I will probably be banned for this, but...shooting thread!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by henners88

Too right. People who feel the need to arm themselves are not free, they are scared.

---

People who fail to arm themselves in the face of a threat, are not free, they are stupid.

Bob. What are you afraid of?



Sent from my iPhone in my bullet proof bunker

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

You have more liberty by having freedom and rights removed.
Ah liberal big-brother think.

---

What use is one's Liberty if your Life itself is removed. The entire culture of American society itself has been shaped on the premise that people need guns.

It was an exceptionally muggy night last night in Sydney. It was 86° at 12:30am and raining. I left the back to open and only the screen door shut to keep the cats inside. I don't honestly expect that you'd be able to do that in the US.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Malbec

.............This is because many Swiss men are issued submachine guns and assault rifles as part of their compulsory national military service which are stored at home until the men are in their 30..........

---

If this is the case, could it be that the large number of handguns in the US are the reason behind the difference in the stats between the two countries?
It's alot easier for a criminal or gangster to be walking the streets with a handgun than a rifle. If the Swiss were allowed to carry concealed weapons like people are in the US (or if handguns were as prolific as in the US), maybe the stats between the two would be similar.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

The primary purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to protect us from our government.
The presidencies of Bush and Obama show that need has never gone away.

---

The presidencies of Bush and Obama show that the American people implicitly and expressly believe in and trust their government. If you as a people were really that worried about "the tyranny of government" then why hasn't there been armed protests against it? How do you think that would actually work, sending a militia in to fight against Washington? How would a private militia fare against a fully mechanised and mobilised force worth $548bn/year in running costs?

Legally, what power do you have to rise up against the government anyway?
Article 3, Section 3 of the United States Constitution.
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attained.

The states have no right to secede, as held in Texas v White 1869:
"the Constitution did not permit states to secede from the United States, and that the ordinances of secession, and all the acts of the legislatures within seceding states intended to give effect to such ordinances, were "absolutely null"
So if states can not seceed from the Union, then what chance does the individual have when it comes to rising up against "Tyrannical Goverment"?

The actual implications if what you've just said is that the actions of Timothy McVeigh were in fact justified because he thought he was doing precisely as you suggested.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by henners88

Or perhaps they are just unlucky if they find themselves in that situation in the first place. Arming yourself just in case you happen to be robbed or attacked with a firearm is just total madness where I am from. Where would I keep this gun just in case anyway? In my car, hall, lounge, kitchen, bedroom, childrens bedroom, garage?

---

The matter is even crazier when you think that the only way to really be certain that your gun will be effective is to basically ambush the baddie. Choose your position in good cover, wait till the baddie is in a distance where you can drop them with the first shot...not a firefight like all the John Waynes imagine.
In other words not as defensive weapons when the baddie already has his heater out, so basically it only would be effective if every time somebody knocks at the door, you send a few rounds thru the door at a little less than chest height, wait a second--cuase the baddie was probably standing to the side---then 2-4 rounds thru the door (cause after the first salvo, the baddie is probably now in front of the door ready to kick in in. The first 2 rounds were just a feint...)

Of get even bigger gun that you know will go right thru the wall and send 2 rounds thru the wall on each side of the door.

Simple.

then open the door to see who it was.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

. . . .The actual implications if what you've just said is that the actions of Timothy McVeigh were in fact justified because he thought he was doing precisely as you suggested.

---

Ouch! :blackeye:

:s mokin:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

... I don't honestly expect that you'd be able to do that in the US.

---

What, leave the cats inside? :p :

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by schmenke

The USA is no longer lacking a full-time, standing armed force.
The USA no longer lives in fear from invasion by the British, French or any other foreign nation.
The USA no longer is subject to internal fragmentation resulting in potential armed conflict.
The USA no longer lacks regulated law enforcement.
...

:mark:

---

Not one of those has one single thing to do with why we have the Second Amendmnet or firearms.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by race aficionado

You need protection from your government? Use the power of the VOTE and forget about your gun(s).

---

That does what good when the government appoints Supreme Court judges not to defend the Constitution but to make it say what the Administration says?

Judges are appointed for life.
Those who ridiculed Gingrich for his statement on judges are either morons, or at best, socialists who realize how dangerous such a presidency, who defines the Supreme Court as just one part of the Federal Government, also subject to the will of the people, would be to their socialist engineering.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by race aficionado

Bob. What are you afraid of?

---

Nothing as it stands, nor do I intend to let things ride till I have reason to be.

Any one who waits till misery, evil or the enemy has arrived is a fool who deserves anything either of the tree can bring down on that one's life.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

What use is one's Liberty if your Life itself is removed. The entire culture of American society itself has been shaped on the premise that people need guns.

---

That is where you rhetoric falls apart.
It is based on the premise that they have the right to have or not to have as they see fit, not as any government force of any type should be able to decide.

I know people who have tens to dozens of firearms, most of which have not been fired nor ever will be.
Many of the ones unfired, both rifle and handgun, are the ones that make bullet proof vests worthless but would work well on a Cape Bufflalo.

I fired a 20mm Solothurn anti-tank rifle that was for sale, with ammunition.
IF I had the, substantial, money for the rifle, all I would have to do is pay the two hundred dollars, file the paperwork and I could take it home and have it sitting fully-loaded in the living room should I so decide.

If I filed the proper paper work, payed the four figure permit fee, I could buy and sell without the two hundred dollar fee, most any military/poliice weapon I could afford, at prices a minimum of one half of those payed by people without that permit.
There is a pilot in the U.S. who recently recieved ATF permissiom tp have fully functional machines gun in the wings of his WWII fighter.
Even in the comparative sad state we are in, God bless the fact I live in the U.S. of A.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by janvanvurpa

The matter is even crazier when you think that the only way to really be certain that your gun will be effective is to basically ambush the baddie. Choose your position in good cover, wait till the baddie is in a distance where you can drop them with the first shot...not a firefight like all the John Waynes imagine.
In other words not as defensive weapons when the baddie already has his heater out, so basically it only would be effective if every time somebody knocks at the door, you send a few rounds thru the door at a little less than chest height, wait a second--cuase the baddie was probably standing to the side---then 2-4 rounds thru the door (cause after the first salvo, the baddie is probably now in front of the door ready to kick in in. The first 2 rounds were just a feint...)

Of get even bigger gun that you know will go right thru the wall and send 2 rounds thru the wall on each side of the door.

Simple.

then open the door to see who it was.

---

Any one who would be that stupid deserves to be shot dead by the baddie, fortunately such fairy tale things are just that fairy tales created by liberals.

At the same time, when as a landlord I was threatened with firearm violence in front of the police we had called, I asked later how long I had to wait if he was serious.
The police officer said shoot him through the door.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

The actual implications if what you've just said is that the actions of Timothy McVeigh were in fact justified because he thought he was doing precisely as you suggested.

---

The winner of ANY conflict determines what is, or is not, just.

He lost.

At the same time, Koresh lost, but in the aftermath, a great deal more than a few peole, believe the government was the evil agressor in that case.
Of course when the Feds. burn alive women and children, it is not hard to see why.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by henners88

Or perhaps they are just unlucky if they find themselves in that situation in the first place. Arming yourself just in case you happen to be robbed or attacked with a firearm is just total madness where I am from. Where would I keep this gun just in case anyway? In my car, hall, lounge, kitchen, bedroom, childrens bedroom, garage?

---

Why would it be madness?

Do you have some paranoid fear of a firearm?

Do you live fully believing some sort of Bogey man nightmare will have if one has firearms in the house?

If it is never used in defense, one can A: leave it sit til the day he dies, B: Go out and practice with it, C: Every now and then clean and service it, so it function properly or D: make part of a collection.
In your world there is E: live in constant state of nightmare fear that the gun will suddnely rise up and shoot innocent women and children.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

The winner of ANY conflict determines what is, or is not, just.
He lost.

---

Would you say that the courts acted justly?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by schmenke

The USA is no longer lacking a full-time, standing armed force.
The USA no longer lives in fear from invasion by the British, French or any other foreign nation.
The USA no longer is subject to internal fragmentation resulting in potential armed conflict.
The USA no longer lacks regulated law enforcement.
...

:mark:

---

I said in a previous post none of those apply, number three does and what you said is bs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

Would you say that the courts acted justly?

---

Yes -but honetly only if Muslim terrorists convicted, related to attacks that caused death, also recieved the same sentence,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

Not one of those has one single thing to do with why we have the Second Amendmnet or firearms.

---

Did you forget what the Second Amendment actually says:

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by schmenke

The USA is no longer lacking a full-time, standing armed force.
The USA no longer lives in fear from invasion by the British, French or any other foreign nation.
The USA no longer is subject to internal fragmentation resulting in potential armed conflict.
The USA no longer lacks regulated law enforcement.

---

schmenke's argument is that "A well regulated militia" is no longer "necessary to the security of a free state". I think that's entirely fair and reasonable. Every single one of those statements has to do with the first clause of Second Amendment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

Did you forget what the Second Amendment actually says:

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.




schmenke's argument is that "A well regulated militia" is no longer "necessary to the security of a free state". I think that's entirely fair and reasonable. Every single one of those statements has to do with the first clause of Second Amendment.

---

The National Guard, which is legally under the control of each Governor of a State or Territory, is considered the modern equivalent of a militia.
As happened in the civil war, if this country had another full scale internal war, it would probably not be just private firearms against the military.
They are called civilian soldiers, and will choose their own masters.


The militia statement is a separate point from the right of the people to keep and bear arm but both are addressed by the closing statement-- SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
Only bearing arms is an absolute right.
The Supreme Court made that absolute definition just recently. To do otherwise makes grammar in law worthless.

The commas that separates the militia from the right to keep and bear arms and from "shall not be infringed" makes them separate points.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

The National Guard, which is legally under the control of each Governor of a State or Territory, is considered the modern equivalent of a militia.

---

No. It does not:
10 USC § 311 - Militia: composition and classes | LII / Legal Information Institute
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

The commas that separates the militia from the right to keep and bear arms and from "shall not be infringed" makes them separate points.

---

So what? Big fat deal:

Hammock v. Loan & Trust Co. - 105 U.S. 77 (1881) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center
Section 49 of chapter 37, Rev.Stat. Ill., 1874 (p. 332), is to be construed as if there was no comma between the words "to hear and determine motions" and the words "to dissolve injunctions." Punctuation is no part of a statute.

Even if your statement were to be true, several versions of the constitution have two, three or even five commas. The statute must be read as a whole. schmenke's argument still is completely valid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

No. It does not:
10 USC § 311 - Militia: composition and classes | LII / Legal Information Institute
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.



So what? Big fat deal:

Hammock v. Loan & Trust Co. - 105 U.S. 77 (1881) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center
Section 49 of chapter 37, Rev.Stat. Ill., 1874 (p. 332), is to be construed as if there was no comma between the words "to hear and determine motions" and the words "to dissolve injunctions." Punctuation is no part of a statute.

Even if your statement were to be true, several versions of the constitution have two, three or even five commas. The statute must be read as a whole. schmenke's argument still is completely valid.

---

I said-- CONSIDERED-- and on your second point the U.S. Supreme Court says you and he are WRONG.

You forgot this:


(b)The classes of the militia are—
(1)the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2)the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

I said-- CONSIDERED-- and on your second point the U.S. Supreme Court says you and he are WRONG.

---

Where? Considering, I've just shown you a Supreme Court case proving otherwise. Please provide proof.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lousada

Sorry, I find that a little hard to believe. Could you please give me your source for that to prove me wrong??

---

Even the newspapers in the Euro region will give you that information. UK is violent crime capital of Europe - Telegraph

You can use just about any database and the robbery, assault, rape, property crimes, etc are higher in most of Eurpope than they are in the US. From what I can find the rates are falling faster in the US also. The murder rate is the one place that the US lags in.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by janvanvurpa

Murder - Crime in the United States 2004
Victim/Offender Relationships

Of the homicides for which law enforcement provided supplemental data to the UCR Program, the victim-offender relationship was unknown for 44.1 percent of the victims. For the incidents in which the relationships were known, 76.8 percent of the victims knew their killers and 23.2 percent were slain by strangers. Among the incidents in which the victims knew their killers, 29.8 percent were murdered by family members and 70.2 percent were killed by acquaintances. (Based on Table 2.11.) The 2004 data also revealed that 33.0 percent of female victims were killed by their husbands or boyfriends, and 2.7 percent of the male victims were slain by their wives or girlfriends. (Based on Tables 2.4 and 2.11.)

Murder - Crime in the United States 2004

---

That data hasn't changed much in recent years, but the data within the expanded databases shows a much larger view of the overall picture.

FBI

In particular if one views the racial profiles and the Metropolitan Statistical Areas, it becomes obvious where the majority of violent crime takes place. FBI
If essentially any gang related area is compared the rates rise substantially over other areas.

On an overall basis, crime rates in the US have been dropping for years.

FBI

More and more states are allowed concealed carry permits and various "castle" laws, which also extend to vehicles in a number of states now. If guns are the cause of so many crimes, why are the crime rates dropping when legal gun ownership laws are becoming more relaxed?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by airshifter

T
More and more states are allowed concealed carry permits and various "castle" laws, which also extend to vehicles in a number of states now. If guns are the cause of so many crimes, why are the crime rates dropping when legal gun ownership laws are becoming more relaxed?

---

Who said "guns are the cause of so many crimes"? Not me.. false argument F- (I have said that the ready availability of handguns allows even the laziest, and stupidest, meth-ed out or drunken fool or paranoid civilian or the memeber of the Gang in Blue to rapidly escalate a situation to deadly levels....

Just today in my city a totem pole was raised in memorium to an old local woodcarver---who like me was somewhat deaf---who was murdered by some 27 year old punk who decided in about 7 seconds from when jumped out of his car and shouted 3 times in 3 second STOP, that this old guy facing away needed to die and in cold blood shot (5 or 6 shots) the guy down...The Police oversight Committee said it was a bad shooting. And, of course, the cop was allowed to resign..)
Too rapid escalation to fatal levels...


Correlation does not imply causation... another false argument. F-

It could just as likely be rising global temperature and decreasing number of pirates worldwide since the 1600s.
http://montaraventures.com/pix/piratestats.jpg
Oh wait, that was the poof the the FSM was the creator of the Universe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by janvanvurpa

Just today in my city a totem pole was raised in memorium to an old local woodcarver---who like me was somewhat deaf---who was murdered by some 27 year old punk who decided in about 7 seconds from when jumped out of his car and shouted 3 times in 3 second STOP, that this old guy facing away needed to die and in cold blood shot (5 or 6 shots) the guy down...The Police oversight Committee said it was a bad shooting. And, of course, the cop was allowed to resign..)
Too rapid escalation to fatal levels...

---

So you are arguing for the police to not be armed?????

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

The National Guard, which is legally under the control of each Governor of a State or Territory, is considered the modern equivalent of a militia.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

No. It does not:
10 USC § 311 - Militia: composition and classes | LII / Legal Information Institute
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

---

So where does any of that refute Bob's point that the National Guard is today's militia, and that it's controled by State Governers?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

Did you forget what the Second Amendment actually says:

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.

---

What about the Indiana State Constitution that says:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Indiana State Constitution Article 1 Section 32

The people shall have a right to bear arms, for the defense of themselves and the State.

---

Is your argument that I, as a citizen of the State of Indiana, can only own a gun for militia purposes? Or can I own one for personal protection?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by janvanvurpa

Who said "guns are the cause of so many crimes"? Not me.. false argument F- (I have said that the ready availability of handguns allows even the laziest, and stupidest, meth-ed out or drunken fool or paranoid civilian or the memeber of the Gang in Blue to rapidly escalate a situation to deadly levels....

Just today in my city a totem pole was raised in memorium to an old local woodcarver---who like me was somewhat deaf---who was murdered by some 27 year old punk who decided in about 7 seconds from when jumped out of his car and shouted 3 times in 3 second STOP, that this old guy facing away needed to die and in cold blood shot (5 or 6 shots) the guy down...The Police oversight Committee said it was a bad shooting. And, of course, the cop was allowed to resign..)
Too rapid escalation to fatal levels...


Correlation does not imply causation... another false argument. F-

It could just as likely be rising global temperature and decreasing number of pirates worldwide since the 1600s.
http://montaraventures.com/pix/piratestats.jpg
Oh wait, that was the poof the the FSM was the creator of the Universe.

---

I was simply citing statistics concerning the point I made, that you then added the relationship information to. As for the correlation/causation, once again I agree. Crime rates were on the decline before most of these gun laws changed. But as such it seems to indicate that the issue was not one of guns, but influenced by other factors.

As for the cop shooting an innocent, this happens all too often. I personally think that if laws are stricter concerning crimes against cops than the inverse should apply. It is a double standard that punishes people to a greater degree for many actions against a cop, but when a cop does something wrong they are less accountable. This should IMO also apply to crimes much less severe than shooting someone, such as traffic violations.

Here's a twist to gun laws....

Here in Virginia legislation was introduced to allow for the "castle doctrine". The bill passed the House and Senate, but was then killed at the request of the original sponsor. It seems that even pro gun groups were unhappy with the wording of the bill, and made it clear that they wanted proper and clear wording that described when the use of deadly force was justified and would not face civil or criminal liability.

Supporters seek more power in 'castle doctrine' bill | HamptonRoads.com | PilotOnline.com

Apparently in Kennesaw, Georgia it's illegal for homeowners not to own a gun, unless they are convicted felons, conscientious objectors or disabled:

Bored.com - Dumb and Crazy Laws

Quote:

---

• A Kennesaw, Ga. law makes it illegal for every homeowner not to own a gun, unless you are a convicted felon, conscientious objector or disabled.

---

This Georgian law makes more sense:

Quote:

---

• Donkeys may not be kept in bathtubs.

---

I hope donkeys are allowed to sponge bath or shower instead. Nobody likes a smelly donkey.

In Maine,they truly believe the US hasn't changed since the Constitution was signed:

Quote:

---

• Shotguns are required to be taken to church in the event of a Native American attack.

---

Minnesota:

Quote:

---

• Any person over the age of 12 may have a license for a handgun as long as he/she has not been convicted of a felony.

---

I can see a 12 year old applying for a gun license:

License giver: "Have you ever been convicted of a felony?"

12 year old: "Not yet. I need a gun first"

License giver: "OK, here's your license."

Some people are trying to make sure the operation in Afghanistan will fail:

Fox News - Breaking News Updates | Latest News Headlines | Photos & News Videos

Quote:

---

A U.S. service member came out of his base in southern Afghanistan on Sunday and started shooting Afghan civilians, the provincial governor said.
People were both killed and wounded in the shooting spree in Panjwai district of Kandahar province, Gov. Tooryalai Wesa told reporters, though he did not provide numbers.

NATO forces spokesman Justin Brockhoff said a U.S. service member had been detained as the alleged shooter but did not provide details on the incident. He said the coalition had reports of "multiple wounded" but none killed. The wounded were receiving treatment at NATO medical facilities, he said.
The service member was being held at a NATO base and U.S. forces are investigating the shooting in cooperation with Afghan authorities, Brockhoff said. He said it was not clear if the alleged shooter knew the victims.
The shooting comes after weeks of tense relations between U.S. forces and their Afghan hosts following the burning of Korans and other religious materials at an American base. Though U.S. officials apologized and said the burning was an accident, the incident sparked violent protests and attacks that killed some 30 people. Six U.S. troops have been killed in attacks by their supposed Afghan colleagues since the Koran burnings came to light.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by N4D13

I must admit that I've never understood why guns are so important for people in the US. I know that it's a part of their culture, but is it really reasonable that anyone should have access to firearms? I don't see why anyone should have access to firearms - let alone military-spec weapons - besides from policemen and people in the military.

I can't come up with a reason why it should be allowed to have a gun in your house. I've heard a lot of times that people want to have guns to defend themselves, but, in my opinion, the only reason because people would want to defend themselves is because there are too many weapons in the US. If everyone has guns, you would need them, right? But wouldn't it be just a lot safer if no-one had them? We don't have this problem in most European countries - no one seems to think that having guns at home is necessary or simply safer.

Oh, and while this last part might be off-topic, I would also like to point out that there's something which I find extremely absurd about U.S. laws, and it's that, should a burglar enter your house, you could just kill him/her on the spot and it would be totally fine. Is this reasonable? I don't think that killing someone is justified, whether they are burglars or anything else.

---

Well put.
If no one had weapons they would have a much safer country, just like we have in Europe.
The hysteria about terrorism and Patriot Act and what not just added another layer in the minds of people who already were convinced that they need weapons.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eki

Some people are trying to make sure the operation in Afghanistan will fail:

Fox News - Breaking News Updates | Latest News Headlines | Photos & News Videos

---

It was never going to be successful anyway, but all this crap just makes it worse, while also showing how unreal the supposed good relationship between NATO and Afghan authorities is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

Well put.
If no one had weapons they would have a much safer country, just like we have in Europe.
The hysteria about terrorism and Patriot Act and what not just added another layer in the minds of people who already were convinced that they need weapons.

---

Well you have finally convinced me! I am ditching all my hand guns and taking up PETN - It is way easier and you don't have to aim

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

If no one had weapons they would have a much safer country, just like we have in Europe.

---

http://www.holocaustresearchproject....tzinpoland.gif

http://www.iamgeorgian.org/wp-conten...rgia_war05.jpg

http://static.guim.co.uk/Guardian/wo...-expe-1559.jpg

http://www.monografias.com/trabajos5.../Image2647.jpg





Yep.....Safe place Europe with all those gun control laws.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anthonyvop

Yep.....Safe place Europe with all those gun control laws.

---

And with you coming to Europe with a firearm not licenced for use over here, and proceeding to brandish it. Allegedly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anthonyvop

http://www.holocaustresearchproject....tzinpoland.gif

http://www.iamgeorgian.org/wp-conten...rgia_war05.jpg

http://static.guim.co.uk/Guardian/wo...-expe-1559.jpg

http://www.monografias.com/trabajos5.../Image2647.jpg





Yep.....Safe place Europe with all those gun control laws.

---

What do gun control laws got to do with those pictures? In the Finnish civil war the Red Guard got guns from Russia and the White Guard from Sweden and Germany. No licenses asked.

I'm sure the Cuban revolutionaries weren't using just their own personal guns they had stockpiled freely before the revolution. Correct me if I'm wrong.