Printable View
The point is that Tony is, as ever, desperately keen to show us that he can key the phrase 'SPURIOUS EVIDENCE FROM CRAP MEDIA OUTLETS OF EUROPEAN VIOLENCE' into Google. It's not a bad skill, but it's no substitute for actual knowledge.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rollo
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rollo
That is obvious that the people of the Netherlands are victims of a repressive government and should be allowed to defend themselves as only a fool would think the police will.
Another victory for Gun Control
At least 9 people shot in early hours of new year - Chicago Sun-Times
While it's not exactly called the "Magnum 45", there are several firearms chambered for the .45 Win Mag cartridge. Two of the more popular models are the AMT Automag IV and the LAR Grizzly. And I *believe* there is a barrel for the Thompson Encore single shot pistol which is chambered for that round. I can personally attest to the effectiveness of that round in the AMT Automag, having used one to take down a wild boar with one shot at roughly 40 yards. Compared to the .44 magnum (in a revolver), I much prefer the .45 Win Mag (in a semi-auto). IMO, it's a sweet and ideal round. The recoil is much less, the muzzle velocity is relatively high, it's more controllable and the knock-down is just as good +/- as the "Dirty Harry" caliber. It (the AMT and I suspect the LAR too) is a big heavy beast of a weapon though.Quote:
Originally Posted by anthonyvop
I haven't read or heard Morgan's comments on this (or most any) issue - have no idea what he's on about. But yeah, there is a "Magnum 45"/.45 magnum.
Yes, we do have an entitlement class (of sorts) and we also have a very similar class which is delusional in its belief that the overly generous benefits extended to the ultra wealthy also benefit them - all while they feed from the same trough as the people who they look down upon. While they themselves are collecting SSI, disability, food stamps, Section 8 housing, discounted school lunches, etc., they (somehow) don't see themselves as takers... yet they most certainly are (more so than the "blue states", the "red states" tend to get more from the Federal pot than they put into the Federal pot... that's simply a fact - that has absolutely NOTHING to do with this discussion). IMO, there are too many extremists and ideologues on both sides. But right now, sadly, the far right seems to have fairly well taken control of what once was a fairly rational, sensible party, that could intelligently present alternate views, and made it a sad joke... by spouting all manner of baseless propaganda, foolishness and ignorance at every turn. Social conservatives and extremists posing as fiscal conservatives... and most of them couldn't pass a basic Econ 101 course taught at a community college. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by anthonyvop
Here is an example of the political hypocrisy which I am speaking about. I find it extremely amusing to observe people who are, in fact, that which they claim to abhor. And yes, I am aware of the source of this video. But I am also well aware that the portrayal is not entirely inaccurate.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y54rcz_L5Q4
But as this has nothing to do with the topic at hand, and I have no intention of being pulled off topic, I won't address this again.
By "firearms" I mean those weapons covered under the National Firearms Act of 1934, the Gun Control Act of 1968 and the Firearm Owners' Protection Act of 1986. In short, basically any modern weapon, produced after 1898(?), which fires a rimfire or centerfire cartridge which is still in production.Quote:
Originally Posted by race aficionado
It varies from state to state. The way our laws work, a state law (most any state law) may be more restrictive, but not less restrictive, than the corresponding Federal law. So while a civilian may be allowed to purchase a semi-auto .50 cal Barrett in my state (because Federal law allows it and our state law does not prohibit it), I don't believe it is legal for purchase in California and several other states. And while I'm not arguing for the practicality of this particular firearm, as far as I know, it has never been used in the commission of any crime in the United States. It's not exactly small or concealable. Even someone my size would have trouble lugging that beast around to do any dirt with it.Quote:
What weapons are you, Mr. Jag_Warrior, civilian, allowed to purchase legally? And as many as you wish?
As for types of weapons which are (Federally) available, most any weapon which falls within the above statutes is available for civilians to purchase, unless their state prohibits it. It is legally possible (Federally) for civilians to purchase certain select fire and fully automatic weapons here - it's just not very easy (or cost effective). But only certain ones produced before 1986 are legal. And to make the purchase, it can occur only after submitting oneself to a very thorough FBI background check, being willing and able to pay a Title II fee to the ATF and realizing that your name will be on a hot list with any and all local and state police agencies. This is probably why there have been no murders with legally owned civilian full or select fire weapons in several decades. The last one that I'm aware of was by a rogue FBI agent who murdered his prostitute girlfriend/mistress. I'm not actually certain of the last instance of a (actual) civilian using a legally owned full/select fire weapon to commit a crime. I just don't know. But apparently it's extremely rare. But now, there are quite a few illegally owned full auto and select fire weapons though. Typically they are smuggled into the U.S. by the Russian/Israeli mob, Mexican cartels and Chinese smugglers. And they are mostly in the hands of organized crime and street gangs. The money for and from these transactions has flowed through some/most of the biggest money center banks, like Bank of America, Well Fargo and HSBC.
You do know that "the media" isn't one single entity but is composed of hundreds if not thousands of publications, TV and radio networks, and increasingly bloggers and Tweeters, yes? Once you start making out that there's some mass conspiracy at work you really do lose the tiny shard of remaining credibility.Quote:
Originally Posted by anthonyvop
And would your propose that these stay as is? I notice that the term "assault weapon" has too many deviations and loop holes (definitions)Quote:
Originally Posted by Jag_Warrior
How would you categorize what you Jag_Warrior, civilian :) is allowed to carry or keep safe at your home?
Quote:
Originally Posted by anthonyvop
Yeah, sure. Victims of a repressive government, that's one of the funniest things I have ever read about my country. (That's a Dutch flag next to my name, in case you didn't know)
Under my reforms, it would be (actually is even now) illegal for a person with a confirmed mental disability or who has been convicted of certain crimes to even possess a single round of ammunition. One .22 caliber bullet in your pocket and you go away for a minimum of 10 years and a max of 20 years. But unlike now, under my reforms, it won't matter if you're a cute little blue-eyed blonde, who never missed church, whether or not you were high or drunk when you committed the crime that brought you a violent felony conviction, or even if your dear old daddy is the governor of the state - you are going to prison under the Jag_Warrior Reforms. For once, justice will be blind... though rather cold - but I believe this would be effective. Anyway, that being the case, it goes without saying that these people could not possess semi or fully automatic weapons either, so I didn't see the need to pull them out for separate penalties. But I'm perfectly fine with adding even more time to a sentence if a criminal is found to be in possession of a Title II weapon of any type. Apparently they had a (non-functional) rocket launcher turned in on that L.A. gun buyback program the other day. Now that's pretty interesting. I bet they didn't buy that thing at a gun show or at Walmart, huh? :D It didn't work, but still, that should tell people that we've got some things floating around on our streets that indicate the source for these weapons is a key issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rollo
Nigel has already provided a very good explanation of how the system is set up now. Though I could now be convinced that the system should be enhanced (to provide for longer term traceability), possessing any firearm without serial numbers is a quick ticket to jail right now... in any state - it's a Federal law.Quote:
When I register a motor car in NSW, the Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) and Engine number are recorded. I'm wondering if this database which you propose should include standardised serial numbers (which the manufacturers would agree to) and if parts don't match up, it should raise flags in the system.
Hey, I know that we're not capable of solving this (or any) problem on a message board, but is anyone else also getting the feeling that once we took some of the emotion and propaganda out of it, and started discussing facts and data, we've been able to talk with each other and not just at each other? And to the members who don't live in the U.S. (and maybe to some of those who do), as we discuss, ask and learn more about the (actual) existing gun laws in the U.S., I believe that the discussion will get even better and more constructive. It's not about bending anyone's opinion or making them change their position. But at least we'd all be speaking based on data and facts and not just emotion. Cool?
I would strongly suggest the term be eliminated from the vernacular altogether... It is misleading, inaccurate and selectively used by those with a particular agenda when convenient. In general those that advocate the outright ban of civilian posession of all firearms. The assault weapons ban of 1994 did one thing... it created an industry by clearly defining what it could not be while totally missing the opportunity to actually define the characteristics of the targeted types of weapons it was supposedly intended to restrict. I've yet to see one report of a civilian killed by a bayonet attack or a flash supressor, and I have no idea how a collapsible stock vs a fixed stock changes the equation other than possibly making them more concealable. Banning so called machine pistols was about a close as they actually got.Quote:
Originally Posted by race aficionado
Why is there ANY confusion over what is termed a firearm? Firearms are guns, plain and simple. "Arms" as protected by the Second are NOT restricted to FIREarms. Knives, spears, swords, stunguns, are all protected, however there are indeed restrictions on all of these at the state level as well. You want restrictions, regulations, prohibitions, that is up to teh state as Jag_Warrior pointed out.
ENFORCE the LAWS we already have.
I doubt he did.Quote:
Originally Posted by EightGear