Cog wrote:This is what happens when the Second Amendment is conflated with hunting or target practice. In many European countries, yeah you can have your hunting rifles or shotguns but they are kept locked up at a hunting club inaccessible to you except for the purposes of hunting or sighting in your gun. That is the type of gun ownership that the left envisions. Guns totally useless for the purpose of why the Second Amendment was created. Regarding guns for self-defense, forget about that entirely. New Zealand and Australia, as well as most European countries recognize no right to keep arms for that reason. Only for hunting or pest control.
Most states have well developed seasons and regulations for hunting various types of animals. The gun control people can easily make the argument that you don't need access to those guns unless its actually hunting season. Most if not all the Democrat candidates view gun ownership within the scope of hunting or target practice alone. Conceal carry or even ownership of guns for self-defense makes them quite queasy. Unfortunately Fudd gun-owners view gun ownership exactly the same way.
As much as I like the US Constitution and see it as a masterful work of organizing political power and recognizing our individual rights, its still just a piece of paper with writing on it. Ultimately the rights contained within can only be enforced by bearing arms. Some people trust police or the military as those agencies which protect rights. But history has shown its the people themselves who safeguard their rights and governments trample on them.
Tanada wrote:evilgenius wrote:Cog wrote:You want a gun registry accessible to the general public so people exercising their rights can be harrassed, fired, or intimidated? Gee, wonder why us gun owners might not embrace this?
Equal rights! For everybody, not just one particular faction. Any true patriot would embrace that.
Under that standard shouldn't every abortion be published on an easy to access webpage so that pro-life believers can avoid hiring or associating with these particular individuals?
More than a dozen of these buyers (men and women) actually thought that since they filled out and signed everything, they could just walk out and go home with the firearm. Several actually said they saw how easy it was to buy a gun on TV and why did they have to fill out all these forms.
The majority of these first timers lost their minds when we went through the Ammo Law requirements. Most used language not normally heard, even in a gun range. We pointed out that since no one working here voted for these laws, then maybe they might know someone who did. And, maybe they should go back and talk to those people and tell them to re-think their position on firearms – we were trying to be nice.
We tried to look at just who the new firearm purchasers were and we believe that more than 60% of these individuals were first time buyers. I can’t describe the amount of fear in my staff as we had the buyers show proof of safe handling as part of the purchase process as required by law. You have never seen so many barrels pointed at sales staff and other customers. It was truly frightening. We had to keep stopping the process to give quick safety lessons. We are adding many more basic classes in the coming weeks and encouraged these buyers to please attend. We hope they do.
Newfie wrote:Ibon;
I will defer to a cog because he is the master of this and a fair source of information. (wise cracks aside, which thankfully are diminishing).
Here is MY understanding.
FIRST - I think you state it about right, the populace is armed to make the government afraid of it.
SECOND - Afghanistan, Iraq, Vietnam, etc. And if that does not convince ..... The War on Drugs, inner city ghettos.
And in all of that you need to realize there is a fairly clear “us vs them”. When it starts to go against Joe the Plumber not so much, Joes son is likely to be a Sargent or Officer.
But you ou are completely missing the entire point of the argument. Which is not surprising because of all the BS propaganda spewed by the MSM.
COMMON SENSE would tell you to identify that portion of the population where the problem lies and then try to fix that problem.
COMMON SENSE would tell you that if “they” are directing you to look elsewhere, at a relatively compliant and peaceful population, then something is amiss and needs to be looked into.
The US and various states have a huge number of very strict gun laws. The vast majority of guns used in criminal activities are obtained through illegal measures. The problem is not insufficient gun laws.
The primary problem is that the US has virtually abandoned a certain segment of its population. That is a thorny problem we have not come to grips with. Restricting guns will do nothing to fix that and only serves as a distraction from the real issues. A secondary problem is a lack of enforcement, and if you can’t enforce the laws you have more laws are not going to make it easier.
Newfie wrote:Ibon,
You seem to have missed about 80% of what I said.
The State, for all its fancy weapons is very ineffective against a determined and armed resistance. Try this, name one state that has been successful against a well armed and determined local force.
For the second part, the problem is not guns or filing control. The problem is that the cities and states have failed the inner city ghettos and have done so wife forever. The problem just gets worse and worse and is now likely untenable. You need to remove drugs, find meaningful employment and reestablish family relations. In short we have nation building to do in all major cities within the USA.
If you don’t do this you could remove all guns and still have the ghettos and all their problems.
Since Panama has neither an army nor the equivalent of the N.R.A., gun ownership rules differ from U.S. regulations. To begin with there are no gun fairs... you can only purchase a gun from a handful of authorized dealers, and the choices are very limited - not to mention prices are about double what you would expect to pay. Unless you prefer to place a special order, which is going to delay the process by a number of months, you can purchase a gun under five minutes, the time it takes to process your credit card. This is however where the similarity ends... The gun(s) shall remain in the store's custody until you secure a permit - which in practice can easily take six to nine months. And this is where the fun begins: you'll have to provide a urine sample on the spot (to check for drug use) and later blood samples (to keep your DNA on file) not to mention fingerprints. Also you'll need to visit a psychiatrist to undergo a psychological evaluation. In the meantime, the store will ship the gun to the police, which will perform ballistic tests and keep all records on file, together with your full ID and address. The permit is valid for 5 years and must be showed prior to purchasing ammunition.
Return to North America Discussion
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests