Gun Registration?

[Gisteppo]

I think the problem is far deeper than just a right/wrong issue.

Encarceration for gun crimes is nearly impossible as most institutions are full or overfull the majority of the time. I do agree that the number of laws are too high, but in this instance, more laws are still not a bad thing as weapons control does much good for a small price.

Decriminalizing and reducing the number of laws in other areas would significantly help overcrowding issues, which would then make things like felony gun possession charges more enforceable. If you are a convicted felon in possession of a pistol currently, the odds play in your favor because its a very low level felony and a significant amount of the time your charges will be deferred or the sentence modified to probation. As we all know, this is a high likelihood of reoffense type of crime. Unfortunately, it almost never results in a jail term. Until we loosen the laws in other areas we can't expect the law and order system to be the line of control.

Government is inefficient. Government is incapable of running at a profit because it is based in very inefficient, reactionary types of work. The reason it must be done at governmental levels and with taxes is because there will never be a profitable way to facilitate the jobs governments do in the private sector. In that, we have agents that we pay with our tax dollars to do these jobs, ones that provide a betterment to the public in overreaching ways.

Small taxation on items which can be deemed a luxury (unless your primary food source is hunted, guns are a luxury) doesn't offend me in the least. So long as we reap a benefit from said tax dollars. I thank the government every day for places like Interstate highways and wilderness areas in forests. I appreciate the foreign diplomatic spending and the FBI. Each layer has benefits, and they need to be paid for. If a few extra bucks slip away to license my boat or to pay my annual saltwater license, so be it.

Though we are the innocent, the innocent become the victims. If a tax of $25 from all handgun owners diminishes the likelihood that I will need to operate mine in self defense, thats a cheap insurance policy indeed.

E

[dandanfielding]

Sorry I've been quite busy lately and didnt have the time to keep up with this discussion.Ironically, I was in THIS country where the police can carry full-auto guns and routinely have road blocks and random search and seizure laws...
The Bill of Rights and especially the Second Ammendment have interested me since I was 15.I'm now 41.In the interest of full disclosure, I was a member of the N.R.A.,for 1 year in 1999.I declined to renew my membership because I think they are too corporate.They peddle gun bans to inflate membership to pay their own salaries(imho).Charlton Heston holding a MUSKET!! overhead while proclaiming"From My Dead Hands!" was just too much.I mean why not an AR15 or a M1A?Gutless biotches.They also support "reasonable gun laws".I have been or currently am a member of The Second Ammendment Foundation,J.F.P.O, G.O.A and was once a card carring member of the A.C.L.U.(the ACLU is just as corporate as the NRA!!)I am an ultra conservative(fiscally)with a very heavy Libertarian bent.Libertarians lose me on abortion though.I was once a liberal and (would have voted for Mondale,but I was only 17)voted for Dukakis in my first election.As I've grown older and delved farther into history I've become much more conservative.You see I dont just accept what somebody tells me is right as right.I have argued Second Ammendment Rights up and down the internet for over 10 years now.I know this is a fishing site (and I do love to fish!!!)but, this IS an off topic board so I will persist.I know this is a waste of time except maybe for the younger members who's minds may not be made up yet.I bet I've typed 500,000 words on this topic and I bet I've yet to change one single mind.Soo anyways...on to the topic at hand...
Gisteppo,I am truly not trying to pick a fight with you but I take issue with both your condescending tone and your presentation of your INTERPRETATION as academic.I would be happy to fish with you or hunt with you anytime you'd like, I know you are all the way across the state but it could happen.If the fish didnt bite we could at least discuss all the thing your wrong about
Quote
I personally would like to see the end of true assault weapons outside of specialized licensing. Making more firearms into Class III licensed weapons keeps the weapons in the hands of the right people, and out of the hands of others. It isn't a difficult license to obtain, it keeps track of extremely dangerous weapons, and creates enough revenue to pay for its own program costs.
Quote
Not sure Gisteppo as to how much you know about gun laws or about firearms in general but I swear to you that all "true" assault weapons are already covered by the National Firearms Act of 1934.All "true" assault weapons are fully automatic and all full auto weapons are already registered and licensed with the BATF.

Quote
Yes, I am fully aware. This is a hypothetical discussion of my personal opinion, not one of direct laws.
Sooo.. if you are aware that these types of firearms are all ready subjuct to "specialized licensing",background checks,finger printing,approval of your local Sheriff and yearly inspections by the BATF,then what more specialized license is there?Numerology?Phenominology?Your own personal opinion?
Quote
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.
Ahh,the old Well Regulated Militia strawman rears its ugly head.It is not necessary to define a well regulated militia,although for you I will.Well regulated=well drilled and supplied.Militia=any male person capable of bearing arms .What needs to be defined here is the second part.The right of the people to keep and bear Arms,shall not be infringed.Seems pretty straight forward to me.

Quote
The concept was actually based on state by state militias to control the federal government. It wasn't intended to be used as a populace against its tyranny, it was designed as something such as the Virgina Commonwealth being able to rise up against Federalist entities. Ask a Commonwealther about it, you will find very well informed and mildly militant people there who can clearly define the intent of militia.
To paraphrase my favorite president.."ahhh...there you go again."
Are you really telling me that the only ones who have the super secret second ammendmant decoder rings are the Virginia Commonwealthers?Are Commonwealthers noted for their superhuman ability of interpretting Constitutional law?If so how does one go about becomming one of the legendary Commenwealthers?Lots of states have an equivelent Right to Bear Arms in their state constitutions.Not really sure why I should have to ask a Commonwealther when I can just as easily read what a Justice of the SCOTUS said!,you DID read ALL of US vs Heller right?And US v Miller we definately will revisit that in a minute.But for now here we go wasting time defining millitia yet again.
MILLITIA=ANY MALE PERSON CAPABLE OF BEARING ARMS
Doesn't matter if they are from Old Virginy or Timbuktu.
And state millitias are what exactly?National Guard?Au contraire,mes ami.There was no National Guard before the National Defense Act of 1916.The National Guard is Equiped,Supplied,Commanded,funded by the U.S Government.So forces equiped,supplied,commanded and funded by the U.S Government are the watchdogs of the U.S government?Does the US government supply the decoder rings to all National Guard Units or only those that can prove that they are true Commonwealthers?
Quote
There is no more reason to "hide" behind the second amendment for self protection than there is for you to "hide" behind the first amendment while lobbying to limit my rights.I would suggest that you study up on District of Columbia v Heller from June 2008.The Supreme Court found that It is an individual right (there goes your well regulated militia argument) to keep arms for self defense AS WELL AS defense against tyranny.You may also want to read U.S. v Miller from 1939 which holds that millitary style weapons are EXACTLY the types of weapons covered by the second amendmant.

Quote
I would never use the first amendment to manipulate another amendment. Freedom of speech does not constitute lobbying, moreso it allows for dissent. You do have a very valid point in case law in the Heller ruling in that it carries with it the ability for self armament. This ruling basically upholds the current court opinion of the definition of the wording in the Constitution. The luxury of an evolving document such as the one we live under. However, the 1939 Miller case is a little weaker, as we are talking about very different classifications of weapons. Consider what weapons were under advisement (a shotgun with a barrel length of less than 18") in that situation, and those with which we are talking about today. A street howitzer doesn't have range like some of the incredibly powerful weapons available today. I would try to find a better ruling to stand on in the case of weapons covered by the amendment.
This was exactly my point.You are exercising your rights as enumerated in the First Ammendment(also the Magna Carta,the Declaration of Arbroath,the English Bill of Rights,the Declaration of the Man and the Citizen and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights).No apologies are necessary.We are free to speak our minds here,AS GUARANTEED THROUGH THE RIGHT FOR SELF PROTECTION!!!!
As far as US v Heller the court has upheld the traditional meaning of the Second Ammendnement.They used the plain reading as well as the historical context of the Second Ammendment.There is no "Evolving"document here.The Constitution was written so the common man could read it and no mental gymnastics are needed to understand it!!!!
Now onto US v Miller...I see you have convieniently PARTIALLY described this case.In this case the SOTUS(mistakenly) found that a short barreled shotgun was not a weapon commonly used by m

[Gisteppo]

I suppose people take me as condescending because of how I state things. Ive never considered myself any better than any other fellow man. Interesting that people feel that way when I step into politics.

Not sure Gisteppo as to how much you know about gun laws or about firearms in general but I swear to you that all "true" assault weapons are already covered by the National Firearms Act of 1934.All "true" assault weapons are fully automatic and all full auto weapons are already registered and licensed with the BATF.

Yup, totally agree. As I stated when I started this whole thing, its my personal opinion. Its not the actual law. The object is that people are in a tizzy that "Obama's gonna take my guns". This isn't the case, but its best to work in the hypothetical for individuals to see the plausible outcome. Obviously the bill originally in question has already died in committee, so this is the logical extension.

I would, however, like to see handguns more closely regulated by serial and ownership. Personal opinion of a handgun owner.

To paraphrase my favorite president.."ahhh...there you go again."
Are you really telling me that the only ones who have the super secret second ammendmant decoder rings are the Virginia Commonwealthers?

I suppose I wasn't particularly clear in the Commonwealth analogy. I have friends there that seem to be more skookum on the states rights issue than most of us out West. You are obviously of the same frame of mind they are, and have studied the topic. I applaud that because so few guns rights advocates have taken the time to do so. It was merely an example of a place where so many people hold the rights of the state far above those of the Fed Gov that it has taken them to higher levels of testing laws using the courts than we have here against Big Brother.

I do agree with your statements about the militia. That is the clearest definition, but it is never an organized militia. By using the constitutional argument for a personal rights case, I think clarification is needed. To say that I can own, say, a Thompson submachine gun because Im a part of a militia might stand, but to say the same of ownership of an RPG might be a bit of a stretch. If it is a defense of Personal rights then take some of the other tacks available by gun ownership in the state courts instead of the Militia argument. I am not saying its invalid, Im saying its the wrong ground to stand on in defense of your right to ownership. If the amendment is tested against ownership of something like exploding ordinance weapons (controlled ownership already), and the courts find a flaw in that, the entire amendment stands the chance of being amended back out. I don't want to see my rights lost because some mouth breather decides to use the courts to get out of an illegal situation he shouldn't have been in the first place.

There is no "Evolving"document here.The Constitution was written so the common man could read it and no mental gymnastics are needed to understand it!!!!

If it were not an evolving document, there would be no Amendments...

Its not subject to changing interpretations, its subject to modification by the populous, such as eliminating the 3/5ths personage of blacks.

I don't have as thorough of an understanding as you do on the Miller case. That does clarify it a bit for me. I may have to sit down sometime soon with the brief to read through the entire decision.

Sooo...Inalienable rights are just an interesting take to you?Have you read the Preamble?Their motives were quite clear if one spends the time to read the Federalist/Antifederalist papers.Here I gotta say nice try Gisteppo.

I have to say I have mixed feelings on the last part there. I understand the Declaration/Constitution to be fixed documents that both provide a framework for government and protection of the people from it. It is a concrete document that lays the bedrock for the power structure we live with. We definitely agree on that. Conversely, I don't agree in the least that the amendments are not living, breathing, changing, and evolving pieces of public sentiment at the time. They enable the people to have say in the operation of their government at unprecedented levels. If you and a few other people decided to start a movement to create a body of commissioners to filter laws coming out of Congress which has a say in what gets passed, you could easily start by lobbying, move through electing officials supportive of it, then testing it in the courts, and finally making a constitutional amendment that allows a public commission on laws passed. This would in fact be a way an amendment would be the popular sentiment of the time, and thusly living and breathing.

You definitely have a great breadth of knowledge on the topic, I appreciate that immensely. I get so sick of 3 word replies that are uneducated and unresearched. You might need to help me out with who HCI and Brady are, as I have absolutely no idea. You are getting my opinion, unadulterated by anything other than a little caselaw reading here and there and some propaganda from both sides for entertainment.

Oh, and Rosie is a fat sack of ****, she has no real opinions, just a big mouth.

Dan, we will be heading down for springers if you want to go, gotta see if we have room for a 4th. Otherwise Im gonna try to get over for halibut and humpies this year as well... We should go catch em!

E

[Anglinarcher]

I have partially followed this thread for some time, and I find the input, from both sides, interesting and disturbing. I wonder, from what 'well regulated militia' did the soldiers of the Revolutionary Army come from? I have read many of the same opinions given by both sides on this issue, and while I believe there is much to be argued about, I find that the common thread in all of the "founding fathers" positions on the subject boils down to the ability of the people to rise up against a Government gone astray.

Here is my problem, we have instituted a great many gun control laws in this country, and I have not seen indisputable evidence that they have reduced crime to any measurable amount. Yes, those that want to make that claim have lied with statistics to say it has, but then again, the opponents have done the same to prove it does not. If you crunch the same numbers, without the intended bias, the results are tenuous at best.

So, lacking evidence that any of the laws have indeed worked in the past, and with full knowledge that many of the current laws are not enforced, who benefits from additional gun control laws? I know that we have all heard the platitudes used, but the one that seems to hit me is the one that makes the claim the Criminals love gun control laws - it makes their job easier. After all, how many of you honestly believe that criminals cannot get any gun they want, and that criminals will turn in their guns? There is IMHO only one solid argument for additional gun control laws, and that is the same argument for putting locks on a door, and that is to keep the honest honest.

On the other hand, remember my problem, do I believe that we, as citizens, need armor piercing bullets? IF we indeed accept the premise that guns are for the defense of the citizenship against a Government gone astray, then YES. IF, on the other hand, our premise is that guns are for our own self protection, then limiting the available of body armor and bullets that can pierce it is quite reasonable, and therefore NO. Do we need to have unregulated possession of full automatic fire arms, i.e., Tommy Guns? Again, per the aforementioned arguments, yes and no. This is one example in how gun control did remove automatic weapons from the crime world, for the most part, but on the flip side, the Tommy Gun was previously in limited production before the bans, so if you will, Pandora's Box was only cracked, not opened.

The problem with Gun Control is that we can quickly start down the slippery slope. Once we start to regulate, where does the end come. I have seen people that can fire off a double action hand gun as fast as I can a semi-automatic pistol. So, if we remove Semi-auto handguns, then why not double actions? If we are going to outlaw semi-auto handguns, then why not semi-auto riffles? I have seen bolt action guys fire off rounds so fast that they are marginally close to some semi-autos. In fact, for JFK to have been killed by one gunman, this must have been indeed proved by history. In fact, I have seen the two top Bernelli guys shoot 7 clay birds out of the sky with a pump and with a semi-auto, and the semi-auto was only marginally faster. So, now do we outlaw pumps as well? Just how do we draw the line? With my semi-auto, I can drop a clip and reload so fast it matters little if I have a 5 round clip or a 50 round clip. So, do clip restrictions really make any difference?

The slippery slope argument is similar to a science experiment, one that I have actually seen done. Yes, science can be cruel, but here goes. You may have heard, and it is true, that if you take a frog and put it into a pot of cold water, turn up the heat, and let it heat slowly, he will stay inside and boil. But, if you drop a frog into a pot of boiling water, it will jump so fast it seldom dies. If we start with a little gun control today, and a little more later, and a little more later, will we jump free before the proverbial water boils?

Are we indeed safer in this country if guns are outlawed? I don't think that any intelligent argument has or can be made that proves this to me. Will be always be able to count on our Government having our best interest at hart? Hitler and Germany would suggest that this is not so. Even Thomas Jefferson, the great member of our founding fathers, said that those that beat their guns into plow shears will end up plowing for those that did not.

I respect a lot of you people on this site, and I would go fishing with any of you, any time. But on this subject, I respect Thomas Jefferson far more then I do you. Please, don't take this personally, but he has proving himself in history, and with his actions. He was not perfect, but on most issues he was correct. And I for one don't mind plowing, but I have no desire to do it for those that dictate that I do it.

[Gisteppo]

AA, interesting spin. Take both sides, oppose them in a single paragraph, and come out with a break-even statement. Not easy to do!

Id love to ask Jefferson his opinion of the Military Industrial Complex. Do you think he had it in his head that there would be businesses in his beloved country that would go as far as possible to increase kill ratio and injury specific ballistics? In his day, it was the job of the shooter to score his musket ball with a pocket knife to increase the likelihood that what he hit died.

I agree with your slippery slope, but I do find it relatively easy to draw certain lines. To give law enforcement a leading edge against the criminal you need to isolate certain ballistic rounds. To protect the citizenry, you don't control, but you track the weapons which are concealable. Concealable weapons are hundreds of times more dangerous to you and I than high powered and full auto regulated armament. Do I want to see gun shops stock CAR15s on every corner? Not really, but I would certainly be safer if they did and stopped selling pistols ad nauseum. The numbers of people killed by small, concealable guns are staggeringly higher than any other specialty weapon, for good reason. I can get my pistol into almost any building, almost any event, and rarely will I need to have a license to do so.

To have a serial number associated with a name would do a surprising amount to mitigate gun crime. Criminals may be able to obtain a pistol illegally, but if some association has been made to the original owner, a modicum of policework will dig up the path to which the weapon got to the user, and the user will typically be more easily apprehended. Those that are involved in law enforcement will agree (where do you think I got the idea?) that creating that bond between gun and owner will significantly impact gun involved crimes.

Criminals do not love gun control laws, because they are ill effected by items such as long rifles and full auto weapons. Management of smaller weapons will see a marked decrease in crime. If we would have been able to keep the ban in DC, at least research could have been done to see if it was effective. Gun crime there is at absurdly high levels, and to use it as a test bed to see what happens to the murder rate in 3 years would have added validity or obsolescence to your statement about statistics.


E

[swedefish4life1]

E= you make and mark many areas to Auto's or fully auto#-o as a weapon which the news pounds all the time in the media 24-7 this is miss Education and very misleading.



All these guns are ((semi Auto that you speak of)) some have bigger capacity clips and will carry more rounds/capacities the only real fact:-$
Glocks
AK
Riot shotguns and the list goes on and on .


A fully auto weapon is a Crime even to display without mant very strick rules and a federal crime to own unless its been altured then you have a real problem!:colors:

Is a semi/auto they sell fully auto ((NEVER)):-$ unless there crime owned and ran, service or miltary weapons you must pull the trigger each and every time to fire the gun not one will be a single hold down auto FEED?????

Fill me in on the Fully auto weapons and where and who has 1

The News pushes this BS=24-7 when the AK weapon of choice each and everytime in almost in every case is semi auto with a high Capacity clip?

A Bolt action hold very few Rnds= ((7mm mag)):-$ with the correct scope:-$ and shooter is 10 times more accurate and killer for a weapon and very above board in every law and county:-&

(Vegas)= Nevada not even sure now but years ago after some sporting events:cyclopsan We could shoot fully auto's inside and controlled gun ranges but not even sure on that anymore#-o

Was it fun I must say yes:cheers: but the party was over before the smoked Cleared:chef:

[Gisteppo]

Swede, a class 3 weapons license will put a nice full auto weapon in your hands.

Nobody really thinks they are out there, its merely a jumping off point.

E

[Anglinarcher]

AA, interesting spin. Take both sides, oppose them in a single paragraph, and come out with a break-even statement. Not easy to do!

Id love to ask Jefferson his opinion of the Military Industrial Complex. Do you think he had it in his head that there would be businesses in his beloved country that would go as far as possible to increase kill ratio and injury specific ballistics? In his day, it was the job of the shooter to score his musket ball with a pocket knife to increase the likelihood that what he hit died.

I agree with your slippery slope, but I do find it relatively easy to draw certain lines. To give law enforcement a leading edge against the criminal you need to isolate certain ballistic rounds. To protect the citizenry, you don't control, but you track the weapons which are concealable. Concealable weapons are hundreds of times more dangerous to you and I than high powered and full auto regulated armament. Do I want to see gun shops stock CAR15s on every corner? Not really, but I would certainly be safer if they did and stopped selling pistols ad nauseum. The numbers of people killed by small, concealable guns are staggeringly higher than any other specialty weapon, for good reason. I can get my pistol into almost any building, almost any event, and rarely will I need to have a license to do so.

To have a serial number associated with a name would do a surprising amount to mitigate gun crime. Criminals may be able to obtain a pistol illegally, but if some association has been made to the original owner, a modicum of policework will dig up the path to which the weapon got to the user, and the user will typically be more easily apprehended. Those that are involved in law enforcement will agree (where do you think I got the idea?) that creating that bond between gun and owner will significantly impact gun involved crimes.

Criminals do not love gun control laws, because they are ill effected by items such as long rifles and full auto weapons. Management of smaller weapons will see a marked decrease in crime. If we would have been able to keep the ban in DC, at least research could have been done to see if it was effective. Gun crime there is at absurdly high levels, and to use it as a test bed to see what happens to the murder rate in 3 years would have added validity or obsolescence to your statement about statistics.


E

I have spent too much time debating, being required to take either side at the flip of a coin, so I have learned to view both sides for their weakness and strengths. This is how I can accomplish the first attribute you give to me.

I believe that Jefferson made his opinion clear, even without knowing what the future would bring. He believed that freedom was more important then security, but I do not remember his quotes. Nevertheless, it would indeed be interesting to ask him, but that is not going to happen. Nevertheless, based on what he gave us, he and the other founding fathers, we have much to consider and protect.

I am unimpressed that you can draw the line on the slippery slope, not because I don't trust you, but because I don't trust who will replace you when you are gone. Lacking a firm line, etched in Rock, the line in the sand is redrawn every time the waves wash in and out. I fear that you, and the populace, are likely to keep drawing that line in different locations. That is the reason the constitution, and the first 10 amendments to it, is designed to be so hard to change; it is intended to be that line drawn in the Rock.

Please correct me if I am wrong, but the DC gun ban is not just a couple of years old, but many years old. I believe that sufficient evidence has been observed, it is just that such evidence is a matter of contention by both sides. IF, and I do mean IF, true and honest politicians were judging the results, then I would be in favor of whatever the outcome was, but they are not.

Here are the number one reasons for the opposing attachment of the gun to the owner, and for that matter additional gun control laws, through continual and rigidly enforced registration. First, it is not physically feasible. We can't even keep track of illegal aliens, and they are much larger, and much easier for you and me to see. You just can't hide one of those under the bed or in your belt loop.

Second, this is indeed the step that Hitler and Germany used to confiscate guns as the Nazi's took over. Could that ever happen to us? I hope not, but that is the reason the founding fathers wanted to develop the multi-branch government, and many believe that the ND amendment was written, to keep a tyrannical government from taking over.

I believe that you and I will just have to agree to disagree, and as in a debate, allow the judges who read this to make score us. But, unlike other competitions I have been in, I offer you no had of victory, and claim none for myself. Nevertheless, if the judges score this one wrong, then either we will be in for far greater crime, or we will be in for a future totalitarian government, one totally foreign to what we say we love and respect as lead by our current Constitution.

OH ya, one more thing, does this mean we won't be going fishing this summer? I can avoid Religion and Politics if you can during that trip.

[Gisteppo]

Please correct me if I am wrong, but the DC gun ban is not just a couple of years old, but many years old. I believe that sufficient evidence has been observed, it is just that such evidence is a matter of contention by both sides. IF, and I do mean IF, true and honest politicians were judging the results, then I would be in favor of whatever the outcome was, but they are not.

The DC ban was tested within a year of its inception. The period that would be required has to be more than 5 years to allow what guns are there now to be eroded by law enforcement to smaller numbers. Unfortunately we will never get to see that.

Here are the number one reasons for the opposing attachment of the gun to the owner, and for that matter additional gun control laws, through continual and rigidly enforced registration. First, it is not physically feasible. We can't even keep track of illegal aliens, and they are much larger, and much easier for you and me to see. You just can't hide one of those under the bed or in your belt loop.

Second, this is indeed the step that Hitler and Germany used to confiscate guns as the Nazi's took over. Could that ever happen to us? I hope not, but that is the reason the founding fathers wanted to develop the multi-branch government, and many believe that the ND amendment was written, to keep a tyrannical government from taking over.

Tracking a handgun using that method would be exactly like tracking the VIN of an automobile. People are much harder to track because they are deceptive. A gun either has a serial on it or its ground off, in which case it is illegal regardless.

Im still not an advocate of confiscation. I think what is happens to be what is, and we start from that point on. The similarities of weapons bans and confiscation by Nazi Germany are better related to the UK and places like Sweden, less so in a place as heavily armed as the US. We have higher numbers of dollars in gun sales annually than many countries GDP.

I agree with your final statement completely. Neither is the victor, but the points can be laid out for the undecided to weigh in their own way personally. I know im horribly in the minority around here, but thats a luxury in that I have so many people to test my ideas!

Oh, and I have been waiting for that trip to Rock with ya. If you wanna talk politics, you can start. I don't get heated in the least by talking politics, and can set it aside anytime.

E

[swedefish4life1]

Not One will get my tools, screw drivers, hammers, screw guns or weapons the risk out weighs the reward in any degree or capacity.

Sporting Rife up to 350 yards = expert/marksman

Shotguns=3 sport derby clay winner and trick shot at the local fairs

Upland bird dogs and guide 25 plus years

Handgun= wheel and autoloaders in combat form and disciple certified Expert/marksman

Full combat weapons =marksman/expert field trained.

Like water, batteries, dry foods, can foods during any trying risk filled time or times = stock enough ammunitions for personal rights and protections and being the only choice I would ever make and my daughter at age 13 could out shoot any of my buds but 2 with modern firearms and has never touched handled them like any tool with high respect and education from doing.
Now pushing 17

Working her archery skills this spring=stealth sporting death and a great indoor family fun sport at the correct center.

Never bring a squirt gun to a fire fight bring the heater, the can opener the deal breaker your 1st choice could be your only choice you get to make trust me I have and know.

Pray for peace and wellness and protect both of those wishes like fishes as well:-$

[Anglinarcher]

Oh, and I have been waiting for that trip to Rock with ya. If you wanna talk politics, you can start. I don't get heated in the least by talking politics, and can set it aside anytime.

E

I have an archery shoot this Saturday, and I don't know your schedule, but, send me a PM, suggest schedule for the following week, and let's see what we can put together.

Now, if we can do this, why can't our elected officials find common ground and agreement?#-o

[Anglinarcher]

Not One will get my tools, screw drivers, hammers, screw guns or weapons the risk out weighs the reward in any degree or capacity.

Sporting Rife up to 350 yards = expert/marksman

Shotguns=3 sport derby clay winner and trick shot at the local fairs

Upland bird dogs and guide 25 plus years

Handgun= wheel and autoloaders in combat form and disciple certified Expert/marksman

Full combat weapons =marksman/expert field trained.

Like water, batteries, dry foods, can foods during any trying risk filled time or times = stock enough ammunitions for personal rights and protections and being the only choice I would ever make and my daughter at age 13 could out shoot any of my buds but 2 with modern firearms and has never touched handled them like any tool with high respect and education from doing.
Now pushing 17

Working her archery skills this spring=stealth sporting death and a great indoor family fun sport at the correct center.

Never bring a squirt gun to a fire fight bring the heater, the can opener the deal breaker your 1st choice could be your only choice you get to make trust me I have and know.

Pray for peace and wellness and protect both of those wishes like fishes as well:-$

Swede, you make some good points, if I can understand you.

One thing I do see is that you are "field trained". Being ex military, I too am highly trained, so perhaps that is why I made sure my family was highly trained as well.

This one area that I believe there is precedent around the world. Israel has low crime, high tarriest problems, but low crime, and every adult is required to "qualify" with and own a weapon. Part of the National defense if I remember correctly.

Is it Sweden of Switzerland that also requires something similar?

Now this is gun control I could support, and it provides that "highly regulated militia" as well. Perhaps we should consider this?

[ndn]

Like water, batteries, dry foods, can foods during any trying risk filled time or times = stock enough ammunitions for personal rights and protections and being the only choice I would ever make and my daughter at age 13 could out shoot any of my buds but 2 with modern firearms and has never touched handled them like any tool with high respect and education from doing.
Now pushing 17

I have three children and four grandchildren. The children all went through gun training classes. All three children have done target shooting with pistols,rifles, shotguns, and archery.My Son is an avid hunter and flyfisherman. He has taken a 6*7 Bull Elk with a bow.
Even though my daughters do not have a gun in their house,They have encouraged Me to take my Grandchildren shooting so they could learn safe gun handling and respect for firearms.If they were at a Friends house and their friend produced a fire arm, they would no they should tell an adult or leave before something bad happened.My youngest grandchild is ten and is a regular Annie Oakley with a 22 rifle.
This summer I plan on introducing them to some trap shooting.

[Lucius]

Anglinarcher,
It is switzerland that requires all men to serve in the military. When they are of age to serve they are issued a fully automatic assault rifle and are required to keep them in there home. From what I read is sounds like they were usually issued 50 rounds of sealed ammunition that was regularly checked by officials, but that has since been ceased. When the individual leaves the military he can elect to keep his gun, in which case the gun is taken and the fully automatic capabilities are removed and a standard semi-auto rifle is returned to the individual. Either way you look at it, the standard for a Swiss home is to have a an assault rifle of some kind and they happen to have one of the lowest crime rates in the world. In fact is sounds like most crimes are committed between family members. that tells me don't train your wife how to use a gun and piss her off too!! ;)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politi ... witzerland

[Gisteppo]

Do remember that many of the lower-crime countries have compulsory national service (which I think is a great idea) in either foreign or domestic operations, be they military or para-military. Sweden included.

E

[Anglinarcher]

Do remember that many of the lower-crime countries have compulsory national service (which I think is a great idea) in either foreign or domestic operations, be they military or para-military. Sweden included.

E

I have always pondered the concept of some form of compulsory national service for the US. I am not sure that I would dictate that all must serve in the Armed Services, but some form of service. I think that this is a logical extension of JFK's "ask not what your Country can do for you, but ask what you can do for your Country". For a Democrat, he was pretty conservative.

Consider what would happen if we had 12 months of required service to, oh say, work in any one of these areas:

a) Armed Services
b) Parks and Wilderness
c) Foreign humanitarian service
d) Litter clean-up

Oh I don't know what would be a good service option, but we have a generation that expects to receive all the benefits, but provide none of the work. At least the public works projects during the last depression provided benefits that we are still taking advantage of today.

I suspect, even suggest, that if we were expected to give to our country when we were just starting our adult lives that we would be far more willing to engage the issues of societies problems instead of leaving it to a hand full of people on INTERNET forums do discuss.

[Gisteppo]

I believe in compulsory service 110%. Choosing options like the USFS, DOD, USO, Natl Guard (with a non-foreign-deployment contract if desired), and other options would benefit the country immensely, and provide an income, health care, and guidance to those who are in the program. Make it work along the lines of Guardsmen with part time eligibility to those who are students at the university level so as not to defer education and to make education a more inviting option.

E

[Anglinarcher]

I believe in compulsory service 110%. Choosing options like the USFS, DOD, USO, Natl Guard (with a non-foreign-deployment contract if desired), and other options would benefit the country immensely, and provide an income, health care, and guidance to those who are in the program. Make it work along the lines of Guardsmen with part time eligibility to those who are students at the university level so as not to defer education and to make education a more inviting option.

E

This is scary, we are starting to agree with each other.

[swedefish4life1]

[kutthroatkilla]

All this talk of guns and no talk of making some fast money off these puppies' stocks...alright so maybe some have been late to the game on the cup and handle formation put in by Smith and Wesson, but I believe it's a new base and offers an excellent entry point below $5.00. Check out Smith and Wesson's common stocks guys...(SWHC) listed on the NASDAQ. Ruger follows much the same flow, but sales figures there are not as high as at Smith and Wesson. But RGR has a better balance sheet with limited LT debt. SWHC is really swimming in it (LTD) and management is sub-par...but it's too good of a chart to pass up. I'll take my gun(s), my SWHC stock, and some silver (both the bullion and the fish)...and maybe a BBQ or two...Keep buyin them guns!!