Home | Ezine | Forums | Links | Contact
NitroExpress.com: Assault weapons

View recent messages : 24 hours | 48 hours | 7 days | 14 days | 30 days | 60 days | More Smilies


*** Enjoy NitroExpress.com? Participate and join in. ***
You are not logged in. [Login] Main Index · Search · Active Topics
New user · Who's Online · FAQ · Calendar

Shooting & Reloading - Mausers, Big Bores and others >> Rifles
Previous topic Previous   View all topics Index   Next topic Next   Threaded Mode Threaded  

Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | >> (show all)
iqbal
resigned as a member


Reged: 05/02/03
Posts: 778
Loc: Karachi,Pakistan
Assault weapons
      #2922 - 23/05/03 03:23 AM

An extensive variety of assault weapons are being manufactured in many countries primarily for use by armed forces or law enforcement agencies.Though not for civilian use these weapons find their way in the arms market & can easily be obtained if one has the proper contacts.How else would the terrorist survive if thses weapons were not available freely.For instance in my country an AK47 or M16 is easily available for $300 to $400.The fallout from the Afghan/Soviet war resulted in an influx of all types of weapons including grenades,rocket launchers,RPG's and even Stinger missiles.
Regarding assault rifles i have had the opportunity to fire quite a few including the AK47,M16,Draganov,Uzi,G3,MP5 etc.Out of all these rifles the two that impressed me the most were the AK47 &the M16.The former for its ruggedness & performance under the worst climatic or other conditions & the latter because of its accuracy.Although i do not own any of these weapons nor intend to get one i would like comments from fellow members regarding the right to own such weapons,their usefulness,if any,and the best assault rifle in their opinion.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
NitroXAdministrator
.700 member


Reged: 25/12/02
Posts: 39189
Loc: Barossa Valley, South Australi...
Re: Assault weapons [Re: iqbal]
      #2937 - 24/05/03 11:50 PM

iqbal

Assault rifles, sub machine guns etc have always been banned here. Also as Australia is an island continent and we have never had warfare on our soils except for bombing attacks on Darwin and Northern Australia during WW2 and Jap midget submarine attacks on Sydney harbour. So the supply of such weapons from civil strife has never been an issue. Therefore outside of military or official sources they would be very rare ...

BUT I was very surprised to see an article in a local paper several years ago where a local police constable was holding two very nice MP5 Hecklor and Koch sub-machine guns. They had been found in the possession of a local who said "he was trying to sell them to a film company as props."

My first thought was where can I get one!

Then during the gun buy back a man turned in under the amnesty a twin barrelled 20 mm automatic aircraft cannon and claimed $300,000 compensation! He had it sitting in his backyard shed.

So you never know what is out there.

I used to have an SKK semi-automatic which doesn't come close to an AK47 and really was just for a bit of fun. Got confiscated during the gun buy-back. (Replace it though with something better )

But to the point. I don't think citizens need assault rifles at all for sporting purposes. The only exception would be for assault target shooting type competitions. On the other hand if a person is sensible I can't see why a licensed person can not have one. A problem here is the looney tunes tend to be attracted to this sort of firearm. But I think if carefully controlled ownership would be acceptable.

Note ownership of firearms for self defence is not a valid reason to own a firearm in Australia. Which I do NOT agree with.

As to the best one. The Australian Army used to use the SLR or Self Loading Rifle, a variation of the FN FAL. I think the FN FAL is a fine rifle for those who are well trained enough to use it well.

The AK47 is a rugged simple weapon and very effective in its purpose.


--------------------
John aka NitroX

...
Govt get out of our lives NOW!
"I love the smell of cordite in the morning."
"A Sharp spear needs no polish"

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
SafariHunt
.333 member


Reged: 02/01/03
Posts: 468
Loc: Pretoria RSA
Re: Assault weapons [Re: iqbal]
      #3216 - 05/06/03 06:21 PM

Iqbal,

We have the same problem over here in RSA all ex-Russian weapons from Angola and especially Mozambique can be bought on the street for very cheap the ammo on the other hand is very expensive so what they do is practically give away the AK 47 and let you pay trough your arse for the ammo !

I was once help up in at a filling station with a tokarev in my back !

--------------------
"Sleeping under the African sky I can see nothing wrong with this world!"

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
RLI
.375 member


Reged: 01/10/03
Posts: 534
Loc: Victoria, Australia
Re: Assault weapons [Re: SafariHunt]
      #91069 - 09/12/07 09:10 PM

The mobile/cell phone companies must have learned from this i.e. cheap phone expensive calls!! back to the subject give me a Lithgow SLR L1A1 7.62 anytime over the others!

--------------------
"Life is tough, but it's tougher when you're stupid." — John Wayne

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
peter
removed


Reged: 11/04/07
Posts: 1493
Loc: denmark
Re: Assault weapons [Re: RLI]
      #91070 - 09/12/07 09:42 PM

never understood autoguns and i have shot quite a few, it is to me a lot about missing a lot instead of concentrate on hitting with your first shot. i understand the semiauto guns and even burst fire guns if several targets are to be engaged in fast order but fullauto guns is an answer to question i cant understand.

if you need to spread a lot of death use a grenade, if multiple targets are the order of the day a semiauto will do a better job.


regards peter

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
hoppdoc
.400 member


Reged: 02/03/06
Posts: 1791
Loc: Southeastern USA
Re: Assault weapons [Re: peter]
      #91073 - 10/12/07 12:09 AM

For most purposes the semiauto will be far better--

A full auto just sprays shots unless you practice alot in the 3round burst mode.

Do I think there is a need for civilians to have semi auto's? Absolutely!!! Autos?? Fun but generally just a waste of ammo.

The AK knock offs are cheaper but not "politically correct" and tend to ID you as a bad guy in the states.They can get you shot easier by the police too!!No protective vest usually used will protect against them.Police tend to react quickly if they are seen.

IMHO-Best bang for the buck is the Ruger "ranch" gun in 7.62x39-
A used ruger is relatively cheap,requires little maintenance and can be carried year round in a hot truck. They can be also be accuratized somewhat.AR-15's are great if kept clean and oiled but are pricey($1000-1500)and foul up with dirt/crud if ignored.If money is no problem the AR-15 with the 6.8mm caliber upper is the ticket and a great gun being extremely accurate at distance as well.

Hope I never have to use a firearm on a perp but better to be prepared.The rifle in your truck is also a great backup for the handgun you carry as well.

It's not about laws keeping arms from all civilians, its about innocents having the ability to protect self and family.A semiauto works just fine and I always end up using it several times a year at home on vermin/coyotes and at the hunting club--
A good truck rifle is great to have handy when a rifle is needed.At home they always seem harder to access safely with children about.Thats as it should be.Safety first!!

--------------------
An armed man is a citizen of his country, an unarmed man just a subject.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
9.3x57
.450 member


Reged: 22/04/07
Posts: 5501
Loc: United States
Re: Assault weapons [Re: hoppdoc]
      #91109 - 10/12/07 08:05 AM

Hello Iqbal!

I can't comment on other people's laws but here in the USA this question is timely.

The purpose behind the 2nd Amendment of our Constitution is to provide a threat against tyrrany. That threat comes from an armed populace. That populace must have reasonably similar life goals and personal ethics, obviously, or anarchy results. It is in the face of much moral and political confusion that our supreme court must weigh in on this subject. It will not be easy!

In the USA we have no Federal constitutional right to hunt. Thus the weapons protected under the 2nd Amendment must have some "military" usefulness. This is a fly in the ointment for the courts but it was peripherally discussed and reviewed in the 1930's case involving short barrel weapons. How the Court will rule on this very touchy subject is a tough one to predict but I suspect they will skirt it to the best of their ability.

In the USA, Federal restrictions fully automatic weapons are very easy to comply with and thus Federal law is no bar to ownership of fully automatic weapons. They are easy to get under Federal law, but...

The states may add further restrictions and many states do. I have owned machine guns in the past and in my state they are easy to purchase legally. In some states you may not legally own them at all.

One additional fly in the ointment is the 1986 law that bars the continued manufacture or importation for transfer of fully automatic weapons to civilians {non-dealers} in the USA. This law was tagged on to a law that opened up importation of surplus weapons the importation of which had been banned by the 1968 Gun Control Act.

Thus, prices for fully automatic skyrocketed as the supply remained constant and demand grew. Where a Stemple .45 submachine gun could be bought for $300 in 1985, same gun will set you back several thousand dollars today.

In practice, it just might be easier for most people to get ahold of a fully automatic weapon in your country than in ours.

Yes, I believe there are many legitimate reasons for civilians to own both semi- and fully-automatic weapons, but that is an issue of opinion.

--------------------
What are the Rosary, the Cross or the Crucifix other than tools to help maintain the fortress of our faith in Jesus Christ, the Son of God?

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Ripp
.577 member


Reged: 19/02/07
Posts: 16072
Loc: Montana, USA
Re: Assault weapons [Re: 9.3x57]
      #91131 - 10/12/07 01:15 PM

Quote:

Hello Iqbal!

I can't comment on other people's laws but here in the USA this question is timely.

The purpose behind the 2nd Amendment of our Constitution is to provide a threat against tyrrany. That threat comes from an armed populace. That populace must have reasonably similar life goals and personal ethics, obviously, or anarchy results. It is in the face of much moral and political confusion that our supreme court must weigh in on this subject. It will not be easy!

Yes, I believe there are many legitimate reasons for civilians to own both semi- and fully-automatic weapons, but that is an issue of opinion.




As I have heard many times, the second amendment is not about semi or fully automatic weapons--it is about having the "right" to keep and bear arms----,there was no mention of what it type it had to be... which some of the anti's have tried to use against us..stating you must be in the military for the 2nd amendment to apply..

I believe our forefathers had the foresight to keep those in governing power somewhat in check..as stated above, it will be a touchy subject as to how the Supreme Court will rule..

As to the AK-47 and M-16--I have shot several of each in the past.. they are a ton of fun and I agree with the assesment above--teh AK-47 is incredibly durable and will fire under the worst of circumstances--where as the M-16 is indeed very accurate--In the past issue of a monthly gun mag. one of the reporters was embedded with some soldiers for about 45 days.. he came away with the same opinion..he also stated that several in the group he was with could "routinely" take out targets up to 600 meters with the M-16---not sure what they had for optics.. I will check and get back on this..

AND YES--I FEEL IT IS EVERYONE'S right to own whatever firearm they wish ...

For additional info--see the site listed below:

http://www.secondamendment.net/2amd9.html


Ripp

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
hoppdoc
.400 member


Reged: 02/03/06
Posts: 1791
Loc: Southeastern USA
Re: Assault weapons [Re: Ripp]
      #91147 - 10/12/07 02:35 PM

I second Ripp!!

"Ditto"

Nowhere in the US Constitution does it state the type of firearm permissable. The Amendments to our Constitution are RIGHTS and not priveleges--An individual should be permitted to possess any of the firearms under discussion, no problem.

I will still take the Ruger over the AR-15 due to more reliability even with less accuracy.If I anm concerned about a long range affair then there are other guns of preference--308 semiauto's!!

--------------------
An armed man is a citizen of his country, an unarmed man just a subject.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Omnivorous_Bob
.333 member


Reged: 03/10/05
Posts: 285
Loc: Montana
Re: Assault weapons [Re: hoppdoc]
      #91153 - 10/12/07 03:16 PM

I appreciate all of the above responses.

A very key point of our quite fortunate situation in the US is the fact that the Bill of Rights specifically does NOT enumerate rights granted by the government, rather it merely afirms preexisting natural rights, ala Locke, and places it's restraints upon the government, not the governed. I like the 10th amendment even more than the second because it has the 2nd already built within it.

Thus the founders maintained that the right to be armed against tyranny was man's natural condition. By this reasoning, any future restrictive legislation or amendments are irrelevant. Let's all hope the court sees the light on this one!

Bob

--------------------
"If we're not supposed to eat animals, how come they're made out of meat?"

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Ripp
.577 member


Reged: 19/02/07
Posts: 16072
Loc: Montana, USA
Re: Assault weapons [Re: Omnivorous_Bob]
      #91156 - 10/12/07 03:32 PM

Very well stated--AWESOME...

Ripp

--------------------
ALL MEN DIE, BUT FEW MEN TRULY LIVE..

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
BFaucett
.333 member


Reged: 13/01/04
Posts: 449
Loc: Houston, Texas
Re: Assault weapons [Re: Omnivorous_Bob]
      #91157 - 10/12/07 03:35 PM

Some quotes to add to the American perspective:


“As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow-citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.”
--- Tench Coxe, "Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution," in the Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789
http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndnew.html


“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.”
--- Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787).
http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndfqu.html


"The prospect of tyranny may not grab the headlines the way vivid stories of gun crime routinely do. But few saw the Third Reich coming until it was too late. The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed -- where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once. Fortunately, the Framers were wise enough to entrench the right of the people to keep and bear arms within our constitutional structure. The purpose and importance of that right was still fresh in their minds, and they spelled it out clearly so it would not be forgotten."
-- "The Individual's Right to Bear Arms" (May 22, 2003)
by Judge Alex Kozinski, US 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
http://capmag.com/articlePrint.asp?ID=2792

Cheers!
-BobF.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Shackleton
.300 member


Reged: 11/08/07
Posts: 203
Loc: Iowa
Re: Assault weapons [Re: Omnivorous_Bob]
      #91158 - 10/12/07 03:35 PM

Well, M16 makes a great prairie dog/coyote gun if used in semi mode(or as an AR15-lots im my area use the 2 names interchangeably)-if in a capacity restricted area 5-10 round mags are available and the rifle's accurate enough for the work. However, those two targets don't shoot back, and for "assault rifle" type work I'd rather go heavier than the assault rifle class and use the M14.
As far as full auto mode goes, it's great for fun and scaring the enemy but not too practical IMO-I'd rather make the first couple shots count-while in the Guard I fired M16(burst), M60, M249 and MK19 in auto-all fun, but again I'd rather hit first and save the rest of my ammo.-Doesn't change the fact that a semiauto AK with 75 round drum is fun on a range though.

--------------------
"I do not kill with my gun, he who kills with his gun has forgotten the face of his father. I kill with my heart."--Stephen King

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
GoneShootin
.224 member


Reged: 18/07/07
Posts: 31
Loc: Sydney Australia
Re: Assault weapons [Re: Shackleton]
      #91243 - 11/12/07 01:32 PM

I like France's approach to firearms ownership. It is regulated but much more liberal than australia. For instance:

Air rifles and break open shotguns are unregulated, ie no registration, no big deal about those, with air rifles being allowed to be purchased by 9 year olds as long as they have parental consent.

A self defence weapon (handguns) in the home is permitted, provided it doesn't leave the home. Ammo limit is 50 rounds. Given the restrictions, you cant argue with that, it makes sense.

I definately think air rifle should not require registration in australia, its just completely rediculous, the whole idea of them is really something which can be shot in urbanised area, without consequence of a bullet going stray. Its comparable to passing a law which states that classes push bikes the same as motorbikes.

On the 2nd ammendment rights in the states, i believe that the intention of the law suggests to me that anything that the US military are armed with, should be completely legal to its citizens, since technically those same things can be used againts the citizens.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Ripp
.577 member


Reged: 19/02/07
Posts: 16072
Loc: Montana, USA
Re: Assault weapons [Re: GoneShootin]
      #91246 - 11/12/07 01:54 PM

Quote:

I like France's approach to firearms ownership. It is regulated but much more liberal than australia. For instance:

A self defence weapon (handguns) in the home is permitted, provided it doesn't leave the home. Ammo limit is 50 rounds. Given the restrictions, you cant argue with that, it makes sense.





The idea that you can't take your handgun out of the home is something I could argue with.. so where are you going to practice with it?/--set up a range in your basement?? What is wrong with taking a .22 caliber handgun out and shoot some cans, gophers, etc??? Who is that going to endanger? What is the goverment in France so afraid of that gun ownership has to be so censored?

The way I see it--in the US, France, Australia, etc... you have the liberals who are trying to protect everyone from everything.. with their thoughts being basically the general populace is not intelligent enough to take care of themselves..They can't see that no matter what you do, people are going to die, period. Whether that be from airplane accidents, auto accidents, rock climbing, or some crazy nutbag going on a shooting rampage... you can NOT protect everyone from everything...
...such is life...

Ripp

--------------------
ALL MEN DIE, BUT FEW MEN TRULY LIVE..

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
9.3x57
.450 member


Reged: 22/04/07
Posts: 5501
Loc: United States
Re: Assault weapons [Re: GoneShootin]
      #91254 - 11/12/07 04:08 PM

Quote:

On the 2nd ammendment rights in the states, i believe that the intention of the law suggests to me that anything that the US military are armed with, should be completely legal to its citizens, since technically those same things can be used againts the citizens.



I guess I didn't realize the gun laws of Australia had reached a level where the restrictions you identified appear to be lenient. Very helpful insight.

Your statement here sums up perfectly the dilemma facing the Supreme Court. I truly do not know what the founding fathers' view of privately owned artillery was, but at the time of the writing of the 2nd Amendment, the firearms legally available to private citizens were equal in effectiveness to that possessed by the State. This reality existed all the way up to the 1930's with the restriction of machine guns, short barrel weapons, explosive devices, etc. Even then, they were not banned, but rather merely taxed {$200 per gun}.

--------------------
What are the Rosary, the Cross or the Crucifix other than tools to help maintain the fortress of our faith in Jesus Christ, the Son of God?

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
hoppdoc
.400 member


Reged: 02/03/06
Posts: 1791
Loc: Southeastern USA
Re: Assault weapons [Re: GoneShootin]
      #91256 - 11/12/07 04:40 PM

Frances approach to handguns is totally idiotic-they force lawabiding innocent citizens to leave their handguns at home while the perps who don't care about the law use their handguns on those disarmed innocents-

Every individual has the BASIC RIGHT to defend himself from others "evil" and a handgun is the logical portable way to try to even things up somewhat when going against handgun toting felons.Recently a female used a handgun and killed a rifle bearing criminal bent on killing church members in CHURCH!!Several lives were lost but more were saved.

Do I carry outside the home?? What do you think?? How can you protect yourself and others by leaving your guns at home? If the gun is not on my person it is in the safe.

Handguns are not evil,they are inert metal/plastic. It is the criminal who scandalizes handguns and harms innocents causing guilt by association!

--------------------
An armed man is a citizen of his country, an unarmed man just a subject.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
EricD
.416 member


Reged: 27/02/04
Posts: 4636
Re: Assault weapons [Re: Ripp]
      #91273 - 11/12/07 09:56 PM

Quote:



What is the goverment in France so afraid of that gun ownership has to be so censored?





I don't think their problem is that they are afraid of anything really. I have the impression that it has more to do with lulling the ignorant masses (who don't own or even like guns, having been brainwashed by the sensationalized media) into a false sense of security.

It also has to do with being politically correct in regards to what the media demands. And since the majority of the media in Europe is more than slightly slanted to the left, they want the guns to go. The media, and thus the ignorant masses, of course overlook that the bad guys have guns no matter how strict things are for regular, law abiding citizens...

This twisted mentality is the same up here in Norway, where they keep making things harder and harder for gun owners, while the bad guys just sneak what ever they want over the border.

If the leftist civil servants who actually run this country could have it like they really want, we'd all live in cities, not be allowed to own guns, let alone hunt, and obediently eat "Soylent Green" for breakfast lunch and dinner...

I personally don't have much use for an assault weapon in civilian life, but have no problem with other people owning them as long as they are mentally fit to own a gun. There does seem to be a tendency amongst some wackos to gravitate towards such weapons though, so a bit of control isn't all that bad IMO. Such as having no prior criminal records related to violence etc when buying such guns. Or when buying any gun for that sake.

What's very important IMO is that all gun owners stick together, instead of splitting up into interest groups that don't defend each other when the media attacks gun ownership. It seems to me that when things get difficult, the shotgunners, benchrest guys, muzzle loader guys etc etc try to stay as quite as possible so as to not attract attention when the heat is on another group. I fear that this mentality can lead to the downfall of gun ownership in some countries...

Erik

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
hoppdoc
.400 member


Reged: 02/03/06
Posts: 1791
Loc: Southeastern USA
Re: Assault weapons [Re: EricD]
      #91276 - 11/12/07 11:23 PM

The best situation is where the Government butts out--in Alaska and Vermont no "permit" is required to own/carry a handgun. Why? 'Cause criminals don't care and will carry anyway!!

With the Demo liberals now in control of the US House things could get shitty at any time.

California/Massachucetts et al are "collectavist slave" states where the Nanny state detrmines what is socialisticly best for allowed for individual armament to protect the masses.No individual gun rights exist in those states.The California murder solve rate is 33%, one of the worst in the country.

I have no problems with other moral men carrying firearms. I assume everyone is armed after dark.When we had a rash of robberies of sit down restaurants 3 years ago one night I counted eight(8) armed folk by the sloppy way they concealed their handguns(right hip tugging)!!

Should we all hang together?? Absolutely!!

I would hope no one has any bias against individuals defending themselves with ANY weapon!!Governments role should be firearm safety, not firearm control!!

Edited by hoppdoc (11/12/07 11:28 PM)

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
CptCurlAdministrator
.450 member


Reged: 01/05/04
Posts: 5269
Loc: Fincastle, Botetourt County, V...
Re: Assault weapons [Re: hoppdoc]
      #91278 - 11/12/07 11:53 PM

For those of you who are truly interested in how the anti-gunners chip away gun rights you should read this article. It is a scholarly analysis of how the Brits let their gun rights slip away.

GUN PROHIBITION IN ENGLAND

We in the U.S. should keep this in mind and remain vigilant. These recent shootings we have had will give new strength to the anti-gunners.

Curl

--------------------
RoscoeStephenson.com

YOUR DOUBLE RIFLE IS YOUR BEST FRIEND.



Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Ripp
.577 member


Reged: 19/02/07
Posts: 16072
Loc: Montana, USA
Re: Assault weapons [Re: CptCurl]
      #91279 - 12/12/07 12:13 AM

Quote:

We in the U.S. should keep this in mind and remain vigilant. These recent shootings we have had will give new strength to the anti-gunners.

Curl



You are exactely correct---we need to STICK TOGETHER---all in all, we might not agree with everyone or everything but as a collective group the power is enormous..

Ripp

--------------------
ALL MEN DIE, BUT FEW MEN TRULY LIVE..

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
9.3x57
.450 member


Reged: 22/04/07
Posts: 5501
Loc: United States
Re: Assault weapons [Re: EricD]
      #91287 - 12/12/07 01:23 AM

Quote:

I personally don't have much use for an assault weapon in civilian life, but have no problem with other people owning them as long as they are mentally fit to own a gun. There does seem to be a tendency amongst some wackos to gravitate towards such weapons though, so a bit of control isn't all that bad IMO. Such as having no prior criminal records related to violence etc when buying such guns. Or when buying any gun for that sake. Erik



Good points, Erik.

This statement above is quite close to what the courts have ruled in the USA. SOME regulation is allowed. Thus we have a Federal 4473 form, taxation of full auto, various state controls, etc. Gun laws vary TREMENDOUSLY in the USA, with a few states making France look tame {my long-gone home state of New Jersey for example} and others being quite liberal in their gun laws, such as my adopted state of Idaho.

Erik's summation of the sheeplike mentality of European citydwellers is SPOT ON the same here in the USA in highly developed areas where many people expect the "State" to protect them, not knowing or thinking about the reality that the state has no legal liability to do so and can't anyway.

Having said that, the march of shall-issue concealed carry laws has been very steady for many years throughout the USA and many states have instituted liberal carry laws. This is a factor of both the reality that the courts are wary of infringing on the 2nd Amendment right AND the fact that many people who do not hunt and have no use for long arms DO want a pistol for self protection.

As stated before, the foundation of gun ownership in the USA is not "duck hunting". Some years ago I read a paper the thesis of which was that in the 20th Century and including the World Wars, more people were killed by THEIR OWN governments than by ENEMY governments. Citing pogroms in China, Russia/Soviet Union, German killings of their own Jewish and other citizens, Eastern European enforcement of imposed Nazi laws, African state-sponsored genocides, etc, etc, it was quite revealing. Much hinges on the definitions, to be sure, but the basic assertion is a powerful one. Yes, a man's own government is the most likely political threat to his own life.

And our Founding Fathers were cognizant of that fact and never tried to cover it up. Thus not just the 2nd Amendment, but the whole Bill of Rights a protection few other countries have.

In my opinion this is the most essential ingredient to the successful protection of gun rights. And in the absense or erosion of foundational legal principles protecting individual rights, the people of Australia, Norway, or any other country, USA included, will struggle to protect their single-issue gun rights.

Remain vigilant and VOTE.

No "right" is more precious.

--------------------
What are the Rosary, the Cross or the Crucifix other than tools to help maintain the fortress of our faith in Jesus Christ, the Son of God?

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
hoppdoc
.400 member


Reged: 02/03/06
Posts: 1791
Loc: Southeastern USA
Re: Assault weapons [Re: 9.3x57]
      #91322 - 12/12/07 10:05 AM

Once you have inbred socialism in any government where everything is for the benefit of the masses then individual rights are history.

"Best for the masses" doesn't necessarily equate to your personal right to exist--when you strip individuals of rights then the government is empowered and an individuals importance lessened in society.

Government power has traditionally gotten stronger over time-- not good for individual rights.Remember,Ultimately it comes down to what the individual can accomplish to make this a better world--not a Nanny State!!!

The US constitution was written with more restrictions of government(23 times in constitution) than any previous constitution.That is how it should be.Today we see US politicians promote an erosion of the 4th amendment as well as our right to privacy--Not good

All citizens should be vigilant and vote any elected SOB out of office if they don't deliver or have been there like a cancer never retiring--

Be involved -VOTE!!

--------------------
An armed man is a citizen of his country, an unarmed man just a subject.

Edited by hoppdoc (12/12/07 10:07 AM)

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
GoneShootin
.224 member


Reged: 18/07/07
Posts: 31
Loc: Sydney Australia
Re: Assault weapons [Re: hoppdoc]
      #91323 - 12/12/07 11:29 AM

I personally find it disgusting when you see some shooters represent their country for international shooting sports, when gun control is so tight they have to go to another country to train. Like some english shooter who goes to switzerland.

I personally would refuse to represent the country, look for another one to represent, since why should you represent a country which is actually getting in the way of your training, rather than helping you?

I understand the criticism of the french law for a handgun in the home, but so far as NSW if you have an intruder in your home, its still illegal to grab your firearm and use it against them. Technically in NSW any weapon is illegal, all firearms are registered under a "genuine reason" condition, which does not include self defence, therefore using it for defence is a breach of that "genuine reason".

Thats the reason why none of my firearms are "weapons" so to speak, they are all sporting equipment.

BTW the sunday news paper did a write up on the most recent shooter in the states the 19yr old in the shopping mall, saying that he used an AK-47, i thought it was an SKK. I might have to write a letter, am i correct or are they correct.

Thats one thing that pisses me off, in situations like this, where theres a shooting, Everyones an expert.

Edited by GoneShootin (12/12/07 11:37 AM)

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
9.3x57
.450 member


Reged: 22/04/07
Posts: 5501
Loc: United States
Re: Assault weapons [Re: GoneShootin]
      #91325 - 12/12/07 12:25 PM

Quote:

I personally find it disgusting when you see some shooters represent their country for international shooting sports, when gun control is so tight they have to go to another country to train. Like some english shooter who goes to switzerland.

I personally would refuse to represent the country, look for another one to represent, since why should you represent a country which is actually getting in the way of your training, rather than helping you?

I understand the criticism of the french law for a handgun in the home, but so far as NSW if you have an intruder in your home, its still illegal to grab your firearm and use it against them.Technically in NSW any weapon is illegal, all firearms are registered under a "genuine reason" condition, which does not include self defence, therefore using it for defence is a breach of that "genuine reason".

Thats the reason why none of my firearms are "weapons" so to speak, they are all sporting equipment.

BTW the sunday news paper did a write up on the most recent shooter in the states the 19yr old in the shopping mall, saying that he used an AK-47, i thought it was an SKK. I might have to write a letter, am i correct or are they correct.

Thats one thing that pisses me off, in situations like this, where theres a shooting, Everyones an expert.



If I lived in a country where it is "illegal to grab your firearm and use it against" an intruder that was threatening my family, quite honestly I'd find another country.

There are some Goneshootin. One of them is here. Give us a try. We can use more fellows like you in America!


--------------------
What are the Rosary, the Cross or the Crucifix other than tools to help maintain the fortress of our faith in Jesus Christ, the Son of God?

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | >> (show all)


Previous topic Previous   View all topics Index   Next topic Next   Threaded Mode Threaded  

Extra information
0 registered and 28 anonymous users are browsing this forum.

Moderator:   

Print Topic

Forum Permissions
      You cannot start new topics
      You cannot reply to topics
      HTML is disabled
      UBBCode is enabled

Rating:
Topic views: 8387

Rate this topic

Jump to

Contact Us NitroExpress.com

Powered by UBB.threads™ 6.5.5


Home | Ezine | Forums | Links | Contact


Copyright 2003 to 2011 - all rights reserved