They're Coming...For Your Guns!!!

[Ordinary12]

There's been a major increase in the amount of crazy people walking our streets lately and the solution of our government seems to be the disarming of the people who are being victimized by the crazy people. Does anyone else find this line of thought flawed? If you're reading this post then you're probably a fan of the "We're Alive" story. Just imagine trying to survive in a zombie outbreak while at the same time your government says you will be arrested if you have a gun for self defense. INSANE!!! Every person in the world is not a MMA Master...the majority of us are couch surfers. We need guns to protect ourselves from the crazy people out there.

I'm also very angry about the labels being assigned to people for exercising common sense. There was an ice storm in 1996 that left the majority of the south without power for two weeks or more. If you weren't prepared for an emergency at that time then you were in a world of hurt. The same thing can be applied to the people on the east coast right now. So why does the media label people right wing extremeist for having more than one weeks worth of food in storage? Why are people labeled as potential terrorist for owning a gun and having enough ammo to repel an outside threat? What has happened to this country? There was a time when highschool aged boys would have gun racks in there trucks when they drove to school!!! Having a pantry that was well stocked was completely expected.

So...now comes the question. Do you know what the Second Amendment was written for? Its not for hunting...its for defending yourself from a tyranical government and from the crazies of this world. The first thing a tyranical government does when it comes into power is disarm the people so they can't fight back when they go "Crazy Train" on the people. If you don't have a gun and at least one thousand rounds for it then make it a priority. There's no such thing as Superman...anyone can be killed... and your familly is not immune from the rest of the world. Protect what's important to you.

[turbo]

It's a little scary with all the gun control talk. I know some states are pretty serious about making sure their people can have their guns. I mean hell, Oklahoma is starting this week an open carry law...http://www.opencarry.org/?page_id=288

I believe in the second amendment and own guns. Illinois is not a concealed carry(yet), but mine are locked up, only i know where the keys are and they are safe. These kind of events are driven by deeper problems, not necessarily just mental health, but several things come into play.

Just because someone has access to a gun, like you said, are labeled and hated upon.

[Litmaster]

Just because someone has access to a gun, like you said, are labeled and hated upon.

More people die from drunk drivers every year than from crazies in school shootings, but you don't hear anyone calling to take away cars or booze.

[DaTank]

Guns don't kill people, people with guns kill people, but if they are zombies or self defense then it's ok

[scbubba]

More people die from drunk drivers every year than from crazies in school shootings, but you don't hear anyone calling to take away cars or booze.

Yeah, it's funny how folks will use (and ignore) numbers to make their point. Many of the numbers I see talking about the number of deaths caused by guns in the US include suicides. They also include defensive gun uses that resulted in the attacker/perp death.

A lot of people, those with and without agendas against gun ownership, are looking for simple answers in the wake of the Newtown, CT tragedy. There are no simple answers to something like this. More laws making it harder to have legal gun ownership has not been effective here yet.

[nikvoodoo]

Guns don't kill people, people with guns kill people, but if they are zombies or self defense then it's ok

I think the gun helps.


More people die from drunk drivers every year than from crazies in school shootings, but you don't hear anyone calling to take away cars or booze.

We make it harder to drive than own a gun. You have to take classes, get permits, pass a practical and written test, eye exam..... Or I could go to a gun show and buy an assault rifle.


Yeah, it's funny how folks will use (and ignore) numbers to make their point. Many of the numbers I see talking about the number of deaths caused by guns in the US include suicides. They also include defensive gun uses that resulted in the attacker/perp death.

82% of the stats listed online are made up.

No one with a head on their shoulders is suggesting abolition of all guns. But. Can anyone tell me legit reason one needs military grade assault weapons, extended clips, or fully automatic anything?

[reaper239]

this is a topic that has gone around ad nauseum (i think i spelled that right (i like to use big words, but i never know how to spell them)) our solanine, our resident brit, espouses highly the virtues of gun control, while folk like me argue that since criminals don't follow the law, restrictions shouldn't be placed upon law abiding citizens who would be under no inclination to break the law in the first place. if you search deep enough, you will find several threads with some very thought out discussion (and some downright internet screaming matches (although those were more between osi and myself (before we became bros))) regarding the issue of gun control. since we're alive is such a great show, it draws a crowd ranging the full spectrum of ideological, political, and religious beliefs.

be advised, it gets dark towards the end.

note: i was rereading over this and i wanted to put a caveat: i got very emotional towards the end of this. if it comes across a little strong, that's the emotion. i'm not going to edit it, because i feel that it's what i intended to say, i just wanted to make a note here.

now, regarding the topic at hand (cracks knuckles over keyboard) let's consider the israeli (or utah for that matter) model: in israel, the soloution to school house massacre is to arm the teachers, and it works. in utah, i believe, every school district has classroom concealed carry, and there have been precisely 0 school massacres in utah. places where freedom is allowed to flourish are places where you have less crime. i personally believe that the purpose of legislation should be solely to protect the rights of individuals, ie: if i smash your window, i have to pay for it, or if you crash your car into a building, you have to pay to fix it. to that end, gun control serves to needlessly infringe on the rights of the individual, without providing any benefit to counterbalance the infringment. how did that gun free zone work, connecticut? how did that gun free movie theater treat you, aurora? criminals, or psychopaths as it were, pay no heed to the law that says you can't murder people, what on earth makes you think that they would pay any mind whatsoever to a sign on a wall? what logic says that the way to defend against an insane man with a gun is to disarm the sane people in the crowd? connecticut ranked 4th on the brady campaigns report card of gun control, and yet all of those gun laws completely and utterly failed to prevent this man from storming into a school with stolen guns and shooting 20 children and 7 staff. 20 children, 20 of them. think about that for a moment, there are 20 children who will not be home for Christmas with their parents, who will never grow up to fufill their dreams of becoming police (as my own little brother dreams) or doctors, or president of the united states. the people who created the environment where this is possible should be held criminally liable imo. i'm done, i went a lot darker than i meant to, but damnit, this crap about brought me to tears.

[reaper239]

I think the gun helps.



We make it harder to drive than own a gun. You have to take classes, get permits, pass a practical and written test, eye exam..... Or I could go to a gun show and buy an assault rifle.



82% of the stats listed online are made up.

No one with a head on their shoulders is suggesting abolition of all guns. But. Can anyone tell me legit reason one needs military grade assault weapons, extended clips, or fully automatic anything?

because criminals have those things, and i want to be at least as well armed as them, and the government while i'm at it. besides, the second ammendment isn't about need. you have a right lo life, what need does anyone have to live to 90? does it really matter. law abiding citizens won't break the law, whether they have "military grade" equipment or not. btw, it's very difficult, and expensive, to get anything fully auto.

[scbubba]

We make it harder to drive than own a gun. You have to take classes, get permits, pass a practical and written test, eye exam..... Or I could go to a gun show and buy an assault rifle.

I think we definitely have an issue with not treating long guns and handguns the same way with respect to background checks and waiting periods.


82% of the stats listed online are made up.

And a bunch of them aren't. I've looked at stats used by both sides of the issue (specifically the Handgun Control Institue and the NRA) and they both "massage" the numbers to fit their agendas. HCI (and other folks on their side) have, in some cases, included suicides and defensive gun uses in their numbers for gun deaths. While those deaths did result from guns, they mislead people. The NRA has inflated their numbers for defensive gun uses by extrapolating from numbers of guns privately owned and not from hard reported numbers (because apparently a lot of defensive gun uses that don't result in death or injury are not reported).

My point is that numbers like that don't tell the story. It's a deeper issue than a post on facebook or a 30 sec sound byte on CNN can portray.


No one with a head on their shoulders is suggesting abolition of all guns. But. Can anyone tell me legit reason one needs military grade assault weapons, extended clips, or fully automatic anything?

I'll agree with you about the people calling for abolition of guns: they probably don't have a good head on their shoulders. But there are a lot of people calling for an abolition of provate gun ownership. Of all kinds of guns. Thankfully they are a minority.

As far as legit reasons for some of the things you mentioned: I'll go to my understanding of the 2nd Amendment - it's there to protect us against threats foreign and domestic. This nation was formed in a revolution against the governing power. We put protections into the new nation against another governing power like that.

Should it be as easy as a craigslist meet-up to buy a .50cal bolt action rifle or AR-15? Probably not. And you can't legally do that in a lot of places. Some places you can (Colorado and Arizona for example, if I recall correctly). And it's pretty damned hard to legally acquire full auto weapons (but it is possible to legally do it in a lot of states).

I'm not against laws around firearms. We have a lot. But let's face it, no matter how many we have, disturbed and/or violent people will find a way....

[nikvoodoo]

My 82% comment was made in jest. I did not mean to disparage what you were saying about gun deaths, though the sites I've been visiting do break it down to the different degrees...I suppose for lack of a better term right now...

The second amendment is intended to create a militia against the British should they decide to come back. This was before the US had a military industrial complex and a standing army, navy, marine corp and air force.....especially the air force....if they had figured that out back then I'd be really impressed...

The idea that the citizenship of the US can even be as well armed as the government has become preposterous. If that's the case, we should have access to nuclear weapons and drones. That's why I'd say remove military grade weapons from the populace. And the same thing would apply that everyone has been talking about in terms of people finding a way...if the need arises, I'm sure those who would overthrow a tyrannical US government could get those weapons.

[Ordinary12]

I can respond to your question about why we need such powerful ,military grade weapons. The answer is very simple...in fact, I covered it in my initial post. We need those powerful weapons to defend ourselves from a tyranical government. The Second Amendment actually states that the citizens are responsible for maintaining a "Free State".

"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."

We are the militia....not the National Guard or the different branches of the military. Posse Comitatus states that the military should never be used against the free citizens of America...but how are you going to enforce it? Through my faith in Christ and the most powerful weapons I can get my hands on!!! Don't get brain washed by the media who would have you think that every freedom fighter is a terrorist...the first terrorist in this country are now called the "Founding Fathers".

[reaper239]

My 82% comment was made in jest. I did not mean to disparage what you were saying about gun deaths, though the sites I've been visiting do break it down to the different degrees...I suppose for lack of a better term right now...

The second amendment is intended to create a militia against the British should they decide to come back. This was before the US had a military industrial complex and a standing army, navy, marine corp and air force.....especially the air force....if they had figured that out back then I'd be really impressed...

The idea that the citizenship of the US can even be as well armed as the government has become preposterous. If that's the case, we should have access to nuclear weapons and drones. That's why I'd say remove military grade weapons from the populace. And the same thing would apply that everyone has been talking about in terms of people finding a way...if the need arises, I'm sure those who would overthrow a tyrannical US government could get those weapons.

that's just plain rediculous, the idea that a preamble to an ammendment should limit or alter the content of the emmendment itself has been disregarded in court as long as the second ammendment debate has raged. the preamble states a reason why the people have the right, but it doesn't have to be the only reason, or even be true, and it doesn't change who has the right. the second ammendment has nothing to do with militias, to suggest otherwise is just plain silly. btw, the constitution for the federal government (including the bill of rights) was ratified in 1788, but the us army was established by the confederacy in 1784.

the armament of citizens is only preposterous to those who are not astute students of history, and the tyrannies of the past, and the atrocities perpetrated by those tyrannies.

at this point i'm taking myself out of this discussion. i feel a little too emotional right now to continue, but i may be able to at a later time.

[scbubba]

My 82% comment was made in jest. I did not mean to disparage what you were saying about gun deaths, though the sites I've been visiting do break it down to the different degrees...I suppose for lack of a better term right now...

The second amendment is intended to create a militia against the British should they decide to come back. This was before the US had a military industrial complex and a standing army, navy, marine corp and air force.....especially the air force....if they had figured that out back then I'd be really impressed...

The idea that the citizenship of the US can even be as well armed as the government has become preposterous. If that's the case, we should have access to nuclear weapons and drones. That's why I'd say remove military grade weapons from the populace. And the same thing would apply that everyone has been talking about in terms of people finding a way...if the need arises, I'm sure those who would overthrow a tyrannical US government could get those weapons.

I'm not attacking you, Nik. I got the joke about the 82% but did want to clarify my statement on the stats too. I really do appreciate you coming on here with a differing view. It allows for real conversation and exchange of ideas.

I see the 2nd amendment as a protection against tyrannical government and not just the British. The folks that drafted that amendment knew what a tyrannical government was and could do and knew it needed to protect against in in various forms. Not just with checks and balances in the governing bodies.

Regarding being armed as well as the military - I assume your comment about nukes, etc was meant in hyperbolic fashion and not serious. I may be wrong. But my thought on this is that an assault rifle or sniper rifle is not the same as a nuke or a drone or several other weapon systems that are very complicated to operate and very illegal for private ownership.

So, what should be legal and what should not for a private citizen to own? How hard should it be for someone to own it legally? These are hard questions to deal with and warrant more than a knee jerk reaction following a tragedy. It also needs people that do not work for organizations on one extreme or the other to have conversations about underlying things. Unfortunately, our society has moved a long way from that sort of thing in the recent past. And that's a damn shame....

My personal belief is to err on the side of the freedoms established in the US. Allow responsible gun ownership and enforce the laws we have (gun or otherwise). Use the system of governance we have in place to make changes, if needed, without overturning the basic civil liberties and freedoms we have built on.

[nikvoodoo]

How can you choose to ignore preamble to the 2nd amendment? If it has nothing to do with militias, then why is it even there? Why isn't the entire text "Americans have the right to bear arms." Can we just ignore other parts of the Bill of Rights, or is this just a special case?

If you want to say we're going to turn into a tyranny, then you don't trust the same founders who crafted and designed our checked and balanced government. Explain to me how a tyrannical overlord takes over this country...seriously. How does a tyrannical dictator come to power where there is no way to remove that person from power other than a coup? We have other procedures and tools given to us other than an armed conflict.

No point in continuing myself. I'm not overly emotional, but as with every discussion of this nature: I'm not changing your mind, you're not changing mine.

scbubba: I just wanted to make sure the joke came through. Yes. Nukes and drones are hyperbole. I do not expect anyone to be allowed to have such materials. I'd also expect our government to not go all crazy loco and use any of those weapons on its citizenry.

Liberals survived 8 years of Bush thinking he was going to bring around the end of days. Conservatives are now living through 8 years of Obama thinking the same thing. Maybe by 2016 a real centrist party will emerge and we can all join hands together and think the centrist is going to bring about the end of days and we can finally hold productive conversations again.

[scbubba]

How can you choose to ignore preamble to the 2nd amendment? If it has nothing to do with militias, then why is it even there? Why isn't the entire text "Americans have the right to bear arms." Can we just ignore other parts of the Bill of Rights, or is this just a special case?

If you want to say we're going to turn into a tyranny, then you don't trust the same founders who crafted and designed our checked and balanced government. Explain to me how a tyrannical overlord takes over this country...seriously. How does a tyrannical dictator come to power where there is no way to remove that person from power other than a coup? We have other procedures and tools given to us other than an armed conflict.

My personal opinion - it's the safety net. Anything made by man can fail or be overcome by man. Consider it the last line of checks and balances, if you will.


No point in continuing myself. I'm not overly emotional, but as with every discussion of this nature: I'm not changing your mind, you're not changing mine.

That is the truth of it. It's an interesting discussion but in the end we usually walk away holding the same opinions/beliefs we started with. It matters more how we conduct ourselves in these discussions, IMO.


scbubba: I just wanted to make sure the joke came through. Yes. Nukes and drones are hyperbole. I do not expect anyone to be allowed to have such materials. I'd also expect our government to not go all crazy loco and use any of those weapons on its citizenry.

Liberals survived 8 years of Bush thinking he was going to bring around the end of days. Conservatives are now living through 8 years of Obama thinking the same thing. Maybe by 2016 a real centrist party will emerge and we can all join hands together and think the centrist is going to bring about the end of days and we can finally hold productive conversations again.

I'm with you on something centrist. The 2 party system is pulling America apart. I'd prefer at least 3 major parties but really would like 5 or 6 more minor platforms/parties which would better represent the diversity of the population and not the "well, I hate this group the least" or "I guess I'm going to be a single issue voter and those guys are closer to me on that one issue" types of voting we have had for many years now....

Thanks again, Nik, for the discussion.

[nikvoodoo]

I mean if you look at the past election and the Tea Party candidates ran on their own platform and left the moderate republican base alone, the make up of congress would look much much different. I'd prefer have 4 some odd parties. For the movements we know now: Far Left represented by OWS, Democrats take the middle left, Republicans cover the middle right, Tea Party covers the Far Right. I'd prefer that.

[Kc]

*walks into thread... *reads title... *turns and walks out. ;)

[reaper239]

I mean if you look at the past election and the Tea Party candidates ran on their own platform and left the moderate republican base alone, the make up of congress would look much much different. I'd prefer have 4 some odd parties. For the movements we know now: Far Left represented by OWS, Democrats take the middle left, Republicans cover the middle right, Tea Party covers the Far Right. I'd prefer that.

i'm going to be honest with you, i think we should set it up like the first few presidencies, the second place becomes the vice president. i think this would balance out between right and left. even if you don't agree on all policies, you'd have to set aside your differences and have enough respect for each other to get things done. it would force a balance starting at the very top. think how things might have been different if gore had been vp during the bush years. it would contribute to national unity, instead of having the nation split nearly in half.

[yarri]

*walks into thread... *reads title... *turns and walks out. ;)

That made my entire day. :)

[nikvoodoo]

*walks into thread... *reads title... *turns and walks out. ;)
Wayland you pansy!!! Sheesh!! ;)


i'm going to be honest with you, i think we should set it up like the first few presidencies, the second place becomes the vice president. i think this would balance out between right and left. even if you don't agree on all policies, you'd have to set aside your differences and have enough respect for each other to get things done. it would force a balance starting at the very top. think how things might have been different if gore had been vp during the bush years. it would contribute to national unity, instead of having the nation split nearly in half.

That would be an interesting dynamic to return to I have to say. I think the White House would need a steel cage installed on the grounds :p

[scbubba]

I mean if you look at the past election and the Tea Party candidates ran on their own platform and left the moderate republican base alone, the make up of congress would look much much different. I'd prefer have 4 some odd parties. For the movements we know now: Far Left represented by OWS, Democrats take the middle left, Republicans cover the middle right, Tea Party covers the Far Right. I'd prefer that.

That seems reasonable to me. Then our representative form of government could really represent the constituency more and special interests (at least a little bit) less. But, like so many things, the money isn't in this sort of thing so it ain't likely to just happen...


I think the White House would need a steel cage installed on the grounds :p

That would definitely get more people interested in politics and watching CSPAN.... :cool:

[Witch_Doctor]

*walks into thread... *reads title... *turns and walks out. ;)

Ha ha. Same here, but I think I'll share a bit before tip-toeing away.
Approval Voting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Approval_voting): You vote for as many candidates as you wish that are on the ballot. You don't vote for anyone who you do NOT want to win. The candidate with the most votes win. There are other variants such as ranking your votes into 1st, 2nd, ... choice and so on.

OK, bye bye.

[reaper239]

time to completely change the tone of this thread...

you know what else they're coming for? your people...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DHpluwP328A

[Ordinary12]

"Hide your kids....hide your wife! Cause they're raping everyone in here!!!" Talk about a hellish story to live through! I'd rather they just kill me! LOL!!!

Oh...hey, KC. How about letting us know where you stand on gun control? I mean...you created a story where everyone is using guns to combat a threat. I would think that would mean that you're not the typical California tree hugger. Am I wrong? "The World Wants To Know!!!" LOL!!!

And before anyone makes a remark about me being from one of the most racist states in the Union...You're absolutely right!!! LOL!!! Mississippi sucks...but it never gets overrun by zombies!!! LOL!!! Take that California!!!

[Witch_Doctor]

time to completely change the tone of this thread...

you know what else they're coming for? your people...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DHpluwP328A

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to reaper239 again.

+1 Buddy

[reaper239]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to reaper239 again.

+1 Buddy

well, i been getting some love anyway, thanks all the same.

[Condor]

No one with a head on their shoulders is suggesting abolition of all guns. But. Can anyone tell me legit reason one needs military grade assault weapons, extended clips, or fully automatic anything?
First off, full-autos are already highly regulated and highly expensive so there aren't a lot of civilians that legally own them. Truthfully, other than being extremely fun to go lead farmer, full auto is just a waste of ammo.
Can I assume by "military grade assault weapons" you mean military style semi-auto rifles such as AR-15 & AK-47s. Actually, the .223 & 7.62x39 rounds of these rifles are less powerful than rounds used in most hunting rifles. Otherwise if you're talking grenades, rocket launchers, etc. then again regulated and not in civilian hands.
"High capacity" magazines, me personally I like them because I'm lazy about reloading. Load up a few 30rd mags and head to the range. Of course there's also the idea of having more rounds in the gun if the STHF. All in all, when the 10rd limit was active (and still is in some areas) it's nothing but a feel good law. Anyone halfway proficient with a firearm could empty three 10rd mags just as fast a a single 30rd mag, so to me that's a non-issue.
I will mention .50cal rifles. I have seriously considered buying one, simply because I could, but the reality is I have no where to shoot it. Now if someone wants one, I don't have a problem with civilian ownership.



Should it be as easy as a craigslist meet-up to buy a .50cal bolt action rifle or AR-15? Probably not. And you can't legally do that in a lot of places. Some places you can (Colorado and Arizona for example, if I recall correctly). And it's pretty damned hard to legally acquire full auto weapons (but it is possible to legally do it in a lot of states).

I'm not against laws around firearms. We have a lot. But let's face it, no matter how many we have, disturbed and/or violent people will find a way....
Gun ads aren't allowed on Craigslist, I've already tried that. :(
In all honesty, I do try to do as many private party sales as I can, not because I want to do anything illegal (and I do follow the rules for private party sales), I just don't trust our government and I want a few guns "off the record". I'll be attending a gun show this weekend and I'm hoping there will be some folks needing last minute Christmas money. :)


My 82% comment was made in jest. I did not mean to disparage what you were saying about gun deaths, though the sites I've been visiting do break it down to the different degrees...I suppose for lack of a better term right now...

The second amendment is intended to create a militia against the British should they decide to come back. This was before the US had a military industrial complex and a standing army, navy, marine corp and air force.....especially the air force....if they had figured that out back then I'd be really impressed...

The idea that the citizenship of the US can even be as well armed as the government has become preposterous. If that's the case, we should have access to nuclear weapons and drones. That's why I'd say remove military grade weapons from the populace. And the same thing would apply that everyone has been talking about in terms of people finding a way...if the need arises, I'm sure those who would overthrow a tyrannical US government could get those weapons."If the need arises", then it's too late to get those weapons.


How can you choose to ignore preamble to the 2nd amendment? If it has nothing to do with militias, then why is it even there? Why isn't the entire text "Americans have the right to bear arms." Can we just ignore other parts of the Bill of Rights, or is this just a special case?

If you want to say we're going to turn into a tyranny, then you don't trust the same founders who crafted and designed our checked and balanced government. Explain to me how a tyrannical overlord takes over this country...seriously. How does a tyrannical dictator come to power where there is no way to remove that person from power other than a coup? We have other procedures and tools given to us other than an armed conflict.
How? 2008 election.


And before anyone makes a remark about me being from one of the most racist states in the Union...You're absolutely right!!! LOL!!! Mississippi sucks...but it never gets overrun by zombies!!! LOL!!! Take that California!!!
I've always pictured a zombie outbreak in the south to go something like this:
Bubba: "Look Cletus, zombies!"
Cletus: "Get the guns!"
:bunker::zombiegun::bunker:
Bubba: "That's all of em."
Cletus: "Want a beer?"
Bubba: "Hell, yeah!"

And before anyone is offended, in this scenario I play Cletus:yay:

[nikvoodoo]

So you suggest Obama is a tyrant.... Interesting.

[Ordinary12]

@nikvoodoo

I'm waiting to see if Obama is a tyrant or not. He's broken almost ever campaign promise he made so that puts him in the same bucket as every other politician, which didn't surprise me, but if he attempts to force the American people to turn in there guns he will officially be a tyrant. I don't want the government to protect me when I'm more than capable of protecting myself. I wore the US Army uniform in defense of this country and no one had a problem with that but some people seem to have a problem with me keeping my gun when I took the uniform off. I don't understand why.

[reaper239]

@nik, i've got a question for you: why do you feel you have the right to dictate to me what i can or cannot own? don't i have as much a right to personal property as you do? if i am not using my property to violate the rights of someone else, then why do you feel that you have the right to limit what i can own? why do there have to be restrictions on the things that i can buy with my money that i earned at my job?

[Kc]

Oh...hey, KC. How about letting us know where you stand on gun control? I mean...you created a story where everyone is using guns to combat a threat. I would think that would mean that you're not the typical California tree hugger. Am I wrong? "The World Wants To Know!!!" LOL!!!


I'm very much a Libertarian if that is any inclination. I'll be more than happy to express my opinions over a glass of wine, but I tend to stay apolitical with my online presence.

[reaper239]

@nik, i've got a question for you: why do you feel you have the right to dictate to me what i can or cannot own? don't i have as much a right to personal property as you do? if i am not using my property to violate the rights of someone else, then why do you feel that you have the right to limit what i can own? why do there have to be restrictions on the things that i can buy with my money that i earned at my job?

reread that and realized it came across a bit cheeky. let me just say that that is not the way it was intended, it is an honest question.

[Ordinary12]

Reaper239 for President!!!!

[Ordinary12]

I'm very much a Libertarian if that is any inclination. I'll be more than happy to express my opinions over a glass of wine, but I tend to stay apolitical with my online presence.

And I'll take you up on that offer, Sir!!! I'll treat you to an authentic southern meal if you want to come to Mississippi or I can buy us some over priced tofu in California. LOL!!!

[reaper239]

Reaper239 for President!!!!

thank you, thank you, however there is no chance in hell i'd ever get elected. i don't really know that i'd want the job either, did you see obama after he took office? the man looked like he aged 10 years. i already have heart burn, i think i can do without the stress.

[reaper239]

I'm very much a Libertarian if that is any inclination. I'll be more than happy to express my opinions over a glass of wine, but I tend to stay apolitical with my online presence.


the question now is are you a classic libertarian, or a neo libertarian? ie, do you believe like our founding fathers in some government, or are you really a classical anarchist that had to rebrand with the new chaos driven anarchy movement? another way to put it is: penn jilette or stefan molyneux?

[nikvoodoo]

@nikvoodoo

I'm waiting to see if Obama is a tyrant or not. He's broken almost ever campaign promise he made so that puts him in the same bucket as every other politician, which didn't surprise me, but if he attempts to force the American people to turn in there guns he will officially be a tyrant. I don't want the government to protect me when I'm more than capable of protecting myself. I wore the US Army uniform in defense of this country and no one had a problem with that but some people seem to have a problem with me keeping my gun when I took the uniform off. I don't understand why.

Every politician lies....scratch that: Everyone lies.

And the discussion being had from the rational advocates for more control is simply ban the sale of more military grade weaponry. You can't buy anymore. If you have it, I'm not going to be able to take it from you. Just like if you own an old school baby crib with a drop down side, even though they are outlawed now your possession is grandfathered in....let's take a wild guess who became a parent recently...

I'd never say if you own it legally give it to me...mainly because I haven't been shot before and I'd prefer to keep it that way.

Think of this just like the 18th amendment (that ever so popular piece of Congressional lawmaking): The amendment only affected manufacturing, transportation and sale of alcohol. Never did it say you can't have your own alcohol and drink it too.


@nik, i've got a question for you: why do you feel you have the right to dictate to me what i can or cannot own? don't i have as much a right to personal property as you do? if i am not using my property to violate the rights of someone else, then why do you feel that you have the right to limit what i can own? why do there have to be restrictions on the things that i can buy with my money that i earned at my job?

Well you listen here Mr. Son of a bi....


reread that and realized it came across a bit cheeky. let me just say that that is not the way it was intended, it is an honest question.

;) Just playin'.

I'm not trying to dictate anything about what you can own. If you own an AR15 or something to its likeness legally: Go for it. As I've said before (or may not have here, but I have else where as an online keyboard warrior) I have absolutely no issue with that so long as you own it responsibly. I get the very distinct impression from the passion of the forum members here that you are like the majority of gun owners: You do it responsibly, you're trained (as many many of you are former military), and I'd wager you secure your weapons appropriately.

But the example I've been using since this debate began around Saturday: I want to own a land mine. Why can't I own one to protect my person and my property? If I plant land mines in my front yard, I prevent a home invasion from ever happening. I'll mark out with signs saying enter with caution, I've planted land mines.

It's a ridiculous extreme, but the point remains that there are some weapons that serve no purpose except in warfare. It's my belief that AR15 and things similar to them shouldn't be a consumer item. Nor should a high capacity magazine. It's the idea that not all weapons should be available to the public.

[reaper239]

Every politician lies....scratch that: Everyone lies.

And the discussion being had from the rational advocates for more control is simply ban the sale of more military grade weaponry. You can't buy anymore. If you have it, I'm not going to be able to take it from you. Just like if you own an old school baby crib with a drop down side, even though they are outlawed now your possession is grandfathered in....let's take a wild guess who became a parent recently...

I'd never say if you own it legally give it to me...mainly because I haven't been shot before and I'd prefer to keep it that way.

Think of this just like the 18th amendment (that ever so popular piece of Congressional lawmaking): The amendment only affected manufacturing, transportation and sale of alcohol. Never did it say you can't have your own alcohol and drink it too.



Well you listen here Mr. Son of a bi....



;) Just playin'.

I'm not trying to dictate anything about what you can own. If you own an AR15 or something to its likeness legally: Go for it. As I've said before (or may not have here, but I have else where as an online keyboard warrior) I have absolutely no issue with that so long as you own it responsibly. I get the very distinct impression from the passion of the forum members here that you are like the majority of gun owners: You do it responsibly, you're trained (as many many of you are former military), and I'd wager you secure your weapons appropriately.

But the example I've been using since this debate began around Saturday: I want to own a land mine. Why can't I own one to protect my person and my property? If I plant land mines in my front yard, I prevent a home invasion from ever happening. I'll mark out with signs saying enter with caution, I've planted land mines.

It's a ridiculous extreme, but the point remains that there are some weapons that serve no purpose except in warfare. It's my belief that AR15 and things similar to them shouldn't be a consumer item. Nor should a high capacity magazine. It's the idea that not all weapons should be available to the public.

you say it's a ridiculous extreme but i say why? sure it may be a bad idea to plant them, but isn't that what freedom's all about? now that's not to say you wouldn't be held liable for your negligence if a child were to wonder onto your un-gated and or un-fenced property, but i have no problems with you owning mines. just like i have no problem with you owning a M249 SAW, or a 40 MM grenade launcher, you are a law abiding citizen, by definition you will not be striving to break laws you will be striving to maintain them, you will not be violating peoples rights, you will be protecting your own, and by extension everyones. plus, as i've said before, the criminals don't care about your gun laws. in fact, they are in favor of gun control because it means that their victims are unarmed.look at the aurora theater massacre, that was not the closest theater to him, nor was it the easiest to get to, but it was the closest that had a no guns sign posted, where the people were unarmed. now that's an example of carry restriction, but we can carry the same logic over to all firearms legislation, regulation only affects those who would not be inclined to break the laws in the first place. so, for instance, the heavy regulation on automatic weapons prevents me from owning one, because it is cost and time prohibitive for me, however, for people who disregard drug laws, violating weapons laws is a small matter, they have no problems carrying automatic sub machine guns, for which they avoided the regulations for.

[Ordinary12]

I can understand Nik's argument about not letting everyone own landmines but at the same time I don't trust my government to have my best interests at heart. Since I've worn that uniform before I got a real education on the kind of people who took the same oath I did, and let me tell you something, some of those guys are scary as hell! I could see a Hitler situation where most of the military would disregard Pose Comotatus and start beating and shooting American civilians. I'll be damned if I don't use every tool at my disposal to give them hell while they try it. If the military was turned on us we would lose in a firefight but its better to die on your feet than to live on your knees.

Centurion: Are you the children of the gods?

U.S. Veterans: Nah...we're the nephews of Uncle Sam!

[Condor]

This sums it up pretty good: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=evEg1VNfX3o



thank you, thank you, however there is no chance in hell i'd ever get elected. i don't really know that i'd want the job either, did you see obama after he took office? the man looked like he aged 10 years. i already have heart burn, i think i can do without the stress.

They all look that way after only a couple years, but I'd be willing to try it. Of course, I'd try Clinton's stress relieving method, "Hey Monica, got a minute..." Only the new Monica would be better looking. Also, being a single guy, what better pickup line than, "I'm the president." :)

[YetAnotherBloodyCheek]

All I can say as a European is that I got used to U.S. school shootings in the news. It is very sad to witness these events on TV, but they seem to happen on a regular basis. So, I hope that the ones...

[YetAnotherBloodyCheek]

Just another interesting chart:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-19/american-gun-deaths-to-exceed-traffic-fatalities-by-2015.html

Two more years to go until the U.S. reach a break-even point regarding gun deaths vs. traffic fatalities.

[reaper239]

just not the wrong conclusion, after all, europe, per capita, has about the same rate of multiple victim murders as the US, and in fact the multiple victim murders tend to be worse....

[Condor]

Obviously these are tragic events, but why let one nut job cause stricter laws that only punish the millions of law-abiding gun owners? The majority of these criminals get their firearms illegally,...

[Wicked Sid]

just not the wrong conclusion, after all, europe, per capita, has about the same rate of multiple victim murders as the US, and in fact the multiple victim murders tend to be worse. http://frontpagemag.com/2012/dgreenfield/europe-has-same-rate-of-multiple-victim-shootings-as-the-united-states/

Found in the comments of the linked article. (http://www.juancole.com/2012/07/58-murders-a-year-by-firearms-in-britain-8775-in-us.html) The article you posted had no extremely reliable reference for Britain's statistics and I like being nit-picky with disproving things and such.

[LiamKerrington]

Actually I am not sure what to think about it all in all.

Just some weird throw-ins ...

a) Wherever the US and/ or combined international military forces play world police, rules are established that don't allow people of the occupied nations to own their own guns and that they have to give 'their' guns away. But I don't recollect that the human rights catalogue constitutes the ownership of guns an "Americans-Only"-right. So why would some/ so many Americans insist on owning guns, while on the contrary the USA neglect this right for people in other countries? (And, please, don't waste my time with this terrorists bogus; a farmer in Afghanistan or Iraq may own his guns against wild animals or against terrorists himself!)

b) A criminal old d-bag burns his place and shoots four firefighters (one being 19 years old, the other 43 years old, and both of 'em dead due to the shooting; two more seriously injured) from his hide-out; he was not allowed to possess guns due to his criminal record, and yet he had three of them, because - at least not unlikely - either he stole them from nonecriminal Americans, still owned same in a safe hiding place, or got them on the black-market. (Just check the recent news in the state of New York)

c) I guess, here in Europe, and especially in Krautland, we would discuss matters on guns very differently, if we had a totally different relation to private possessions of guns. But as a matter of historical fact: due do WWII we were not allowed to establish 'liberal' weapon-laws based on the many decisions in the WWII aftermath; therefore we look at it from a different angle, because we are not used to owning or carrying weapons around with us, and even using them in self-defense. And something this applies for many other European countries as well.

d) People point towards Germans and say: You don't own weapons in private, thus you are much more vulnerable to any fighting force from the outside; that's probably true! But it is jus as wrong as well, because aa) NATO, bb) during nearly 70 years of existence there was none to occupy 'us' besides the WWII-winner-nations, and cc) if someone attempts to occupy Germany, he first of all has to get through plenty of other European countries - and if he does not do this, he would use weapon systems in which face "our" personal and private guns (if we had any) would be meaningless (i.e. nuclear bombs, bio- or chemical weapons). The funny thing here is: Very likely they would deploy weapons and weapon systems produced by us Germans. Funny, ey, since we are No 3 trader and seller of guns and weapon-systems in the world.

e) Personally I wouldn't mind anyone running around with a gun Wild-West-style in his/her girdled holster. But assault rifles, double-barrelled/ 12"/ pump-action/semi-automatic shotguns, submachine guns, military style weapons? What the big EFF for?

f) About e): And now, if EVERYONE has his gun always available on his hip, what does this say about safety? Nothing. Nothing at all. People shoot into their faces even when the opponent is armed as well; but people shoot unarmed people as well (just remember that drugged guy in New York who was downed in a rain of bullets by NYPD, because he held a knife in a hand and did not even threaten anyone ...). Therefore: Guns or ownership are not really "the" solution, but remain part of "the" problem - and that as much, as any violent act or violence remains part of the problem.

g) And finally supporting something based on the argument, things would be written in the Constitution, ... Well. There is a difference between having a right and having a legal right. Two totally different things ... Kelly would tell you ... Besides: AFAIK In some Regions in the US ownership or usage of guns are highly restricted no matter what the US-Constitution says, right?

Well, what I want to state here, is basically this: The complete discussion is totally bogus. Everyone agrees that using weapons against humans is not OK (, at least if there is no justifiable moral cause behind it,) and that most probably the major, but not only source of this thus is misbehaviour while possessing weapons. And yet all of you disagree on how treatment of guns everywhere around should look like and you diverge like crazy on allowances of guns. Just look at my short list above; I think this could be extended with many, many more opinions and examples, which - again - is a reason for me to be split in my opinion.

I agree: Changing rules won't solve the problem. But I also accept the idea that changing the rules might change the problem for the better, and yet very likely not the bost possible outcome; and yet I wouldn't bet on it, although pulling a trigger and killing a person is much more easily done that beating someone to death.

And about all those statistics: I prefer lying to myself by looking into a mirror and stating something based on the empirical observations I made myself. I don't like statistics, 'cause they actually don't say anything and only receive their value by interpretation.

Regardless of that: Enjoy your Christmas and Holidays. I like you all, no matter if you posses guns, love guns, hate guns, sleep with guns, name your guns, paint your guns, use your guns as vases or sex-toys, or whatever. But I would regret it a lot, if the one or the other would use his or her gun against people without a proper, moral-wise solid reason.

All the best!
Liam

[Condor]

Actually I am not sure what to think about it all in all.

Just some weird throw-ins ...

a) Wherever the US and/ or combined international military forces play world police, rules are established that don't allow people of the occupied nations to own their own guns and that they have to give 'their' guns away. But I don't recollect that the human rights catalogue constitutes the ownership of guns an "Americans-Only"-right. So why would some/ so many Americans insist on owning guns, while on the contrary the USA neglect this right for people in other countries? (And, please, don't waste my time with this terrorists bogus; a farmer in Afghanistan or Iraq may own his guns against wild animals or against terrorists himself!)

b) A criminal old d-bag burns his place and shoots four firefighters (one being 19 years old, the other 43 years old, and both of 'em dead due to the shooting; two more seriously injured) from his hide-out; he was not allowed to possess guns due to his criminal record, and yet he had three of them, because - at least not unlikely - either he stole them from nonecriminal Americans, still owned same in a safe hiding place, or got them on the black-market. (Just check the recent news in the state of New York)

c) I guess, here in Europe, and especially in Krautland, we would discuss matters on guns very differently, if we had a totally different relation to private possessions of guns. But as a matter of historical fact: due do WWII we were not allowed to establish 'liberal' weapon-laws based on the many decisions in the WWII aftermath; therefore we look at it from a different angle, because we are not used to owning or carrying weapons around with us, and even using them in self-defense. And something this applies for many other European countries as well.

d) People point towards Germans and say: You don't own weapons in private, thus you are much more vulnerable to any fighting force from the outside; that's probably true! But it is jus as wrong as well, because aa) NATO, bb) during nearly 70 years of existence there was none to occupy 'us' besides the WWII-winner-nations, and cc) if someone attempts to occupy Germany, he first of all has to get through plenty of other European countries - and if he does not do this, he would use weapon systems in which face "our" personal and private guns (if we had any) would be meaningless (i.e. nuclear bombs, bio- or chemical weapons). The funny thing here is: Very likely they would deploy weapons and weapon systems produced by us Germans. Funny, ey, since we are No 3 trader and seller of guns and weapon-systems in the world.

e) Personally I wouldn't mind anyone running around with a gun Wild-West-style in his/her girdled holster. But assault rifles, double-barrelled/ 12"/ pump-action/semi-automatic shotguns, submachine guns, military style weapons? What the big EFF for?

f) About e): And now, if EVERYONE has his gun always available on his hip, what does this say about safety? Nothing. Nothing at all. People shoot into their faces even when the opponent is armed as well; but people shoot unarmed people as well (just remember that drugged guy in New York who was downed in a rain of bullets by NYPD, because he held a knife in a hand and did not even threaten anyone ...). Therefore: Guns or ownership are not really "the" solution, but remain part of "the" problem - and that as much, as any violent act or violence remains part of the problem.

g) And finally supporting something based on the argument, things would be written in the Constitution, ... Well. There is a difference between having a right and having a legal right. Two totally different things ... Kelly would tell you ... Besides: AFAIK In some Regions in the US ownership or usage of guns are highly restricted no matter what the US-Constitution says, right?

Well, what I want to state here, is basically this: The complete discussion is totally bogus. Everyone agrees that using weapons against humans is not OK (, at least if there is no justifiable moral cause behind it,) and that most probably the major, but not only source of this thus is misbehaviour while possessing weapons. And yet all of you disagree on how treatment of guns everywhere around should look like and you diverge like crazy on allowances of guns. Just look at my short list above; I think this could be extended with many, many more opinions and examples, which - again - is a reason for me to be split in my opinion.

I agree: Changing rules won't solve the problem. But I also accept the idea that changing the rules might change the problem for the better, and yet very likely not the bost possible outcome; and yet I wouldn't bet on it, although pulling a trigger and killing a person is much more easily done that beating someone to death.

And about all those statistics: I prefer lying to myself by looking into a mirror and stating something based on the empirical observations I made myself. I don't like statistics, 'cause they actually don't say anything and only receive their value by interpretation.

Regardless of that: Enjoy your Christmas and Holidays. I like you all, no matter if you posses guns, love guns, hate guns, sleep with guns, name your guns, paint your guns, use your guns as vases or sex-toys, or whatever. But I would regret it a lot, if the one or the other would use his or her gun against people without a proper, moral-wise solid reason.

All the best!
Liam
a. I wasn't aware of this disarmament in other countries, but if that's the case it's very wrong. If I'm not mistaken, the US is the only country that has any mention of firearms in it's founding principles or Constitution and in many areas firearms are a major part of our culture.

c. Hitler was pro-gun control.

d. Germany does make some fine firearms.

g. Correct, all states abide by Federal law but some states have much stricter laws. For example, Washington DC, California, New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut (see gun control really works) have some of the strictest regulations in the country.

There's an old expression: "God created man, but Sam Colt made them equal." I truly believe that. If I'm ever in the situation where a muscle-bound 300lb dude who looks like he could bench press a bus is coming at me with his fists, the only way I'm going to survive that encounter is with a gun.

The biggest thing I remember from the Statistics class I took in college is that you can interpret the data in different ways to get closer to your desired outcome.

[LiamKerrington]

a. I wasn't aware of this disarmament in other countries, but if that's the case it's very wrong. If I'm not mistaken, the US is the only country that has any mention of firearms in it's founding principles or Constitution and in many areas firearms are a major part of our culture....

There's an old expression: "God created man, but Sam Colt made them equal." I truly believe that. If I'm ever in the situation where a muscle-bound 300lb dude who looks like he could bench press a bus is coming at me with his fists, the only way I'm going to survive that encounter is with a gun.

The biggest thing I remember from the Statistics class I took in college is that you can interpret the data in different ways to get closer to your desired outcome.

I need to admit:

About my point a) I am not 100% sure; it is only a conclusion from what I see in various news and reports; but considering the rules established for Germany after WWII (no private guns a lot in order to prevent Germany becoming an evil motherfucker again) it is a rather safe assumption that at least in some regions my depiction may be wrong ...

@Condor: You are a master in concluding my wall words to two very fine statements - at least the one half of me having no trouble with private gun-ownership. Thank you, 'cause that's the way I have a strong feeling towards.
edit: And yet I feel very uncomfortable holding a gun in my hand - most likely because I am just not used to it.

Happy Holidays everyone!

And P.S.:: And forgive my bad spelling in the wall of words ...

[Cabbage Patch]

Just another interesting chart:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-19/american-gun-deaths-to-exceed-traffic-fatalities-by-2015.html

Two more years to go until the U.S. reach a break-even point regarding gun deaths vs. traffic fatalities.

The headline is mis-leading. The rates of death are converging because traffic deaths are falling dramatically (mostly attributable to people driving less), while gun death rates are up slightly after years of significant decline (down 50% since 1991).

[Cabbage Patch]

I guess, here in Europe, and especially in Krautland, we would discuss matters on guns very differently, if we had a totally different relation to private possessions of guns. But as a matter of historical fact: due do WWII we were not allowed to establish 'liberal' weapon-laws based on the many decisions in the WWII aftermath; therefore we look at it from a different angle, because we are not used to owning or carrying weapons around with us, and even using them in self-defense. And something this applies for many other European countries as well.

A little historical perspective from the end of WW2. When the Allies occupied Germany the civilian population had already been disarmed by their own government. And there were tens of millions of military weapons unaccounted for that needed to be collected. Under those circumstances it was just easier to outlaw all firearms. What happened after the formal occupation was probably driven more by local sentiment than by the wartime Allies.


A criminal old d-bag burns his place and shoots four firefighters (one being 19 years old, the other 43 years old, and both of 'em dead due to the shooting; two more seriously injured) from his hide-out; he was not allowed to possess guns due to his criminal record, and yet he had three of them, because - at least not unlikely - either he stole them from nonecriminal Americans, still owned same in a safe hiding place, or got them on the black-market. (Just check the recent news in the state of New York)

One of the realities in America is that there are a lot of guns here, and the bad guys always seem to be able to get their hands on them. The only ways to prevent this are 1) take away all firearms from everyone, eliminating the supply, or 2) make the penalties for illegal possession or criminal use so devastating that no one will consider it. Since the same politicians who hate private ownership of guns also oppose harsh criminal sentences and dispise the death penalty we live in a perpetual impasse.

[LiamKerrington]

Thank you. My historical approach is vague at best. I am sorry for havin' been so rude and crude about it.

Yet, I was not refering to the legal state so much, but more towards the "matter of fact"-state at the end of WWII. At least in the last months of the war many guys were enlisted who were somehow capable of holding a gun and aiming at "something"- especially children and young men. Therefore weapons were in hands that normally wouldn't be allowed to hold guns. These guns had to be retracted from private folks - no matter what. Also, and I think this was an incredible and well done feat established by the winners of WWII as well as the democratic successors of the Nazi-regime that by all means two things were established: a military service with the sole and single purpose to defend the nation of West-Germany against intruders as well as strict and well-observed rules that would not allow private persons to get hands on handguns or any other kind of weapons; the latter basically was reinforcing a legal situation that was established way earlier - at least in the aftermath of WWI, if not even before that.

So my whole point here is: Germany as we now it as of now never was able to establish a somewhat comparable way of living with guns like what the USA or other countries with less strict rules of weapons have; and considering the mass-murder and hellish incidents that my ancestors were capable of doing the situation right after the war was all about preventing the so accurate and effective Germans becoming human-slaughters again.

I am sorry, again, that I am pretty and obviously shallow about what has happened back then. Point for me is: It is nearly not possible to speak in favor of handguns here in Germany, 'cause you pretty spontaneously become a persona non grata or something next to it. Germans really have a lot of trouble imagining a society in which each and everyone would be allowed to posses guns. That is the spirit here in Germany, while on the other hand German policemen express some weird way of showing balls because they wear uniforms and guns with them ... Crazy. Madness. :rolleyes:

All the best!
Liam

[scbubba]

One of the realities in America is that there are a lot of guns here, and the bad guys always seem to be able to get their hands on them. The only ways to prevent this are 1) take away all firearms from everyone, eliminating the supply, or 2) make the penalties for illegal possession or criminal use so devastating that no one will consider it. Since the same politicians who hate private ownership of guns also oppose harsh criminal sentences and dispise the death penalty we live in a perpetual impasse.

Both of these approaches were taken in the war on drugs here in the US. Neither worked incredibly well and #2 was subsequently undermined by the folks CP mentioned.

We live in a global economy so whatever there is a demand for will always be available from somewhere. In the end, demand drives the amount and the availablity. That being said, those that want guns will get guns. Those that want to kill people will kill people (e.g. Timothy McVeigh).

The society & culture of the US is different from that in a lot of other countries. Sometimes it's better, sometimes not.... There aren't easy answers around things like the Newtown & Rochester events, but abridging one of the rights that was important enough to be put in the first set of amendments out of hand shouldn't be the first attempt.

[Ordinary12]

Did anyone notice the shortage of ammunition in the stores? I can't find any 45 ACP or 12 Gauge Slugs.

[Cabbage Patch]

Did anyone notice the shortage of ammunition in the stores? I can't find any 45 ACP or 12 Gauge Slugs.

5.56 mm and 7.62 mm (both NATO and AK) are impossible to find where I'm at, and 9 mm is scarce on the shelves. It feels like this has been going on for four years now. At first I heard it explained away as high demand for military calibers because of the wars in the Middle East. I don't know what the excuse is now that those are winding down.

[scbubba]

5.56 mm and 7.62 mm (both NATO and AK) are impossible to find where I'm at, and 9 mm is scarce on the shelves. It feels like this has been going on for four years now. At first I heard it explained away as high demand for military calibers because of the wars in the Middle East. I don't know what the excuse is now that those are winding down.

I'm having a hard time funding any 9mm (FMJ or JHP) around my neck of the woods. Talking to the old guy im the gun dept at a local Walmart, he said that ammo has been flying of their shelves since the last election.

Was at the gun shop/range this afternoon and they were low on everything but shotgun shells and .223 FMJ. And their inventory if firearms was down to about 1/4 of what they normally stock. Said they have tripled sales in the last 2 weeks.

For what it's worth...

[Condor]

I need to admit:

About my point a) I am not 100% sure; it is only a conclusion from what I see in various news and reports; but considering the rules established for Germany after WWII (no private guns a lot in order to prevent Germany becoming an evil motherfucker again) it is a rather safe assumption that at least in some regions my depiction may be wrong ...

@Condor: You are a master in concluding my wall words to two very fine statements - at least the one half of me having no trouble with private gun-ownership. Thank you, 'cause that's the way I have a strong feeling towards.
edit: And yet I feel very uncomfortable holding a gun in my hand - most likely because I am just not used to it.

Happy Holidays everyone!

And P.S.:: And forgive my bad spelling in the wall of words ...
If you weren't across the pond, I'd gladly let you come by and fire off a few rounds to get more comfortable.

I think most anti-gun folk just don't know about or understand guns and that turns into to a fear of the unknown. (<-general comment, not directed at anyone)

As for spelling (which I didn't notice), to paraphrase Larry the Cable Guy "If guns kill people, I can blame misspelled words on my keybord".



Did anyone notice the shortage of ammunition in the stores? I can't find any 45 ACP or 12 Gauge Slugs.
5.56 mm and 7.62 mm (both NATO and AK) are impossible to find where I'm at, and 9 mm is scarce on the shelves. It feels like this has been going on for four years now. At first I heard it explained away as high demand for military calibers because of the wars in the Middle East. I don't know what the excuse is now that those are winding down.
Just when prices were starting to stabilize from 2008 panic buying, we get panic buying on steroids this time and what you can find is outrageously expensive. Last weekend, I was at a gun show and noticed a vendor that had 1000rd American Eagle .223 in .50cal cans for $995 :mad: and people were buying him out, I saw one gun buy 2 cans. People were buying ARs, AKs, anything tactical looking, like crazy and didn't care about the prices, it was a madhouse. I'll be at another show this weekend, hopefully I'll survive the crowds. :excited:
Oh yeah, and last weekend I didn't find anybody that needed last minute Christmas money, although I did pick up a used Mare's Leg (like the lever action pistol that Woody Harrellson carried in Zombieland).


There's high civilian demand right now, but I'm also still hearing the high military demand too. I also thought there were supposed to be military reductions, so why is there an increased demand NOW? Maybe it's the conspiracy theorist in me, but I'm wondering if there's something in the works civilians don't know about yet. As an example, I read this: http://www.brownells.com/.aspx/lid=15832/GunTechdetail/Brownells-Ammo-Information
Brownells Ammo Information

AMMO NEWS UPDATE 12/11/12

We recently met with representatives from Federal Premium Ammunition, and they are working diligently through every channel they have to ease the current shortages. However, the shortages will most likely be with us for some time. The Lake City ammunition plant that produces this ammo is first and foremost a government production facility. It is used to manufacture ammunition for the commercial market only when excess capacity is available after the government’s orders are filled. The problem right now is that both government and commercial demand are high. Government demand must be fulfilled first, so Federal’s hands are somewhat tied in terms of ramping up commercial production.

When commercial ammo is produced, Federal feeds it into the supply chain, and they assure us that Brownells is well positioned in line for allocations. But for now deliveries will be modest at best. This situation is not likely to change dramatically in the next 60 days.

As a result, we are seeking out alternate sources of this military type ammunition, and as we acquire inventory we offer it to our customers with backorders in the order their original orders were received. Many of our customers have already received e-mails offering them an alternate to the backordered product.

We continue to communicate daily with the Federal folks, and will post here any additional news as soon as we receive it.

[Blues_127]

the second place becomes the vice president... A men. Like it is in the Constitution. Damn I love that document. Written hundreds of years ago with thousand year old truths concerning the nature of the governing, and the governed.

For Christmas, it was almost comical, all the men exchanged ammo. (Shakes box...ooh...certainly isn't cologne!) I too remember high school days down in Georgia when the kids would show off thier new shot guns in the parking lot, and grudgingly lock them in thier rack in order to go to class.

My question: Can our modern society handle the freedoms we enjoyed? There is definately a link between education, morality and freedom, as I understand history. I wonder if the first two have degraded to the point that the later can no longer be enjoyed.

[LiamKerrington]

Hi there,

SPOILER: HUGE Wall of Words ahead, which may lead slightly off-topic. But I'd like to give you a very brief idea about the current situation and the historical beacons regarding the legal situation for private persons and gun-ownership here in Germany. But I put it into the PS. And if you are not interested, then simply skip it. :)


I think most anti-gun folk just don't know about or understand guns and that turns into to a fear of the unknown. (<-general comment, not directed at anyone)

Close to or part of my understanding. And it depends on the given society and political situation, thus the legal context as well. In Germany only very few people have access to guns and may actually even own them. (see my P.S..) And most people don't even care or think about weapons, because we are not used to it anyway - and that for a long time. They are simply not part of day-to-day activities; actually only in military services, police forces, sportsters and hunters (yes, we have those!) guns are in (frequent) use. But else ... No way. And with the various discussions about what is going on with assassinations, brutal criminal activities, the evil, evil computer gamers getting out of control and starting to shoot people in real life, all the accentuated news about what's going on in the US ... all those things don't push us folks closer to guns - at least not out in the public.


As for spelling (which I didn't notice), to paraphrase Larry the Cable Guy "If guns kill people, I can blame misspelled words on my keybord".

Ex-act-ly.


Can our modern society handle the freedoms we enjoyed? There is definately a link between education, morality and freedom, as I understand history. I wonder if the first two have degraded to the point that the later can no longer be enjoyed.

Not much to wonder about. In my humble opinion the degradation has reached an advanced state already. I would like to add respect, care and responsibility (in any random order) to your list. And I see a lack in each of those lived by most people in "consumer-societies". For as long as _we_ stick to behaving like consumer-idiots, I don't see changes for the better. Yeah, this is quite pessimistic and simplified and a striking comment.

All the best!
Liem

P.S.: Current situation and very brief overview over the historical development ---
-------------
In my earlier postings I emphasized a "fact" that weapons/ guns for private persons would not be allowed here in good young Germany (Germany is not old ... Just close to 64 years by now). Now, that is not very accurate. Because actually we may be allowed to own and use guns according to the general law regarding weapons. I don't speak of war-weaponry, but of such items that may be used and carried around by a single person. Under these conditions someone may be allowed to get access to guns:


§ 2 WaffG (Law over Weapon ownership and usage)
- You need to be a full grown up, i.e. 18 years of age.
- The handling of guns and ammunition as mentioned in a specific appendix to this law requires a public authorization. (expl.: jike a driver's licence, just for guns)
- The handling of guns and ammunition as mentioned in another specific appendix to this law is forbidden. (i.e.: NO WAY you get access to those guns!)
- Certain weapons may not require a public authorization or only a partial public authorization as mentioned in a specific part of a specific appendix to this law. Also certain weapons and ammunition as mentioned in another specific part of a specific appendix to this law are not covered by the rules of this law.
- In doubt, if certain weapons or ammunition may be considerable under the rules of this law, the public authorities will decide how to handle the situation.

So basically this rule only says: In general you may not own or use weapons at all, unless you have a public authorization or the given weapon, or ammunition does not require such an authorization. In the latter case we speak about weapons from before the year of 1871 or air-guns or alarm pistols. The list of totally forbidden guns is long, very long; and it includes things like butterfly-knifes, automatic pistols and guns, accessories for such guns (yes, even aiming-devices and laserpointer and stuff) etc. And yet it is possible to get public authorization for some guns and accessories and ammunitions:


§ 4 WaffG - Public Authorization
In order to receive a public authorization you need to fulfill these requirements:
- you need to be 18 years or older,
- you need to be credible and have the personal aptitude,
- you need to have the proper knowledge about guns and usage of guns,
- you need to prove that you actually NEED a gun,
- and you have to prove that you have a specific insurance covering damages of up to 1 Million EUR that are related to the usage of guns.
These things have to be controlled in a three year term by public authorities.

In the following paragraphs this particular law gets into many details and even more specific requirements. Considering only the things in § 4 WaffG this means: In Germany it is not impossible to get access to guns, but the hurdles are pretty high and absolutely not beatable by most people, 'cause they won't be able to explain, why they would need a gun. Especially when it comes to things like aptitude, credibility, and need many things simply depend on how and what the public authorities decide. The level of preventive/ prophylactic gun-control is very, very high; owning and using guns is not a personal or private question here in Germany - no matter what.

I wonder how 'our' rules relate to rules in other countries - like within the EU and especially the basic weapon-regulations of the US. And I imagine that 'our' rules are quite the opposite of what is possible and allowed in many parts of the US.

Please and again and about the history: The weapon law in Germany has quite old roots. Actually the first laws were established in the 15th century; and those laws asked for allowing only public authorities to own, carry and use weapons. From the middle of the 19th century to the Weimarer Republic questions about gun-allowance for private persons were highly debated, and the legal situation quickly became very confusing; the biggest issue was that there was no registration of guns and ownership; people owned different weapons (up to war-machines actually), but public authorities had a lot of trouble controlling things. After WWI and the Agreement of Versailles, the Allied Forces ordered that the German people were meant to be disarmed - totally disarmed. By the end of the 1920ies a partial legalization of guns was achieved again - like weapons licenses and the 'free' trade of certain weapons and ammunitions along with registrations and stuff. Back then the questions about credibility, aptitude, and need were established as legal rules for the first time. In the following years there was much of turmoil regarding the legal situation which lead to several emergency decrees. And in 1938 the weapons-law of the German Reich was established, which was - actually - the model for the weapons law from 1968/1972, which is active up until now (with some minor and major amendments/ changes).
Right after WWII the Control Council of the Allied Forces ordered the Decree no2 that no private person or public entity in Germany may own, or use weapons - up until 1976. But in the first decade ofter WWII some limitations were put to this Decree - such as sportsters may use certain light weapons, public authorities were re-armed, and even the weapon law of the Reich was finally re-established in 1956.

So, as you can see: Here in Germany the development regarding gun-allowance and gun-control was and is very lively. And as you can also see: Since the questions of gun-onwership and gun-usage by private persons was always discussed and answered by public authorities, 'guns' never became part of the German society, which may explain some things (if not a lot) about how 'we' look at it.

And the devil in this scheme is simply this: Since guns are no private matter here in Germany, the acceptance for weapon rules like the ones in the US is very low, because the fundamental understanding is completely different.
Funny, though: We like watching all those whammy-effect movies from the US, were bullets are support actresses and support actors ... :yay:

Now ... I hope I did not get carried to far away.

[YetAnotherBloodyCheek]

Just some minor additions:

As supicious as Germans are concerning firearms - a lot of them do not mind visiting marksmen festivals. Hell, the world's biggest marksmen festival or "Schützenfest" takes place each year in Hanover. See: Hanover Schützenfest (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanover_Sch%C3%BCtzenfest). And it is not the only funfair around, uniting the two primarily masculine interests guns and beer. Furthermore, it has to be mentioned that there lots of Schützenvereine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sch%C3%BCtzenverein) where people can train and exercise their shooting skills. Are we talking of a small group of people? No, we are actually talking of 1,500,000 marksmen.

But the good news is that they can easily be identified by the clothes they wear:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/07/Sch%C3%BCtzen_Hannover_gr%C3%BCn.jpg/712px-Sch%C3%BCtzen_Hannover_gr%C3%BCn.jpg

[LiamKerrington]

Hi there,

yeah, sure. The marksmen-festivities in Germany stand in opposition to what I wrote in my wall of words which considers the overall situation. But you should not forget: Most members of those clubs or associations are basically down to the air-guns and sports-guns; and the limitations on owning, carrying and using the guns are tight even for them. I won't deny that there are or may be members that have received the allowance for bigger/ real guns as well; but those are mostly only few people. And in all honesty I would not know what sleaze they are involved with in order to get such allowances. Raped women have hard times receiving the allowance, and they are more likely in dire need of such an allowance then some marksman-d-bag in a club.
Also you should not forget that most visitors in those marksmen-festivities are just passerbies who are not affiliated with those clubs anyway. They just enjoy paying tremendously huge amounts of money into low-quality beer and sausages and very, very abhorrent music ...

German Leitkultur ... SUX HELL!

All the best!
Liam

[YetAnotherBloodyCheek]

Hm, I think there is a shooting range for large caliber firearms in my home village. :) It is all in one building: a bowling center, a shooting range - and a pub. What a combination. :cool:

[LiamKerrington]

Hm, I think there is a shooting range for large caliber firearms in my home village. :) It is all in one building: a bowling center, a shooting range - and a pub. What a combination. :cool:

It really is. And the range for the large guns => for those club-members who have the allowance for bigger guns - so not unlikely guys who are hunters.
And the combination is excellent.

[Ordinary12]

I guess its time to start making my own ammunition...so the Government can't control how much I can buy.

[reaper239]

alcohol, tobaco, and firearms should be a covenience store, not a government agency. in fact, i may start a convenience store on that principle.

[Ordinary12]

alcohol, tobaco, and firearms should be a covenience store, not a government agency. in fact, i may start a convenience store on that principle.

I'll be your best customer! I really don't see the purpose of that agency. None of those items are illegal, according to the Constitution, so why does the ATF exist?

[turbo]

It was a close one today in Illinois...they almost banned pretty much all semi-automatic weapons...last minute they decided to hold off on it thankfully.

[reaper239]

I'll be your best customer! I really don't see the purpose of that agency. None of those items are illegal, according to the Constitution, so why does the ATF exist?

to take your money, use it to buy guns, and then send those guns south of the border to mexican drug cartels. hey ATF, where's my AK?

[Condor]

alcohol, tobaco, and firearms should be a covenience store, not a government agency. in fact, i may start a convenience store on that principle.
You forgot the explosives, it's ATFE now. That's the most funnest one. lol


to take your money, use it to buy guns, and then send those guns south of the border to mexican drug cartels. hey ATF, where's my AK?
Yep. I want to know where my AK is too. And while they're at it, where's my free healthcare and welfare checks that Saint Obama promised?

[reaper239]

not really trying to kick off this debate again, but i found this video on youtube which shows some interesting data.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZRjxEAWwagc

[LiamKerrington]

Thanks, reaper239.

A few years ago we had some mass-shootings here in Germany. And the media ran wild: all the mass-murder-kids also played first-person-shooter-games on the web. Ever snce I keep saying this:
"While the d-bag sits in front of his 'puter and frantically hits the mouse-button in order to shoot into someone else's avatar's face, he neither practices firing real arms in a range or at moving real targets nor does he shoot real people in their faces. There is no reason to generalize the few gone wild and make them the rule. Just consider how many people play first-person-shooters. If it was true what some hot media-chick says, then mass-murders would live in any street on the world and we would have mass-murders and assassinations on a daily basis for breakfast. The world would be totally different."

And I think this is the same discussion we have here. I mean, isn't it funny to have some mad guy in Aurora again, just half a year after the cinema-shooting? And yet, how many people live in the US of A? This is a weird discussion. And I wonder what's the purpose behind it ...

Well, anyway. Thanks for sharing. This video is a very good example how easily opinions are created with the help of "selective recognition" and "angeld argumentation".

All the best!
Liam