If it's possible for the government to repeal the second ammendment, what's to stop them from repealing the first?

But isn't the government already violating the rights of every American by not permitting them to own fully automatic (new) weapons? Obviously the inner city gangs are able to procure such weapons on the black market, so to properly defend themselves, shouldn't regular citizens be able to respond with comparable firepower?

I don't presume to be an expert on the Canadian legal system, why do some of you guys feel the need to try and play expert on ours?

The term is "reasonable restriction". All rights are subject to reasonable restriction, shouting fire in a crowded movie theater is obviously not an acceptable form of free speech. As long as the limitiations on gun ownership are deemed to be legally reasonable, they can require registration or limit ownership of certain types.

Criminals are going to do what they do regardless of the law.

[DavidT 11]

But isn't the government already violating the rights of every American by not permitting them to own fully automatic (new) weapons? Obviously the inner city gangs are able to procure such weapons on the black market, so to properly defend themselves, shouldn't regular citizens be able to respond with comparable firepower?

Problem is that laws only affect those who abide by them. Legal machine guns are already registered in the Federal governments system with each person or entity who owns them, address, etc. You even have to file paperwork to move them across the state lines in which they are registered

Now, there's probably been only 3 murders committed with a lawfully registered machine gun since the NFA of 34 (2 of those were committed by govt employees). So does that mean the registration works? Or that law abiding citizens are really that, law abiding.

[mrusse01 0]

I don't pretend to be an expert on the American legal system, I just found it curious that you could justify handgun ownership because you need to be able to protect yourselves from criminals, but that same logic doesn't extend to fully automatic weapons (from what I can tell you generally cannot own fully automatic weapons, or at least own them as easily).

If criminals are going to do what they are going to do regardless of the law, why bother to restrict gun ownership at all? Wouldn't a complete de-regulation of gun ownership be the best solution here? Let all good law-abiding citizens buy whatever level of weaponry they think necessary to defend themselves from criminals, the criminals are going to get their guns somehow anyways, and sort it all out on the streets. It's not like there is a system to enfore the law or anything like that, so you ought to leave it up to the average citizen to protect himself if you ask me.

[Chadd 916]

I don't pretend to be an expert on the American legal system, I just found it curious that you could justify handgun ownership because you need to be able to protect yourselves from criminals, but that same logic doesn't extend to fully automatic weapons (from what I can tell you generally cannot own fully automatic weapons, or at least own them as easily).

You need to pass an FBI background check to own any fully automatic weapon built after 1968. That is a reasonable restriction.

... if you ask me.

We didn't

[Monty22 833]

I don't pretend to be an expert on the American legal system, I just found it curious that you could justify handgun ownership because you need to be able to protect yourselves from criminals, but that same logic doesn't extend to fully automatic weapons (from what I can tell you generally cannot own fully automatic weapons, or at least own them as easily).

If criminals are going to do what they are going to do regardless of the law, why bother to restrict gun ownership at all? Wouldn't a complete de-regulation of gun ownership be the best solution here? Let all good law-abiding citizens buy whatever level of weaponry they think necessary to defend themselves from criminals, the criminals are going to get their guns somehow anyways, and sort it all out on the streets. It's not like there is a system to enforce the law or anything like that, so you ought to leave it up to the average citizen to protect himself if you ask me.

It already is up to average citizens to protect themselves. Some people just don't realize it .

[Trooper 8]

However, the murder rate by handguns in the US is tragically high, so it's obvious that guns can lead to murder.

Wow, all that shows is that people predisposed to murder use handguns, how does it show that handguns lead to murder. I would have failed all my logic classes if I had come to conclusions like that. What you basically said was: People use this tool to accomplish this task, therefore, owning this tool causes people to perform said task.

You need to look at the demographics and breakdown who is committing these murders, that will get you to the root cause.

[Trooper 8]

I don't pretend to be an expert on the American legal system, I just found it curious that you could justify handgun ownership because you need to be able to protect yourselves from criminals, but that same logic doesn't extend to fully automatic weapons (from what I can tell you generally cannot own fully automatic weapons, or at least own them as easily).

If criminals are going to do what they are going to do regardless of the law, why bother to restrict gun ownership at all? Wouldn't a complete de-regulation of gun ownership be the best solution here? Let all good law-abiding citizens buy whatever level of weaponry they think necessary to defend themselves from criminals, the criminals are going to get their guns somehow anyways, and sort it all out on the streets. It's not like there is a system to enfore the law or anything like that, so you ought to leave it up to the average citizen to protect himself if you ask me.

Technically you are right, it's just not going to happen.