American gun laws

[Bushbasher Out of control poster! Find all posts View Profile Close Bushbasher]

You could die by choking on some of those parts though, better keep it away from small children.

[wifecallsmegrumpy Member Find all posts View Profile Close wifecallsmegrumpy]

They have all voted to retain arms on the premise of a well armed populace not being oppressed by the government. Which in my view does sound like something the US Government would do. Has to be a middle ground.

[Bushbasher Out of control poster! Find all posts View Profile Close Bushbasher]

Unfortunately the US of A will never change it's views on firearms ownership (the right to bear arms). It's been a part of their cultural make-up for hundreds of years. We, on the other hand, have been stymied by our government and vocal minority groups (especially the greens and anti-gunners) to the point where people who have legal firearms are considered like people who have contagious diseases. Focus on the illegal trade in firearms, the criminal possession and use of firearms. But that costs money so it's easier to pick on the licensed shooters and primary producers.

[r4ndll Avid PP Poster! Find all posts View Profile Close r4ndll]

Within two weeks of moving to the US I was still on a visitors visa. I had no US identification just my Australian details. My father in-law to prove a point took me to Walmart where I nearly feel backwards to see a row of rifles, shotguns and handguns. Ok.

We gave across my details (Drivers license and passport) and the 18yo (I presume at least 18) handed across my new Remington 870 Express. To further my surprise, we initiated a purchase of a Glock 17. Was told that my purchase had been approved and I could come collect the next day after a 24hour cool off period.

Now, I have absolutely no problems with guns. I own several historical pieces myself (nothing fancy just passed down through the family) but the laws over there... I do have a problem with.

. You can buy shotguns and ammo at large hypermarkets in France too. They don't seem to have the same issues. Has to be more of a cultural thing

[Bushbasher Out of control poster! Find all posts View Profile Close Bushbasher]

How about NZ? Quite relaxed laws from what I am told. You can own a semi auto rifle and handguns. No massacres there, oh there was this guy that fired inside a cop shop with a cross bow!

[Beach Advanced Member Find all posts View Profile Close Beach]

They have all voted to retain arms on the premise of a well armed populace not being oppressed by the government. Which in my view does sound like something the US Government would do. Has to be a middle ground.

Actually thats not what the right to bear (bare?) arms and the relevant statute is about. There is no way a government would create laws allowing the populace to arm itself and "rise up" against it because of unpopular policies.

It refers to militia as being necessary should the government of the day require armed response to aggression or oppression from outside.

[D4D Addicted PP Member Find all posts View Profile Close D4D]

Beach have you ever been to the US or are you an arm chair expert?

[Bushbasher Out of control poster! Find all posts View Profile Close Bushbasher]

U.S. Constitution - Amendment 2
Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms

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.

[Bushbasher Out of control poster! Find all posts View Profile Close Bushbasher]

Historical context
The 2nd Amendment, starting in the latter half of the 20th century, became an object of much debate. Concerned with rising violence in society and the role firearms play in that violence, gun control advocates began to read the 2nd Amendment one way. On the other side, firearm enthusiasts saw the attacks on gun ownership as attacks on freedom, and defended their interpretation of the 2nd Amendment just as fiercely. If the authors of the 2nd Amendment could have foreseen the debate, they might have phrased the amendment differently, because much of the debate has centered around the way the amendment is phrased.
Is the amendment one that was created to ensure the continuation and flourishing of the state militias as a means of defense, or was it created to ensure an individual's right to own a firearm?
Despite the rhetoric on both sides of the issue, the answer to both questions is most likely, "Yes." The attitude of Americans toward the military was much different in the 1790's than it is today. Standing armies were mistrusted, as they had been used as tools of oppression by the monarchs of Europe for centuries. In the war for independence, there had been a regular army, but much of the fighting had been done by the state militias, under the command of local officers. Aside from the war, militias were needed because attacks were relatively common, whether by bandits, Indians, and even by troops from other states.
Today, the state militias have evolved into the National Guard in every state. These soldiers, while part-time, are professionally trained and armed by the government. No longer are regular, non-Guardsmen, expected to take up arms in defense of the state or the nation (though the US Code does still recognize the unorganized militia as an entity, and state laws vary on the subject [10 USC 311]).

[Beach Advanced Member Find all posts View Profile Close Beach]

Beach have you ever been to the US or are you an arm chair expert?

Yes a couple of times. I have friends in the USA and in Canada.

Owning and using firearms was part of life for me for as long as I can remember. I sold all my weapons and let my licence lapse years ago when it became impossible for me to keep it all. I have managed to occasionally send a few rounds down range since then.

I also take it upon myself to seek information and education rather than relying on mass media.

So D4D - Are we having a grown up discussion or shall we jump straight to name calling and get the thread closed?

[Beach Advanced Member Find all posts View Profile Close Beach]

Historical context
The 2nd Amendment, starting in the latter half of the 20th century, became an object of much debate. Concerned with rising violence in society and the role firearms play in that violence, gun control advocates began to read the 2nd Amendment one way. On the other side, firearm enthusiasts saw the attacks on gun ownership as attacks on freedom, and defended their interpretation of the 2nd Amendment just as fiercely. If the authors of the 2nd Amendment could have foreseen the debate, they might have phrased the amendment differently, because much of the debate has centered around the way the amendment is phrased.
Is the amendment one that was created to ensure the continuation and flourishing of the state militias as a means of defense, or was it created to ensure an individual's right to own a firearm?
Despite the rhetoric on both sides of the issue, the answer to both questions is most likely, "Yes." The attitude of Americans toward the military was much different in the 1790's than it is today. Standing armies were mistrusted, as they had been used as tools of oppression by the monarchs of Europe for centuries. In the war for independence, there had been a regular army, but much of the fighting had been done by the state militias, under the command of local officers. Aside from the war, militias were needed because attacks were relatively common, whether by bandits, Indians, and even by troops from other states.
Today, the state militias have evolved into the National Guard in every state. These soldiers, while part-time, are professionally trained and armed by the government. No longer are regular, non-Guardsmen, expected to take up arms in defense of the state or the nation (though the US Code does still recognize the unorganized militia as an entity, and state laws vary on the subject [10 USC 311]).

Definitely worth adding as part of the context of this discussion. Notice the words "in defence of the state or the nation". If a militia were to rise up against the state or nation, its a fair bet the government of the day would squash it quite quickly. Although more than a few NRA spokespeople have openly warned of a form of uprising should any authority try to take their guns away.

The other observations are definitely worth considering. Despite the proliferation of firearms in US society and peoples willingness to use them indiscriminately against innocent people when disgruntled or highly annoyed, it seems American society is to far down the rabbit hole to ever change its ways.

[JoshF Advanced Member Find all posts View Profile Close JoshF]

honestly I couldn't care if they reap what they sow as they have chosen their path, maybe the local press should ignore these foreign country localised incidents in the same way German press doesn't publicise murder and rapes

[D4D Addicted PP Member Find all posts View Profile Close D4D]

So D4D - Are we having a grown up discussion or shall we jump straight to name calling and get the thread closed?

No name calling just understanding your point of reference

[kav Avid PP Poster! Find all posts View Profile Close kav]

I have exercised my right to bare arms . I have no tattoos whatsoever . I'm a god damned freak . Oh yeah over here in OZ we are about 285 million short of the population of uneducated nut jobs that they have in the US . But we're getting there . Our multicultural policies are going well now , what with 2 machete attacks and about 6 stabbings in the last 3-4 weeks all by people on visas.

[Bushbasher Out of control poster! Find all posts View Profile Close Bushbasher]

Prior to WW2, my father-in-law told me how as a school kid, he and his friends would board a bus and then a train into the country to shoot rabbits. No adult supervision was necessary. They would have their .22s slung over their shoulders along with a little swag. Nobody even gave them a second glance.

In 1973 I similarly boarded a train from Perth to the old Northam Army Camp, with a .303 slung over my shoulder and wearing my battle dress. I was a cadet and 14 years old. Once again, nobody gave us a second glance.

In the late seventies, whilst posted to 8/9 RAR, we would troop the colours through the streets of Brisbane on Anzac Day. I was carrying a 7.62 SLR with bayonet fitted. A small minority called us baby-killers and threw fruit and veges at us. I was too young to serve in Vietnam, but my section and platoon commanders had all seen combat in that arena.

With the attitudes of some people in society, who will take up arms and defend this magnificent country in time of need against those who would take our freedom from us? My father experienced this as a child growing up on the outskirts of Belgrade during WW2. The Nazis came in and everyone was forced to work as slaves for the Nazi war machine. Farmers gave all their produce to the German army and the Germans would give a little bit back so they could eat and survive to grow another crop for the Nazis. My dad decided he did not want to be a slave and walked for 2 days to join the Partisans and fight for his freedom. A bullet in the neck and 2 years in a prisoner of war camp was his reward along with the killing of over half the members of of his large family. I've been to that country and seen the dozens of mass graves where the jerries rounded up whole villages and marched them into the woods before machine-gunning them all to death.

I love this magnificent country and I love the freedoms that we all enjoy living here. One of those freedoms is the right to belong to a sporting shooter association (there's over 300,000 of us), to lawfully posses and use my firearms without being classified as a massacre waiting to happen. I don't like golf, horse riding or hanging around the TAB. I don't tell others how to occupy their spare time and don't care as long as they don't annoy others. Fair go, heh?