America

[High Desert Hunter]

Not sure how much you chaps hear about our politics across the pond, but with the elections next year, I believe we could be heading towards some hard times. I forsee our first woman President (don't necessarily have a problem with the woman part, just this particular one), who is decidedly anti-gun, and very much pro-socialist. Wondering what kind of banter you hear over there? I may need to dig a big hole somewhere, as I don't think I could relinquish ownership of any of the firearms in my possesion. Won't be long until whackos control the entire planet, seems like everybody is an extremist these days. Ah well 31 days until dove season opens here in New Mexico, and I will also be taking my trusty recurve bow to the woods in search of some elk meat.

 

Cheers

 

Dave Beeman

[Dr_Scholl]

Even if she did manage to get in office, she doesn't have the votes in Congress to push for any kind of gun bans. Yeah, the Dems have won a few seats, but most of the new ones were voted in from pro gun southern states( like my home state). They had to, it was the only way for them to take control of Congress. The Democrats have themselves between a rock and a hard place now. They wanted Congress, but in order to do that, they had to drop the rabidly anti gun canidates. So the big time Dems( Hillary, McCarthy, Kennedy), now have no one to back up there proposed gun control legislation, which makes them powerless in that regard.

[mossy835]

i dont think you need worry about your gun laws to much over there, i can never see the usa gunless.we had lady a pm and messed the country right up.dont worry to much we have it hard over here.

[starlight32]

What sort of gun restrictions are they trying to implement over in the USA?

 

Handguns? semi automatic weapons? Everything?

 

starlight32

[Cranfield]

I don't think the woman President is a factor, its surprising our lady Prime Minister didn't insist that everybody had a gun.

 

I can see more controls coming in the US, not as strict as ours, but you may have to start justifying the need to own some of the assault/combat weapons many of my friends there have.

[LEFTY478]

I don't think the woman President is a factor, its surprising our lady Prime Minister didn't insist that everybody had a gun.

 

I can see more controls coming in the US, not as strict as ours, but you may have to start justifying the need to own some of the assault/combat weapons many of my friends there have.

 

Now's something I'd have voted for!

[Dr_Scholl]

This guy sums up the anti gunners crusades over the past 30 years pretty well. The latest baby killing weapon the antis wanna ban is the .50 caliber rifle.

 

http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/23320.html

[Wookie]

Seriously though, what need (apart from target shooting) is there for a .50 cal rifle? I'm also having a hard time thinking of a legitimate need for assault weaponry in a gun cabinet. Sporting rifles like SussexLad's AR15 yes, but that's only semi-auto.

[High Desert Hunter]

I guess the point isn't need, it is about rights, and the fact that our Constitution protects them. Those who gave us our Constitution, and our Bill of Rights had specific thoughts on the subject, it was to insure that the Free men and women of the U.S. would never have to suffer under opression, the very thing the politicians fear, is the reason they gave us the right. The only "assault gun" I own, is my Remington M1100 trap gun, and yes it meets the criteria under the bill introduced by Congress Woman McCarthy from NY. The Dems have agreed to shelf that bill, but only to see if they can pick up more seats in the next election, if they do so, I guarantee it will spring to life. We have to blame stuff on something or somebody, depending on the tragedy, all of the shootings this year have placed the focus back on firearms, they are evil, never mind that they don't work by themselves, lets not look at the underlying cause, like why, like the fact that 80% of our populace are unarmed and defenseless. I can't say for sure how things will pan out, but I do know that I do not want to put up with the circus of certificates, official inspections, and oppressive limitations you gents have to deal with, all I want to do, is shoot when I want to, and hunt, with what I want to.

 

Dave

[Catamong]

Dave,

 

Hell will freeze over long before we see a "Gunless America", as you say, your Constitution will take care of that.

 

You must realise that our laws are very different regarding gun ownership and the use of guns or any other lethal weapon in "self defence".

 

If an intruder broke into a house in the UK, then proceeded to attack the occupants, and the houseowner used a gun or knife to protect themselves, in the eyes of the UK law, that in itself is serious crime, it doesn't pay to "have a go" as we call it.

 

Far better to sit back and let your family be raped and / or murdered because the law will be dead against you if you do anything more than throw a punch at your attackers.

 

It's sad, but that's the way it is over here.

 

Cat.

[Cranfield]

Since ownership of handguns has been banned in the UK, gun crime has increased.

 

They were never permitted here as pesonal protection weapons and were for sporting purposes only.

 

We have never had your "right to carry and bear arms" within our constitution and I can fully understand your reluctance to cede an inch to anyone wishing to amend that right in any way.

 

When my friends have shown me their Glocks and AK49's and I ask them "why ?", they fairly answer, "because I can".

[Graham M]

I think this just about sums it up

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=aeo05uPMmn4

G.M.

[Dr W]

But surely the constitution was written many years ago for a time when individuals needed to be armed in case America was attacked. In this day and age the war would be over before any troops landed in America, it's not going to be like Red Dawn (one of my favourite films).

 

Wouldn't most people be happy with rifles and shotguns with out the need to the machine guns, assult rifles etc

[High Desert Hunter]

The Constitution is an old document, but those who penned it knew that over time, greed, and a lust for more power would consume our governing body, unless something is there to keep it in check. So, the 2nd Ammendment isn't just for defense from the outside, but also from within, our government should respect those who elect them, but as they erode our freedoms, they govern with more and more disdain for what they consider the "common" people. Besides, an afternoon blasting clay pigeons, cans, and wood blocks with an AK constitutes a good time, I don't own one, and prefer my shotguns, and my precision rifles, I respect those who enjoy owning and shooting their semi-autos( I don't know anyone who owns a machine gun).

 

Dave

[al4x]

Since ownership of handguns has been banned in the UK, gun crime has increased.

 

They were never permitted here as pesonal protection weapons and were for sporting purposes only.

 

We have never had your "right to carry and bear arms" within our constitution and I can fully understand your reluctance to cede an inch to anyone wishing to amend that right in any way.

 

When my friends have shown me their Glocks and AK49's and I ask them "why ?", they fairly answer, "because I can".

 

 

Personally I think there are only limited reasons to own handguns and personal protection isn't one of them except possibly in the home. Gun crime in the UK has increased and a lot of that is handguns so its difficult to say if banning made any difference at all odds are it didn't. But in the US anyone can get a gun with very limited checks, I prefer to live in a country where firearms are controlled, I have the guns I want the police keep an eye on me fair enough but you have to really want one to go through the hoops its not like just turning up at a supermarket and buying one with your weekly shop. It will be interesting how long the US constitution holds out before doing anything, after all how many massacres do they need to have before someone says what can we do about this.

It would take a very brave politician and the logistical side of it would be a nightmare with the sheer number of guns out there

[Cranfield]

after all how many massacres do they need to have before someone says what can we do about this.

It would take a very brave politician and the logistical side of it would be a nightmare with the sheer number of guns out there

 

That is the old argument, but its people that create massacres, not guns.

 

A deranged person could just as easily drive a car into a large crowd, but you wouldn't ban cars as a result of this.

[invector]

We should also remember that stricter legislation in the UK was caused by two individuals, who owned firearms quite legimately, but who decided to run amok shooting people in the street and children in school. We were let down by our fellow shooters. If gun ownership was the cause of gun crime, there would be bloodbaths in Switzerland.

[Dr_Scholl]

Seriously though, what need (apart from target shooting) is there for a .50 cal rifle? I'm also having a hard time thinking of a legitimate need for assault weaponry in a gun cabinet. Sporting rifles like SussexLad's AR15 yes, but that's only semi-auto.

 

The guns in question aren't real assault rifles, just semi-auto lookalikes( no new full autos have entered the U.S civilian market since May 19, 1986). Anti gun people think they're too powerful and dangerous for normal citizens to own. Which is complete bull. The AR-15, for example, fires too small of a cartridge to hunt deer with, in most states anyway. The reason military style rifles have become so popular is their ease of maintenance, accuracy and reliability. Plus, most military firearms are designed so anyone can use them and become a decent shot relatively quickly. The Dems won't attempt to ban them, or .50 cals again, anytime soon. "Assault rifles" are just too common these days. The AR-15 is the most popular semi-auto centerfire rifle in the country now, with the AK platform close behind.

[High Desert Hunter]

If not guns, then they will use knives, or cars, or a bat, whatever gets the job done, I for one exercise my right to carry, and therefore will not be a willing victim. I for one would like to see the Washington DC handgun ban that was deemed to be a violation of our Constitution taken before the Supreme Court, I would like it established once and for all whether the Bill of Rights guarantees individual rights, as it so often says it does, or if they are merely rights of the collective, or state if you will. I respect all of your opinions, and hope I haven't stepped on anyones toes. I just feel that in many cases, an individual with the means, and the will would be able to put a stop to all of these attention getting crimes, an armed society is a polite society, Virginia Tech wouldn't have been possible if even one armed adult had been there to put an end to it, I mean our cars kill more innocent victims than guns ever will.

 

Dave

[High Desert Hunter]

Seriously though, what need (apart from target shooting) is there for a .50 cal rifle? I'm also having a hard time thinking of a legitimate need for assault weaponry in a gun cabinet. Sporting rifles like SussexLad's AR15 yes, but that's only semi-auto.

 

The guns in question aren't real assault rifles, just semi-auto lookalikes( no new full autos have entered the U.S civilian market since May 19, 1986). Anti gun people think they're too powerful and dangerous for normal citizens to own. Which is complete bull. The AR-15, for example, fires too small of a cartridge to hunt deer with, in most states anyway. The reason military style rifles have become so popular is their ease of maintenance, accuracy and reliability. Plus, most military firearms are designed so anyone can use them and become a decent shot relatively quickly. The Dems won't attempt to ban them, or .50 cals again, anytime soon. "Assault rifles" are just too common these days. The AR-15 is the most popular semi-auto centerfire rifle in the country now, with the AK platform close behind.

Doc, there is a 50 BMG ban co-authored by Hilary in the Senate as we speak.

 

Dave

[al4x]

after all how many massacres do they need to have before someone says what can we do about this.

It would take a very brave politician and the logistical side of it would be a nightmare with the sheer number of guns out there

 

That is the old argument, but its people that create massacres, not guns.

 

A deranged person could just as easily drive a car into a large crowd, but you wouldn't ban cars as a result of this.

 

 

It is people not guns but how do you stop deranged people getting their hands on them? having no checks isn't the way IMHO our system here may seem draconian but it does in the majority work. As for the right to bear concealed arms on the street for self defence that scares the bejesus out of me. Basically means anyone can carry a gun legally even drug dealers etc would have the entitlement to carry. To me sporting shooters in the states ought to welcome a rationalisation of the system, problem is due to the size of the country its totally impractical to control guns

[High Desert Hunter]

We do have checks here, with some states almost as restrictive as your own laws, and we have the National Instant Background Check, which is required for purchase of a firearm from a licensed dealer, not a perfect system, and relatively painless. As far as people licensed to carry concealed, they commit less than one tenth of one percent of all crimes. We have over 25,000 Federal Gun Laws on the books, and I have no idea how many State Laws, problem is, instead of enforcing existing laws, they automatically want to enact new ones, with the ultimate goal of firearms only for the very select (wealthy) few they deem acceptable (their body guards).

 

Dave

[Dunkield]

Dave,

 

Are all guns in all States registered against a person?

By that, I mean IF they wanted to track every gun sold accros the US - could they do it?

If not, then it will never happen (not that it would anyway) it may get a bit tougher for you, but I doubt you will be forced to hand over guns like people were in the UK.

[High Desert Hunter]

No thank God, where I live private sale of firearms is still permitted, and I see your point. In California, they have banned several types of firearms, and if you are caught in possesion, it is a very stiff penalty. I guess I will have to take a wait and see attitude, prepare for the worst, and pray for the best.

 

Cheers

 

Dave

[LEFTY478]

after all how many massacres do they need to have before someone says what can we do about this.

It would take a very brave politician and the logistical side of it would be a nightmare with the sheer number of guns out there

 

That is the old argument, but its people that create massacres, not guns.

 

A deranged person could just as easily drive a car into a large crowd, but you wouldn't ban cars as a result of this.

 

 

It is people not guns but how do you stop deranged people getting their hands on them? having no checks isn't the way IMHO our system here may seem draconian but it does in the majority work. As for the right to bear concealed arms on the street for self defence that scares the bejesus out of me. Basically means anyone can carry a gun legally even drug dealers etc would have the entitlement to carry. To me sporting shooters in the states ought to welcome a rationalisation of the system, problem is due to the size of the country its totally impractical to control guns

 

'People' control, not Gun control is the issue; controlling the people who wish to have access to legally sanctioned firearms is what is required, but convicted criminals and deranged indivuals are already precluded from ownership in the States'. So, should this mean that the authorities charged with implementing these regulations, should try to ban guns simply because carrying out their obligations are 'difficult'. Surely not? Deal with the suppliers of ilegal firearms and the people that are prepared to use them. Passing new laws has no effect on criminals, that's why they're criminals!

 

Not all states allow 'concealed carrying of personal weapons' but the ones that won't NY, NJ, DC etc, have much higher incidence of violent crime. The states that do grant concealed carry permits (CCP), do so after substantial checks and safety courses conducted by the local Sherriff. Satistics are showing that all citizens benefit from the small number of the population that have a CCP. Bad guys can not know if their next intended 'victim' at the cash-machine (ATM) is going to pull out a legally held weapon that they are trained and prepared to use, in their self-defence.

 

Citizens of the States, on the whole, do not believe that they should have to sub-contract their, or their family's safety to the Federal Government. The only thing that anyone truely 'owns' is their lives, everything else is just 'on loan' whilst passing through. And so US citizens' taken this responsibility very seriously, and so they should. Liberal eletists promoting 'Gun control' are asking their citizens to, "trade freedom, for so called security, and they always end up with neither" (High Desert Hunter, 2007).

 

In Britain, we have been sucked into the socialists' 'cradle to the grave' ideology. We delegate responsibility for our health, education and wellfare and as a Nation, have been largely guilty of conceeding our self-determination, too. We were the mother of democracy but we have failed keep our eye on the ball. The people elected to represent us, to 'work' for us, are now our masters'. We meerly pay the taxes to keep ourselves subjugated.

 

In the States' there is a much larger reliance on local democracy. If, as a community, you don't like people dropping litter or causing criminal damage, writing graffiti etc, you get to elect the Sherriff of your choice. And if he says he'll sort and he doesn't, he's out of a job next election. If you don't like the idea of murderers and child rapists getting parole, you can elect judges that will sentence them to death or a life that means life, behind bars. Even the town's Dog Warden has to stand up to public scrutiny at elections.

 

Bad people will do bad things, no matter what rules, regulations or laws are passed. It's your life, so why should anyone else be able to dictate how you choose to defend it.