Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I collect guns because they have a lot of history behind each one. Most of my guns are from World War 2 or prior periods.

I'd like to think that my mauser rifles and Mosin Nagant rifles have seen battle by their previous owners in Stalingrad, Moscow or Berlin. My Webleys and Enfield might have seen battle in El Alamein or Italy or France. My Lugers and Mauser Broomhandle might have seen action too. Their owners struggled through mud, sand and snow to survive.

Protection.

I'm not going to wait for the police to protect me if someone is breaking into my home.

I don't hunt, and I don't think they are cool. They are neccessary, though.

This would be a damn fine home defense gun:



12ga Police Tactical shotgun with extending stock.


I've been looking at one of these lately:



.45ACP

Since no one has really addressed this yet, what does dakka think about American gun control? Should citizens be allowed to own anything up to, and including military grade weapons, or should we just be allowed to have sporting weapons? Or perhaps no weapons at all?

Personally, I feel that the 2nd Amendment guarantees our right to keep weapons, but I also think that the government has the responsibility to protect it's citizens by putting limits on the lethality of the weapons the citizens are allowed to keep. Having weapons for hunting is fine and dandy, and if you want a weapon to protect yourself I think you're a little paranoid, but it's well within your rights, but I think the law should be drawn at modern military grade weapons. I can see no good reason why you'd ever need an assault rifle or machine gun for anything other than killing another human. Military hardware is for the military, and I think it should be kept that way.

Ever had a rabid squirrel try to attack you at 1AM. I did and I emptied 100 rounds of .556 into it and it still came at me.

No handgun could have taken that sucker down.

Thing is though all soldiers are issued side-arms so by your logic a handgun is a military weapon as it's used by military personnel. Anti-gun lobbyists would have a field day with that logic.

For reference, it's 5.56mm = .223 caliber

Additionally, not all soldiers are issued handguns or even trained on them. In the Army handguns are a specialist sort of thing normally issued to MPs and people dealing with sensitive material on a regular basis. And so what? People wouldn't be able to buy a M9, it's not like it's worth much anyways.

Oops, decimal in wrong place.

Far as I know every soldier in all branches are trained with sidearm use. I know in the NG every soldier, even the medics, have sidearms in addition to any other equipment they have.

Civilians owning MG-42's or AK-47's are not going to suddenly go on killing sprees (though good luck lugging an MG-42 around). LOL.

What you know is incorrect. Not all soldiers are trained with or carry sidearms.

Either way....I don't need an M14 but you can hunt with it so why not I say?

As a member of the United States military, I know for a fact that not every service member is trained or equipped with a sidearm.

A M14 is not a modern military weapon, and doesn't fall into the criteria I laid out. And it's true that not everyone with an AK is going to go on a killing spree, but why should that option even be there? Think of it like a car, the government is allowed to put restrictions on how powerful a car you can drive on the road so you aren't a danger to other drivers. A rifle is the same thing, a dangerous tool, and I think it falls under the government's responsibility to protect it's citizens from that danger.

You live in a State known to sell Lambo's and Vipers like candy and you say gov't restricts how powerful of a car you can drive?

Where the hell at? I can drive any kind of car I want on Mn roads (although I'd not be caught dead in January driving a Viper). If you are thinking Nascar style cars I'd go so far as to say a Lambo and Viper can outrun a Nascar (Lambo for sure).

With, or without the restrictor plate?

With or without flux-capacitor?

With.

Fateweaver wrote:Ever had a rabid squirrel try to attack you at 1AM. I did and I emptied 100 rounds of .556 into it and it still came at me.

No handgun could have taken that sucker down.

Thing is though all soldiers are issued side-arms so by your logic a handgun is a military weapon as it's used by military personnel. Anti-gun lobbyists would have a field day with that logic.

You should have stabbed it with a knife.

I take it a side-arm means a pistol rather than a rifle or SMG.

Fateweaver wrote:This would be a damn fine home defense gun:



12ga Police Tactical shotgun with extending stock.


I've been looking at one of these lately:



.45ACP

(I can't open either of these -reading the link)
Can't see the first but I've heard good things about the XD. More to my speed, you can send it to Springfield to get the trigger action, barrel, and sights tweaked right proppa. I prefer Kimbers for .45s personally, but SPringfiled makes good .45s (although this is an import). A 13 round .45 has a lot going for it.
http://www.springfield-armory.com/xd.php?version=124

then tweak with this:
Combat action job; overtravel adjustment added to trigger; Springfield Custom 3 dot tritium night
sights; inspect entire pistol; test fire. (Trijicon 3 dot, Heinie Straight 8 Slant Pro, or Heinie 3 dot Slant
Pro sights also available substitutes to this package at no additional charge.)
Other sight and finish options available. Call Springfield Custom™ for pricing on specific requests.

and this:
Install Springfield custom match barrel ..............................................................................$ 190.00
They have a Bar Sto option but ordering from bar sto is like4-6 months and I'm thinking Springfield might have the same time.

Semi-automatic rifles are sufficient for most needs. Those who yell "But militaries have tanks and nukes, so why don't you agree with tanks too?!"

It's simple. You don't need tanks and nukes to resist against tyranny or an occupying army. Don't waste your energy shooting the soldiers. Shoot their public officials and any collaborators. Without them your land becomes ungovernable and a massive money sink, and sooner or later they'll decide to leave....and take their tanks with them.

Corey85 wrote:Well, like grizgrin I hunt, and while I might bow hunt in the future, hunting with firearms is my only option right now. On the flip side, anytime I have ever felt threatened at home I have never gone for my guns, always a bat or something that won't splatter my attackers.

Truth. Whenever the dogs start barking, I actually tend to go to the knife block in the kitchen. Really, I don't see anyone breaking into my house while I am home. I am no close combat monster, I do not have assault class firearms in the home, but I am a 6'3" 210 pound male. That in of itself means there are easier houses to break into. I guess I go to the knife block really because I just LOVE my santukos, and they feel friggin great in my hands. Never really thought about it much, but it seems kinda strange I guess.

Kilkrazy wrote:

Let me summarise what you seem to have taken from the references, to make sure I understand your argument.

Police statistics show gunshot murders comprise about 2/3rds of all murders.

Medical statistics show that gunshot wounds are roughly 5X more deadly than knife wounds, and even when death does not occur, they are twice as difficult to treat.

All this proves that knives are equally lethal as guns.

Is that correct?

I think KillKrazy found a spot to sink in the blade, lol. Also, if you seriously think that knife vs. gun is unfair for gun, I have some excellent bottom land to sell you.

JEB_Stuart wrote:...I sure do love trap shooting...

I bet you do. Does Admiral Akbar guide your aim? Ha! I keed, I keed!

Fateweaver wrote:...
I'll stab you in the gut with a 8" bowie knife and shoot you in the gut with a .22 pistol from 15 feet. Guess which wound proves more lethal and fatal (a hint: it won't be the .22 pistol round)?

Oh DO keep posting, you're funnier than a sack of ferrets at a Bolivian ho-down!

IAmTheWalrus wrote:Since no one has really addressed this yet, what does dakka think about American gun control? Should citizens be allowed to own anything up to, and including military grade weapons, or should we just be allowed to have sporting weapons? Or perhaps no weapons at all?

Well, looking at the Bill of Rights, it really doesn't put any limits on it, does it? However, I am not sure that I want to see an M1 Abrahms in my neighbors drive; their domestic disputes are brutal enough as-is.

You know, it almost looks like they left it intentionally ambiguous. Probably just a temporal artifact.

IAmTheWalrus wrote:As a member of the United States military, I know for a fact that not every service member is trained or equipped with a sidearm.

This is no bs.

IAmTheWalrus wrote:As a member of the United States military, I know for a fact that not every service member is trained or equipped with a sidearm.

A M14 is not a modern military weapon, and doesn't fall into the criteria I laid out. And it's true that not everyone with an AK is going to go on a killing spree, but why should that option even be there? Think of it like a car, the government is allowed to put restrictions on how powerful a car you can drive on the road so you aren't a danger to other drivers. A rifle is the same thing, a dangerous tool, and I think it falls under the government's responsibility to protect it's citizens from that danger.

But its not LIKE A CAR its the Second Amendment. Its like your FREEDOM OF SPEECH.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Noble713 wrote:Semi-automatic rifles are sufficient for most needs. Those who yell "But militaries have tanks and nukes, so why don't you agree with tanks too?!"

It's simple. You don't need tanks and nukes to resist against tyranny or an occupying army. Don't waste your energy shooting the soldiers. Shoot their public officials and any collaborators. Without them your land becomes ungovernable and a massive money sink, and sooner or later they'll decide to leave....and take their tanks with them.

Agreed. Plus tanks and nukes are not arms. Only personal weaponry would fall under that definition.
(believe it or not I am for some restriction-but thats already in place).

PREFACE: I mean no disrespect to any of our sons and daughters who serve, I value your sacrifices and hardships. Thanks for all you've done.

IAmTheWalrus wrote:As a member of the United States military, I know for a fact that not every service member is trained or equipped with a sidearm.

As a member of the United States citizenry, I believe that 'military grade' weaponry should not be 100% restricted to just the military. I simply don't trust any government to remain beneficent without sufficient checks and balances. Excuse me if I don't trust indoctrinated military personnel to value my personal freedoms and rights over the government's wishes. How many times have normal people done horrendous and immoral things due to 'following orders'? Soldiers are trained to follow orders without much (if any) question, and to kill the enemy (both foreign and domestic) at a word.

An unarmed populace simply cannot effectively disagree with their government, which is exactly how every governing body likes it. We are lucky that our Founding Fathers knew this, and encoded our ability to do so into the framework of our laws and rights. Like it or not, the 2nd amendment was not written to guarantee our ability to hunt, or have a good time wasting ammo at paper targets. It was written so that the people would always be a proper deterrent to unscrupulous leadership.

To the OP:

I think owning a gun is "great" because it puts responsibility for myself, my freedom, and my ideals exactly where it belongs: In my own two hands. As long as I am armed, regardless of whatever happens, be it world peace, armageddon, or anything in between, I have a meaningful say in my ultimate fate.

Wow, I just noticed semi auto pistol prices are nearly back to pre-Obama days. Interesting.

Lordhat wrote:

As a member of the United States citizenry, I believe that 'military grade' weaponry should not be 100% restricted to just the military. I simply don't trust any government to remain beneficent without sufficient checks and balances. Excuse me if I don't trust indoctrinated military personnel to value my personal freedoms and rights over the government's wishes. How many times have normal people done horrendous and immoral things due to 'following orders'? Soldiers are trained to follow orders without much (if any) question, and to kill the enemy (both foreign and domestic) at a word.

An unarmed populace simply cannot effectively disagree with their government, which is exactly how every governing body likes it. We are lucky that our Founding Fathers knew this, and encoded our ability to do so into the framework of our laws and rights. Like it or not, the 2nd amendment was not written to guarantee our ability to hunt, or have a good time wasting ammo at paper targets. It was written so that the people would always be a proper deterrent to unscrupulous leadership.

To the OP:

I think owning a gun is "great" because it puts responsibility for myself, my freedom, and my ideals exactly where it belongs: In my own two hands. As long as I am armed, regardless of whatever happens, be it world peace, armageddon, or anything in between, I have a meaningful say in my ultimate fate.

I agree 100%

Trusting your government is being ingnorant of history.

also, IAmTheWalrus earlier posted that the gov't can restrict the amount of power in the car you drive.... well no. they dont. They restrict the emission levels of the car you drive, and the saftey concerns of your car in an accident, (will not explode, and provides reasonable levels of protection for passengers) I have driven Hondas with over 500 horsepower on city streets, and it was completely legal.

Demogerg wrote:I have driven Hondas with over 500 horsepower on city streets, and it was completely legal.

To quote South Park "You bastard!"
pics or it didn't happen baby.

I would love to own a gun or two. I would take a rifle over a pistol, just for personal preferance (I also think that pistols should have a much higher level of restriction over them than rifles).

If only they would relax the laws slightly in the UK, but ah well.

My reasons for wanting to own a gun? For target shooting, contest shooting, possibly hunting, although we really don't have all that much space for it like you do in the USA. You may have far more people, but you have significantly more land to put them and their guns

I would also like to own a gun for the reason mentioned several times previously... I want to be able to defend myself from anyone who attempts to attack me, be it some theif, or the government (which is simply a large collection of theives ). Though as I have mentioned in other threads, I don't believe that guns are the ideal home defence weapons, and that their use immediately escalates a situation far beyond what would be ideal.

I would also like to think that by owning a gun I could take part in any defence of my area/country that I might be made to ask, for watever reason.

Though I do not think we need to have the relatively permissive gun laws that seem to be apparent in the USA, a nice midpoint could be established between guns for all, and no guns at all.

Frazzled wrote:
But its not LIKE A CAR its the Second Amendment. Its like your FREEDOM OF SPEECH.

And like your freedom of speech, I believe it should be restricted in a certain number of ways. If you read carefully you will find that the 1st Amendment does not cover profanity, fighting words (Intended to provoke a fight), or threats to national security. You can't just go around and say whatever the hell you want, to whomever you'd like to, though we're pretty darn close to that.

Lordhat wrote:
As a member of the United States citizenry, I believe that 'military grade' weaponry should not be 100% restricted to just the military. I simply don't trust any government to remain beneficent without sufficient checks and balances. Excuse me if I don't trust indoctrinated military personnel to value my personal freedoms and rights over the government's wishes. How many times have normal people done horrendous and immoral things due to 'following orders'? Soldiers are trained to follow orders without much (if any) question, and to kill the enemy (both foreign and domestic) at a word.

An unarmed populace simply cannot effectively disagree with their government, which is exactly how every governing body likes it. We are lucky that our Founding Fathers knew this, and encoded our ability to do so into the framework of our laws and rights. Like it or not, the 2nd amendment was not written to guarantee our ability to hunt, or have a good time wasting ammo at paper targets. It was written so that the people would always be a proper deterrent to unscrupulous leadership.

As for not trusting the 'indoctrinated' military personnel, I don't think you've had much experience dealing with the military. There is no difference between our citizens and our soldiers, they are one and the same and hold the American freedoms just as dearly as you do. Do you think the 18 year old son of your neighbor has a burning desire to impede your rights? Of course not, he's just trying to make a better life for himself in the military. Obedience is expected of soldiers, but what you don't know is how many stupidly long briefings on the conduct of war and the Geneva convention we've had to sit through so we know exactly when we can stop 'just following orders.'

Disagreement with the government can be solved non-violently. The government has power by the consent of the people, and people have the power to change it. If you look at the movements of Dr. King and Ghandi I believe that you will find both to be far more effective non-violently than they would have been had they engaged the government in combat. The days of the Founding Fathers has long past, and I think people cling to the misguided belief that they can deter the government as an excuse to have whatever incredibly dangerous weapons they want.

Just out of curiosity, what would it take for you to take arms up against the government?

Coming from a country where the great mass of citizens and illegal immigrants do not have access to firearms...

I used to be in the army, and loved shooting my rifle.
I loved shooting my grandfathers .303 on the farm years ago before the big amnesty/buy back in 1996.
I loved going to the shooting range in Las Vegas 2 years ago and shooting an assortment of firearms.

I've shot at nothing larger than a rabbit (living thing anyway).


Primarily I like it as it is a skill that can be improved quickly, but needs alot of work to master.

Also IAmTheWalrus as you seem to have a heap of OT questions why not start up your own, new thread to get people's opinions on them?

Lordhat wrote:PREFACE: I mean no disrespect to any of our sons and daughters who serve, I value your sacrifices and hardships. Thanks for all you've done.

Much appreciated.

Fateweaver wrote:You live in a State known to sell Lambo's and Vipers like candy and you say gov't restricts how powerful of a car you can drive?

Where the hell at? I can drive any kind of car I want on Mn roads (although I'd not be caught dead in January driving a Viper). If you are thinking Nascar style cars I'd go so far as to say a Lambo and Viper can outrun a Nascar (Lambo for sure).

This is exactly what I was trying to make a point about. A Lambo or a Viper might be able to outrun a Nascar, but the way I see it they're just exotics and the Nascar is a professional car, and the government has done the right thing by keeping professional cars out of the hands of the citizens. Why? Because it's dangerous. If you want to go buy an elephant gun, go buy an elephant gun, but I stand by my argument that military equipment doesn't belong in the hands of civilians, for safety reasons.

Frazzled wrote:

IAmTheWalrus wrote:As a member of the United States military, I know for a fact that not every service member is trained or equipped with a sidearm.

A M14 is not a modern military weapon, and doesn't fall into the criteria I laid out. And it's true that not everyone with an AK is going to go on a killing spree, but why should that option even be there? Think of it like a car, the government is allowed to put restrictions on how powerful a car you can drive on the road so you aren't a danger to other drivers. A rifle is the same thing, a dangerous tool, and I think it falls under the government's responsibility to protect it's citizens from that danger.

But its not LIKE A CAR its the Second Amendment. Its like your FREEDOM OF SPEECH.

Frazz, you as a lawyer know that amendments can be put into and taken out of the constitution.

There are points for and against guns. If the 'against' points ever should come to outweigh the 'for' points, it would be reasonable to look at amending the constitution.

I'm not saying that needs to be done, just that it's useless to say, "We must have guns because it's the 2nd Amendment," as if that ends the argument.

Kilkrazy wrote:I'm not saying that needs to be done, just that it's useless to say, "We must have guns because it's the 2nd Amendment," as if that ends the argument.

Whoohoo! We can get rid of all that pesky "Free Speech" now, right? I mean just because it's an Amendment...

IAmTheWalrus wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
But its not LIKE A CAR its the Second Amendment. Its like your FREEDOM OF SPEECH.

And like your freedom of speech, I believe it should be restricted in a certain number of ways.

And thats why arms should not be restricted to military personnel.

I come from a military family that has roots (literally) back to the Grand Armee. I respect them, but I wouldn't trust them any more than anyone else. Neither did the Founding Fathers who had just fought the military to be free.