easysauce wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
Not many hobbies involve collecting tools for mass murder and treating them like they're barbie dolls with thousands of collectable attachments and decorative pieces.

Fortunately, neither does gun collecting.

Except when it does, which is all the time.

wow... projecting blame for mass murder on lawful gun owners much?

 flamingkillamajig wrote:
Banning guns would make it that much easier for a government to do exactly as they wanted without much fear of reprisal.

 flamingkillamajig wrote:
also @melissia: Assault rifles are meant to kill people but sometimes people with assault rifles use them at a firing range. I don't know all the specifics as to what they are all used for and i don't know what data isn't manipulated by some group or biased in a way (sometimes people show results that prove them right as opposed to the ones that don't).

 Cheesecat wrote:

 flamingkillamajig wrote:
Banning guns would make it that much easier for a government to do exactly as they wanted without much fear of reprisal.

Except if you compare the US to other developed nations that have stricter gun laws you find that their government's are usually not any more abusive than US's.

 flamingkillamajig wrote:
@melissia: Oddly enough i'm unsure what to think on the whole gun issue. I don't think it exactly helps in the end but when you have a roommate that ends up doing drugs and gets his drug dealer to threaten to kill everybody in your house while he's out getting high (because he isn't paying on time for drugs) and police as a whole won't do a stake-out or help until after the fact (for instance when we're all dead) then you can bet a gun would at least be a deterrant. This happened to me with a roommate once and though i probably shouldn't let this effect me too much it does do something to one's opinion on something. I try not to let emotion bother me much but i was afraid at the time and if said drug dealer (my roommate did hard drugs) did decide to come we'd have all died and he would've lived having been gone all day. I'm more angry about irresponsible people that hurt anybody near them (the d**chebags and ***holes). They ruin life for everybody else.

Personally i think if you hate guns then you've never had to live in a high crime area which is poor or in decline. Poverty makes people desperate and though i'd rather not bring violence into something whenever somebody threatens rape or murder on me and my loved ones i'd rather have a deterrant if police don't do anything to stop them (read how police don't do stake-outs).

I don't completely advocate guns but i don't want them banned either. Not to mention every time some terrorist threat or killing spree happens every politician has to try banning guns or stripping citizens of rights to get what they want. Maybe i'm being irrational but it's like they're trying to force things into being a police state. I wouldn't mind at first in the past because it was always a world war but whenever it's some constant war like 'the war on terror' or 'the war on crime' it's ill defined and can allows certain freedom stripping laws to last a long time. Banning guns would make it that much easier for a government to do exactly as they wanted without much fear of reprisal.

also @melissia: Assault rifles are meant to kill people but sometimes people with assault rifles use them at a firing range. I don't know all the specifics as to what they are all used for and i don't know what data isn't manipulated by some group or biased in a way (sometimes people show results that prove them right as opposed to the ones that don't).

 whembly wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:

 flamingkillamajig wrote:
Banning guns would make it that much easier for a government to do exactly as they wanted without much fear of reprisal.

Except if you compare the US to other developed nations that have stricter gun laws you find that their government's are usually not any more abusive than US's.

How would you "measure" that?

Not calling BS here... but isn't this what non-truck owners vs truck owners feel like sometimes?

 Cheesecat wrote:

I don't think it can be measured, but if you take a general look at other developed nations/ like the UK, Canada, France, Germany, Norway, Japan, South Korea, Australia, etc their governments don't seem to abuse their power anymore than the US (imo) would roughly speaking but then again

you're right in the sense that this is probably something that's impossible to measure.

 whembly wrote:
Okay... fair enough... so, gut feeling eh?

 Melissia wrote:
The privilege to own a gun.

 Hordini wrote:
So, I'm just curious, what does it take to get a fully-automatic assault rifle with armor piercing ammunition in the US?

 Cheesecat wrote:

Well if gun ownership is a right in your country wouldn't that make it a privilege as well?

your right to swing your arm stops where the other person's nose begins. Because that person has just as many rights as you do.

 Jihadin wrote:
Its trigger pull. Well for a M4 its approx. 9.5 lbs of pressure to release the hammer.

 Kain wrote:
Aren't flamethrowers less regulated in America than Pot? Because a weapon that causes death so horrible that it's not considered Kosher by international law anymore is totally more acceptable than a mild drug more or less everyone's tried at least once.

That being said video games have taught me that watching flamethrower victims is funny, especially how they scream and flail.

 Cheesecat wrote:
@ whembly I'll take your word on it for now, unless I get a more convincing response that says otherwise besides legal definitions isn't something I'm very knowledgeable about.

What are rights, and where to they come from? This may seem to many Americans an absurd question, as most of us who are American are quite familiar with the Declaration of Independence. However upon closer examination it is this author's opinion that many Americans may not fully understand this fundamental concept to our form of government.We take it as a given that our rights come from our creator. Was our creator government? What a silly question. The answer obviously is no. The whole purpose of government as set forth in the Declaration of Independence is that governments are formed to "protect and secure" our rights. This is the fundamental premise of our form of government. How many of you out there would agree that given the current state of political discourse in the USA, we no longer adhere in any meaningful way to this amazing document written by Thomas Jefferson? I think most would agree that we as a nation have violated this fundamental premise that was so important in establishing the USA as first among nations.A right is defined in most legal dictionaries as an entitlement, which is far different than a privilege or a license which are granted from a legal authority such a law or statute made by a state legislature, or the the Congress. So if rights come from our creator, and privileges come from government, why the big fuss? What the fuss is all about is that government has now taken to doing exactly the opposite of what it was sworn to uphold, the Bill of Rights of the US Constitution. Most, if not all, government officials take an oath to defend the Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic. Unfortunately I believe that this oath is violated on a continual basis daily.If government is continually violating the rights that people are born with, the question I must ask is: who are they working for?It certainly does not appear to be you and me. Since the days of Marbury vs Madison the US Supreme Court has taken it upon itself the role of sole arbiter of what is constitutional and what is not, and in my opinion has let most if not all government officials off the hook in determining in their own consciences, if what they are doing is constitutional or not.An obvious question that arises in the discussion of rights is what rights do we have?Most people, including most judges, will tell you that you have the rights that are set forth in the Constitution and no others. This is not only wrong, it is also very dangerous in my opinion. This leads to the belief that our rights come from government, that is the Constitution. They do not. This is where a little known amendment to the Constitution was inserted at the behest of James Madison. It is the Ninth Amendment, which states,"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people".Interestingly enough, to my knowledge the Ninth Amendment has only been used in jurisprudence twice in any meaningful way. The first was Griswold vs. Connecticut, and the second was Roe vs. Wade. I am of the opinion that most Justices are scared stiff of what the Ninth means, and thus ignore it as much as they can.As any legal scholar will tell you that the Constitution of the United States was more than anything a limitation on the powers of the federal government, and any power not spelled out specifically was left to the states or to the people in the tenth amendment.Isn't that amazing? It is to me, because what it means fundamentally is that the government is limited, and the people (individuals) are free, and can assert rights that they have that are not specifically described in the first eight amendments to the Constitution. So what rights do I choose to assert as an individual? Aside from those guarantees set forth in the first eight amendments, I assert I have the right to be left alone, unless I am suspected through the probable cause clause of the Fourth Amendment of being engaged in criminal activity. I have the right to think what I want, to eat what I want. I have the right to put anything I wish into my sovereign body that I want. I could go on and on, however some people will say, no you don't, because if you do something that is harmful to yourself, then society has to pay for it. I will respond that I did not create this idea of socialism, others did, and this is why in my opinion that socialism is so dangerous to individual human rights as set forth in the Declaration of Independence. I am also arguing that if the government has the right, (which it does not) to tell me what I can and cannot put into my body - in this case pharmaceuticals come to mind - then the time will come when it will also tell me how many carbohydrates I can consume — only one donut today. It may sound funny to you now, but you just wait!The path that we are following as a nation will surely lead to tyranny if we do not wake up and demand that the government adhere firmly to the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution without prejudice. I also firmly assert that the War in Iraq, and all of the wars that we have engaged in since World War Two have been unconstitutional, the War Powers Act of 1973 notwithstanding, as in Article 1, Section 8 only Congress can declare War, not the President. The AUMF (Authorization to Use Military force in Iraq) resolution is not an Act of Congress but a resolution as defined here in a legal dictionary:

The practice of submitting and voting on resolutions is a typical part of business in Congress, state legislatures, and other public assemblies. These bodies use resolutions for two purposes. First, resolutions express their consensus on matters of public policy: lawmakers routinely deliver criticism or support on a broad range of social issues, legal rights, court opinions, and even decisions by the Executive Branch. Second, they pass resolutions for internal, administrative purposes. Resolutions are not laws; they differ fundamentally in their purpose.

I urge all citizens of their respective States to assert ALL of their rights, and to DEMAND that their government not usurp them in any way, and to abide by the rule of law as set forth in the Constitution of the United States of America.Below is a brief clip of an eight-hour constitutional law class by former Libertarian Presidential candidate Michael Badnarik. I suggest that anyone who is really interested in this subject watch his class, which is available on Google video. I welcome comments and discussion on this topic, but rancor and disparagement will be ignored by the author or on occasion returned in kind.

 agnosto wrote:
Bumpfire is one example; some older, less safe methods involved saving the firing pin or sear for some weapons which didn't require anything more technical than tools found around the house. Though technically not "auto" bumpfire produces something very, very close.

Many examples of either AP or just HV rounds are a danger and again, no reason to own any of them unless you're planning something other than an acceptable reason own a firearm anyway.

I don't see what's wrong with a .25? Even .22s are excellent weapons in trained hands because the rounds tend to penetrate without an exit and bounce around a bit; causing more internal damage. You, yourself give very good reasons not to have anything larger on your person because higher caliber rounds have a greater chance to harm bystanders or penetrate buildings/cover. The whole point of carrying a self-defense firearm is to 1)scare the attacker away 2)do the job of protecting yourself without hurting innocents. I can see no reason to carry a .44 as a self-defense weapon nor a rifle strapped to your back, in public. If you're going to conceal/carry, do so responsibly and be trained.

I think you need to check again about privateers. Sanctioned privateers had the blessing of the govt. Unsanctioned privateers were called pirates and were the same as armed gangs running around doing drivebys. Yes, if you had the money, you could build a boat with cannon and rage hell on the high seas but there were only two ways to go about it; legally or not. Pull into a port and not carry a letter of marque and you could have found yourself arrested for piracy.

99.9% of the people in this country should never own a firearm;

 Cheesecat wrote:
priv·i·lege
/ˈpriv(ə)lij/

Noun:
A special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available only to one person or group of people.

Verb:
Grant a privilege or privileges to: "English inheritance law privileged the eldest son".

Synonyms:
noun. prerogative - privelege - charter - franchise - right
verb. privelege

Well if gun ownership is a right in your country wouldn't that make it a privilege as well?

 Breotan wrote:

 Hordini wrote:
So, I'm just curious, what does it take to get a fully-automatic assault rifle with armor piercing ammunition in the US?

While your question was directed to agnosto, I thought I'd take a moment and actually answer it for the non-US peeps hanging out in this thread.

Generally, in order to OWN a fully automatic "assault rifle" with armor piercing ammo, you need to meet the following criteria:

1. Live in a State that allows private citizens to own fully automatic weapons. Not all of them do. For example, I live in Washington State where silencers are legal to own but machine guns are not. Yes, this means that I cannot and do not own a machine gun.
2. Buy such a weapon that was made before the May 20, 1986 assault weapons ban (they go for around $30,000.00 USD if you can find one), or
3. Locate the exact weapon you are going to purchase, since the ATF registration form requires the exact information of the weapon down to the serial number. Thus, it is not a "license" in the sense that you get a license first and then go shop for a weapon. If this weapon is from out-of-state, then you have to have the weapon transferred to an in-state Class III Dealer. Meaning, if you purchase a transferable M16 from New Hampshire and you reside in Texas, it must first be transferred tax-free on a Form 3 from New Hampshire to a Class III dealer in Texas, then on a tax-paid Form 4 to you. You would be responsible for paying the $200 tax to ATF. Got that? Two forms and a $200 tax to the ATF so far.
4. Initiate the Form 4 (transfer from in-state seller, either civilian or Class III Dealer, to you). You have to be able to obtain the authorization of the Chief Law Enforcement Officer (CLEO) of the agency that has law enforcement jurisdiction in your area, such as the Chief of Police of the city you reside in or the Sheriff of the county you reside in. Remember that while it is not illegal, some Police Chiefs and Sheriffs will decline to sign the Form 4. There is no law requiring them to sign.
5. File two copies of the Form 4 (with CLEO signature) along with two ATF Fingerprint Applicant Cards (ORI must read DCATF Firearms and Explosives, Washington, DC), two passport photos, a Certificate of Compliance Form 5530-20, and a check for $200 payable to ATF.
6. Wait about eight months for the ATF to process your paperwork and issue you your tax stamp.
7. Take possession of your weapon, ensuring that you transport it according to the laws and restrictions in your state.

So, that's almost just like walking into Wallmart and grabbing one of the shelf, eh?

 Breotan wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:
priv·i·lege
/ˈpriv(ə)lij/

Noun:
A special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available only to one person or group of people.

Verb:
Grant a privilege or privileges to: "English inheritance law privileged the eldest son".

Synonyms:
noun. prerogative - privelege - charter - franchise - right
verb. privelege

Well if gun ownership is a right in your country wouldn't that make it a privilege as well?

I'm going to guess that you know full well the difference between a dictionary definition and a legal definition and are just being an arse.

 Hordini wrote:

Thanks. I was being a bit sarcastic, as I already knew the answer, but I was hoping agnosto would respond. I agree that the information is useful for our non-American posters and our American posters who aren't particularly gun-savvy. There seems to be this false idea going around in some circles that it's easy as pie to get a fully-automatic weapon in the US.

 Melissia wrote:

easysauce wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
Not many hobbies involve collecting tools for mass murder and treating them like they're barbie dolls with thousands of collectable attachments and decorative pieces.

Fortunately, neither does gun collecting.

Except when it does, which is all the time.

wow... projecting blame for mass murder on lawful gun owners much?

No. Try reading for once in your life.

I stated that guns are tools of mass murder. That is their purpose-- to kill things, or more specifically people-- many, many people. That's their sole purpose, their raison d'etre. Assault rifles even more so. That's the entire reason that assault rifles were developed over traditional rifles-- because they were more efficient at killing a large number of people in small amount of time Anyone who thinks guns as anything other than a tool to kill people is a fool who shouldn't be trusted with a gun.

Once more, before you and people like you invariably spaz out, I am not advocating banning all guns. Indeed, I plan on buying another gun myself (for those curious, I was given a couple of my father's guns, but I want one that is mine, per se, rather than a hand-me-down more suitable to someone else's build), and think that owning guns is perfectly fine. Rather, I want you to start being honest with yourselves about what guns really are. They are deadly weapons, killing machines, tools of death.

In fact, that they are tools that allow the user to kill someone so easily is exactly why I want one. It functions as an equalizer in self-defense, so that a five foot six woman like me doesn't have to try to outrun or out-fight a six foot nine musclebound thug. But, when understanding how deadly they are, one knows that guns must always be treated with the utmost respect. And providing their deadly killing tools the proper amount of respect is the only way to ensure that one safely maintains and uses them, without unduly endangering others.

And THAT... is the only way one can ever deserve the right to own a gun. The privilege to own a gun.

 Seaward wrote:

Yes, if you put an auto sear into a semiauto AR-15, you have an auto AR-15. Those things aren't just lying around, though.