Gun Control (v.2)

Jansons_Funny_Twin,

"I do not belive that any civilian needs to own an assault rifle."

I agree with you 100%. I also believe that no one needs to own a computer. You can survive without one. But I want one and have one (a computer that is).

That is why I have to disagree with this statement:

"I believe that the only guns that should be owned by civilians are bolt action rifles, shotguns, and handguns."

I believe that the only guns that should be owned by civilians are the ones that the individual civilian wants to own. If I want to own and shoot an AK-47, no here's a better example a gun I would actually like to own, an SG-44 (the first assault rifle) then why shoudn't I?

I have never any gun for any criminal purpose and I likely never will. Will the fact that a gun that shoots fully or semi-automatically turn me into a criminal?

I think not.

If I am not a criminal and the mere presence of a gun doesn't magically turn me into a criminal then why shouldn't I be allowed to own whatever gun I want?

My 2 pennies.

lordmaul13

 

Why is it dated? The Constitution is the law of the land. As long as that right is in the Constitution, it will be relevant. Do you actually think it safer now than it was in the late eighteenth century?

 

DARTHPIGFEET:

What problems?

The ones I see are primarily centered around the career criminals who commit 70% of the violent crimes.

At MOST, we are talking about THREE out of every 500 gun owners who misuse the right to bear arms. How does your ideas solve that problem? Banning handguns would have made a lady who put a serial rapist in the hospital a victim as opposed to someone able to protect herself.

There are less than 1,000 fatal accidents a year, and this is with more guns in circulation than ever before. The right is not being misused by people in general. for the most part, it is a small subset of criminals doing most of the damage.

And here's the kicker: The cops know who the 5% of criminals committing 50% of the crime in this country are.

Now, that says a lot about what the real problem is, and who we have to look at. You want to deal with crime - lock up the criminals and throw away the key.

As for law-abiding gun owners, leave them out of it. The cops know who to go after. Trust them, let them do their jobs, and put the violent career offenders away for the rest of their natural lives - or, if the situation warrants - put them on Death Row.

 

I agree, Pigfeet, that there is no modern militia; however, the second amendment does make it clear that the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed. Granted; this is in relation to the militia, if you take the words at face value, but how organized are the militias in those days? They were pretty much private citizens taking up arms. Why would you only let a few people take up arms and not grant that same right to everyone else? People in America at that time were quite distrustful of any central government, yet there were a few exceptions such as Alexander Hamilton. The Bill of Rights were included with the rest of the Constitution at the behest of the Jeffersonians which typically lived in the South or in the frontier. They typically had their own arms in order for them to protect themselves and their families.

Was not America founded on the principals espoused by John Locke? If government did not keep its end of the deal, then the people should rebel. Now, how will they do so if they have no arms of their own? No, I do not mean the appendages

Seriously, why would they bother using such strange language in describing the Second Amendment rights if all they truly meant was a militia only, no non-militia citizens. Why would the right of a militia to bear arms need to be clarified in the Bill of Rights at all? Is that not common sense?

I think the rights apply to private citizens.

 

Jebus, you people talk about the constitution like it was God's word or something. It's a law written by people a couple of hundred years ago. Parts of it are definitely irrelevant today.

 

It is definitely not God's Word, but it is indeed the law, the protective cone surrounding the Acts of Congress. The Constitution was not made to be irrelevant; on the contrary, we are empowered today to even change certain aspects of the Constitution through Amendments. Granted, these are hard to muster support for due to the Constitution's requirements, but it nevertheless can be altered to more adequately fit changing times without resorting to Justices legislating from the bench.

Could you clarify which portions you deem to be irrelevant?

 

Jebus, you people talk about the constitution like it was God's word or something. It's a law written by people a couple of hundred years ago. Parts of it are definitely irrelevant today.

(sarcasm) Yeah, like that freedom of speech, it's sooo not relevant today. In fact, you know what I say? Burn the constitution and start over. (sarcasm)

 

You guys... ohhhhhh... i'll think of something to say to you all a little later.

Hmmm, i really want a nuke for Christmas. Having a nuke won't suddenly turn me into a crazy tyrant bent on blowing up countries, so why can't i have one???? Oh poor little me!! When will the human race learn that these kinds of rights are far more important than the mere possibility of me using the nuke to harm others!!!

 

KaineDamo:

Ask Koki Ishii if a knife couldn't cause harm.

Japan's gun control laws didn't save this guy.

And someone can easily use a car, a crowbar, or a baseball bat to commit a violent crime. Not just a knife.

The problem is not the guns. The key to getting most of the problem is what has been called the 5% solution - lock up the 5% of criminals commiting 50% of the crimes.

 

This is what I want addressed in a new version of the 2nd ammendment, and this is it.

1. I want mandatory training classes established which goes along with getting a gun. Show that you can master that weapon and know how to use it then if you pass the background check, you may have a firearm.

2. The only weapons available to the general public are the following. Hunting Rifle, Shotgun, 5 shot hand guns.


That is all. I want those two things done, and I think first off it will cut down that other 30% making mistakes with guns. It will show the police clearly who that 70% are when they are using weapons in crimes outside those I just specified in #2.

These 2 things do not violate your right to own a firearm, and it will now address the problems that I see are major problems. There are too many guns out on the street and most of those shouldn't be allowed to be obtained by the general public and that is why everything outside those specified should be banned.

 

These 2 things do not violate your right to own a firearm

Sure they do. The only reason background checks should be allowed is because some people have forfeited their right to own firearms by committing violent crimes. Anything else is infringing on a private citizen's right to bear arms.


Maybe we should have knife control, too:

1. Mandatory training classes for anyone who buys a knife. If they don't know which side is sharp, they shouldn't be owning one.

2. The only knives available to the public are the following: Carving knife, butter knife, and 3" Swiss Army knife.

Butcher knives are for butchers. Stop knife violence!

My point? Yeah, you might be able to live with only 3 types of knives, but it would be a bit restrictive. Putting more restrictions on law-abiding citizens doesn't solve the provlem.

 

Please spare me.


Not only should you have background checks to see if a person is a violent person and has spent some time in jail, but it can check to see if this person has a series of mental problems as well.

You don't want mentally unstable people with weapons if you know what I mean.

With the background check a mandatory training class must be done. What good is a weapon if you don't know how to use it? There is no logic behind someone buying a gun and not know how to use it. They will only get themselves killed or others around them killed.

Having less guns on the street can and will help solve the problem. If you limit the types of guns out there then you can easily separate honest good citizens from your bad ones. Comparing guns to knives is not a good comparison since you can kill a heck of a lot more people and cause a lot more damage from a gun that a knife can't do.

So I ask you would you rather face someone who has a knife or a gun? I think I would take my chances with the knife.

You tell me why a average citizen who wants to have a gun in his or her house needs more than a 5 shot handgun or a rife or shotgun?

The logical answer is none. All three of these types of weapons will scare away any unarmed person who enters your house or even a armed person. It will do the job just as well as an assault rifle or a 15 shot gloc 9mm will.

 

What good is a weapon if you don't know how to use it?

Most of us know the basics...


Having less guns on the street can and will help solve the problem.

Your proposals would have fewer guns in the home and possibly more on the street (illegally).


If you limit the types of guns out there then you can easily separate honest good citizens from your bad ones.

Yep. The ones with more powerful weapons are the bad ones. Good job.


Comparing guns to knives is not a good comparison since you can kill a heck of a lot more people and cause a lot more damage from a gun that a knife can't do.

I realize there are differences, but your underlying logic is that guns are dangerous and people should prove they are able to use them before they can own one. Knives are dangerous too. Why don't you want to do the same with knives, or hammers, or anything else that can inflict harm? If it's simply the amount of damage a gun can do (and a person with a knife can inflict a lot of damage, by the way), why not restrict the types of cars people can drive? SUVs cause more damage in accidents than compact cars do. Why shouldn't we restrict the public from owning such dangerous vehicles?


So I ask you would you rather face someone who has a knife or a gun? I think I would take my chances with the knife.

If faced with an attacker who has a gun, would you rather have a gun or knife to defend yourself? Gun control has not been effective in keeping guns out of criminal hands.


You tell me why a average citizen who wants to have a gun in his or her house needs more than a 5 shot handgun or a rife or shotgun?

I don't know; sport? Collecting? What does it matter? What does it hurt you if the average law-abiding citizen owns a different type of gun? Gun control was supposed to prevent violent crime, and it doesn't work.

 

With the background check a mandatory training class must be done. What good is a weapon if you don't know how to use it? There is no logic behind someone buying a gun and not know how to use it. They will only get themselves killed or others around them killed.

Yet people are allowed to buy cars without being able to drive them. Cars accidentally kill more people than guns (40 times as many in 1996 in the US). And there are legitimate uses for guns other than as weapons (collecting is a prime example).

Having less guns on the street can and will help solve the problem. If you limit the types of guns out there then you can easily separate honest good citizens from your bad ones.

The problem with that argument is that yes, you can seperate them easier, but only after innocent people are victimized. How many innocent people do you want to die so that you can sort out the good citizens from the bad?

Comparing guns to knives is not a good comparison since you can kill a heck of a lot more people and cause a lot more damage from a gun that a knife can't do.

So I ask you would you rather face someone who has a knife or a gun? I think I would take my chances with the knife.

It's obvious you don't have much experience around knives. Knives are actually much more dangerous than guns. They are easier to acquire, hide, and stealthy to use. Have you ever seen the results of a knife fight? I have. It's messy and the victims usually come out of it in worse shape.

You tell me why a average citizen who wants to have a gun in his or her house needs more than a 5 shot handgun or a rife or shotgun?

How about the numerous documented cases of attackers requiring over 30 direct hits in the "kill zone" before they stopped threatening their victim? Adrenaline can keep a person conscious and active even when they would otherwise be long dead. Would you want to be a small woman against such an attacker and run out of ammo?

Kimball Kinnison

 

"Most of us know the basics..."

You would be surprised how many people in a serious or panic situation lose their mind and can't get the gun to fire because they leave the safety off, or don't know how to load or reload. So by your statement here I would want proof that "most of us know the basics" That is why mandatory training should be put in place. Teach people to know that weapon inside and out in tense situations. What is wrong with that?

"Your proposals would have fewer guns in the home and possibly more on the street (illegally)."

How so? An average citizen after passing the basic background check and passing the training course can have those guns for themselves. Sure the streets and black market guns will always be in HIGH demand and there will be tons of them. That is where my other idea comes in which I talked about earlier and that is this. Anyone caught using a gun or showing a gun for intimidation during a crime will automatically serve 30 years with no parole. Anyone caught selling illegal firearms without the proper permits will serve 20 years in prison with no chance of parole. Anyone who uses a gun and shoots that gun during the crime will serve the 30 years with an extra year tacked on for every bullet found in the chamber. You make the penalty SO severe and there are no loop holes around it that it will deter some but not all.


"Yep. The ones with more powerful weapons are the bad ones. Good job. "

You do the math. A gun with 5 shots or a gun with 15? Which will kill more? My bet is on the one that shoots 15. All GUNS ARE BAD but some are much more lethal and worse than others. That is what I'm saying here. Take certain guns off the market that can cause much more damage.

"I realize there are differences, but your underlying logic is that guns are dangerous and people should prove they are able to use them before they can own one. Knives are dangerous too. Why don't you want to do the same with knives, or hammers, or anything else that can inflict harm? If it's simply the amount of damage a gun can do (and a person with a knife can inflict a lot of damage, by the way), why not restrict the types of cars people can drive? SUVs cause more damage in accidents than compact cars do. Why shouldn't we restrict the public from owning such dangerous vehicles? "

I've always believed that not only should people have to pass a basic driving test, but should have to pass a defensive driving school that police have to pass on slick tracks. My dad was a policeman for 30 years and he took me to that slick track and I learned more about cars and controlling a car in that course than the joke of a basic test.

"If faced with an attacker who has a gun, would you rather have a gun or knife to defend yourself? Gun control has not been effective in keeping guns out of criminal hands."

Then what is your problem with my idea. That person can easily pull that 5 shot out and scare that guy off now can he. What I'm out to do is limit the type of gun someone can buy and fire. There is no need for someone to own a semi-automatic weapon, unless your living in Bosnia.

"I don't know; sport? Collecting? What does it matter? What does it hurt you if the average law-abiding citizen owns a different type of gun? Gun control was supposed to prevent violent crime, and it doesn't work."

Not a valid excuse of why someone should have a military issued weapon. Sport? Please this is the worst excuse I've ever heard. A gun against a animal? If anyone was a TRUE hunter or sportsman they would hunt with a bow which evens the playing field and requires more SKILL. There IS NO SPORT in firing a gun to kill another animal. I've been hunting before and the odds are not even. Collecting? Collect something else, or if your going to collect guns then don't make the ammo needed for those collectable weapons available. Gun Control can work if you go after the sources of illegal weapons and it might come to as a surprise but many of the weapons on the black market come from

A. Stolen from certified dealers, and aver

 

DARTHPIGFEET

I have to agree with you in part, the part about the criminals who use guns in crime going away for a long time, but I disagree with you on several other items.

Number one is mandatory training, not that I think training is a bad thing, but that, believe it or not, there are people out there who don't want anybody to have guns. Some of them are in various state or federal legislative bodies and will do whatever they can to keep people from owning guns. By mandating training it is feared that the requirements to pass the training will steadily become more difficult and there will be in essence a gun ban. Even if you don't believe it can you at least understand that fear?

"You do the math. A gun with 5 shots or a gun with 15? Which will kill more? My bet is on the one that shoots 15."

My bet is on the one with the better shooter. Which does bring up a point about limiting people to 5 shot handguns. 5 in the gun does not necessarily mean 5 in your target. Suppose I, God forbid, have to defend myself from and attacker and I'm not a good shot.

"So I ask you would you rather face someone who has a knife or a gun?"

I honestly think I would rather face the guy with the gun. I have this terrible fear of being stabbed. shrugs

"Not a valid excuse of why someone should have a military issued weapon."

I have a military issued weapon. It's an 1853 Enfield rifled musket. I use it in my civil war reenacting hobby. Why shouldn't I have it again?

My 2 pennies.

G'night.

lordmaul13

 

The Constitution was not made to be irrelevant

Well of course it wasn't; no law is. That does not in any way, shape or form mean that any legal document maintains "relevance" in perpetuity.

IF you want a prime example of proof the Constitution of the US has been proven to be irrelevant, read on. If not, avert thine eyes!

PROOF: Amendments!

Amendments take a law or statute that has been implemented as a legal standard and revise it to suit the times. Now, my knowldge of US constitutional law is vague, but, if we take the 2nd Amendment as an example; it was an addendum to the Constiutition outlining the rules for the right to bear arms. It meant the original documents relevance was called into question and thus an amendment was necessary.


That aside, I think the fundamental difference is the perception across cultural borders. Americans believe it's a right; we believe it's a privilige. We also believe that the idea you're going to revolt against a tyrranical government or regime is a tad silly; haven't you waited long enough? (j/k)

E_S

 

That is not what I was saying, and I don't see your logic behind your statement. No one has to die. I'm not saying a citizen can't own a gun, but they will learn how to use it and will only have a few choices to choose from and not a buffet to choose from. Establishing which guns are legal and illegal will cut down on crime and like I said when an officer arrests some thug and this thug just so happens to be carrying a gun which is not legal then they have a nice charge added and might serve that 30 years I was talking about.

[sarcasm]Why don't you just get rid of concealed carry permits while you're at it? That way, if you arrest someone with a gun you know that they are a bad guy.[/sarcasm] What would you do with the people who already own the guns you wish to outlaw? Require that they just give up their property? The Constitution forbids that except by due process.

Tell me, what is the functional difference between a gun that holds 5 rounds and one that holds 15? They both function exactly the same. The only difference is the size of the clip. What is the difference between a semi-automatic hunting rifle and an "assault rifle"? Not much at all; from a functional standpoint none at all. If you trust a person who is trained with one, why not with the other as well?

Then what is your problem with my idea. That person can easily pull that 5 shot out and scare that guy off now can he. What I'm out to do is limit the type of gun someone can buy and fire. There is no need for someone to own a semi-automatic weapon, unless your living in Bosnia.

You need education on what a semi-automatic gun is, unless you are advocating that we go back to single-shot weapons. A semi-auto gun is one that can fire multiple times without needing reloading. However, each time you fire, you need to pull the trigger. For civilian use, full-automatic (guns that can fire more than one bullet with each pull of the trigger) weapons are already illegal. I agree that there is no need for any civilian to have a full-auto weapon, but semi-auto is perfectly justifiable and should be allowable.

Not a valid excuse of why someone should have a military issued weapon. Sport? Please this is the worst excuse I've ever heard. A gun against a animal? If anyone was a TRUE hunter or sportsman they would hunt with a bow which evens the playing field and requires more SKILL. There IS NO SPORT in firing a gun to kill another animal. I've been hunting before and the odds are not even.

People go hunting for more than just sport. Hunting can be a cheap way to feed your family high-quality food (ammo costs less than buying meat). Here in Fairfax County, VA, they have to allow the deer to be hunted to keep the population in check or else they would starve themselves (the meat is donated to homeless shelters). Farmers need the weapons to help defend their livestock from animals like coyotes.

Collecting? Collect something else, or if your going to collect guns then don't make the ammo needed for those collectable weapons available.

I know people who collect knives. Should they be required to dull them before they can collect them? Should people who collect cars be required to make sure they are non-drivable (and therefore cannot be used to kill someone in an accident)? What about private collections on display, like the NRA's? How about the people who already have some of the guns you find objectionable in their collections? Should they have to give them up?

True knives can be hidden more often, but were talking short range weapon and not long range like a gun. I would debate you on a knife doing more damage than a gun. When a bullet hits you the bullet goes in deeper and the bullet can move throughout the body before exiting if it even does exit. Depending on the bullet will determine what it will do. A bullet basically explodes inside your body and can hit and destroy arteries and body parts easier than a blade will ever do.

And a knife cuts a wider path into the body and creates jagged w

 

IF you want a prime example of proof the Constitution of the US has been proven to be irrelevant, read on. If not, avert thine eyes!

PROOF: Amendments!

Eh ... hehhe ... heehehehehehee ...

Now, my knowldge of US constitutional law is vague, but, if we take the 2nd Amendment as an example; it was an addendum to the Constiutition outlining the rules for the right to bear arms. It meant the original documents relevance was called into question and thus an amendment was necessary.

The first ten amendments are known collectively as the Bill of Rights. They're more like an extension of the Constitution (given the nature of their adoption), not changes to it.

 

Ender_Sai, you have just proven your knowledge of the US Constitution is vague. Most people in that day and age knew those rights were implied, but they wanted them to be explicitly stated; they were still fearful of a strong, central government. The Bill of Rights made the implicit explicit; besides, most states would not ratify the Constitution unless the Bill of Rights were present.

You may look upon bearing arms as a privelege, but the law of the land here calls it a right. What do the opinions of the people in other nations have to do with our laws? The Constitution was ratified here, and it is the law of the land here. If people living here hate the fact that people in the US have a right to bear arms, then they should go elsewhere rather than work to subvert our rights.

The Second Amendment makes it crystal clear that bearing arms is a right, not a privilege.

 

"Number one is mandatory training, not that I think training is a bad thing, but that, believe it or not, there are people out there who don't want anybody to have guns. Some of them are in various state or federal legislative bodies and will do whatever they can to keep people from owning guns. By mandating training it is feared that the requirements to pass the training will steadily become more difficult and there will be in essence a gun ban. Even if you don't believe it can you at least understand that fear?"

That is true and I'm proud to say I'm one of the people who don't want people to own a gun. However I'm a reasonalbe person who still believes that people should have weapons to own, however it shouldn't be a right until you have shown your responsible enough to exercise those rights. Things like rights shouldn't just be given to you, but like everything else in this world it should be earned. This should be especially true in being given the right to possibly take the life of another human being with a "TOOL". I don't want to hear about this big "WHAT IF" scenario of our own government taking us over if we have no weapons. If you don't think the government already owns you and has pretty much all it's citizens in check then the joke is on all of you. If this government wanted to take us over they could easily do it even if we all had a gun. This is where that training comes in handy. What good does it do to have 1 million citizens who are not trained in basic gun training go up against a professional army? It does no good.

Second this big what if is not valid with the system of government we have in place. Don't try comparing our model of government with the Weimar Republic who fell to the Nazi's or any other. The closest model to our government is in England. There is no all one powerful person in our system and there are checks and balances to make sure one part of the government doesn't get too strong. There in lies the glory of our nation. We are unlike any before or since and that is why we will survive. So I understand that fear, but it's too exagerated for me to stomach, and is simply not in the cards folks.

"My bet is on the one with the better shooter. Which does bring up a point about limiting people to 5 shot handguns. 5 in the gun does not necessarily mean 5 in your target. Suppose I, God forbid, have to defend myself from and attacker and I'm not a good shot."

Well wouldn't that mandatory training course help in this case by the victim being the better shot. If you know what your doing then you shouldn't need no more than 5 shots. Look if someone is coming after you in the street or in your house and you pull your gun, then

A. The person will run

B. The person will pull out their gun.

C. You keep your cool, aim and fire without a problem due to you being properly trained.

"I have a military issued weapon. It's an 1853 Enfield rifled musket. I use it in my civil war reenacting hobby. Why shouldn't I have it again?"

Okay enough with the jokes. A musket which by the way was the only weapon along with a flintlock which existed back when the 2nd ammendment was written. Big difference in firepower don't you think? I tell you what if you purest want to go by the 2nd ammendment word for word then why not just have everyone be given a modified musket for every house to put over the fireplace, because really this is the essence of having a firearm, and not some compact handcannon of today. I was speaking of people who have and collect weapons like an M-16, AR-15, AK-47 etc....... No need to have weapons like this at all.

"sarcasm]Why don't you just get rid of concealed carry permits while you're at it? That way, if you arrest someone with a gun you know that they are a bad guy.[/sarcasm] What would you do with the people who already own the guns you wish to outlaw? Require that they just give up their property? The Constitution forbids that except by due process."

No keep the concealed weapons permits, but you can only carry the 5 shot handgun as your concealed weapon. Sh

 

Kimball_Kinnison:

The guys in North Hollywood at that bank robbery were wearing tons of body armor. THAT is why it was such a shootout.

DARTHPIGFEET:

I've got some of those sources in storage, but there are definitely instances where five-shot guns would not cut it.

One instance I am aware of is the Miami firefight in 1986 - one bad guy was shot 12 times, the other six times before they stopped trying to shoot it out with the FBI agents trying to bring them in.

There are also other instances known where criminals have taken multiple rounds before they went down.

No, I'd want to have more than five ready for use - preferably a Glock 17 (a 19 would be better, but the 17 will do), with pre-ban clips.

 

"One instance I am aware of is the Miami firefight in 1986 - one bad guy was shot 12 times, the other six times before they stopped trying to shoot it out with the FBI agents trying to bring them in. "

Well that is the FBI not ordinary civilians. Those 3 weapons, rifles, shotguns and 5 shot weapons doesn't apply to authorities.


"There are also other instances known where criminals have taken multiple rounds before they went down. "

Well trust me if I'm going to be forced to fire a gun then I'm going to fire multiple times. 5 shots should do it for me and after that I'm getting out of the area.

 

DARTHPIGFEET:

"Well wouldn't that mandatory training course help in this case by the victim being the better shot."

Sure would unless the "mandatory training" had become so difficult as to be nearly impossible to qualify to own a gun.

"That is true and I'm proud to say I'm one of the people who don't want people to own a gun."

I just cannot fathom why you think that way. Can you please go into greater detail? I truly would like to understand.

"I tell you what if you purest want to go by the 2nd ammendment word for word then why not just have everyone be given a modified musket for every house to put over the fireplace, because really this is the essence of having a firearm, and not some compact handcannon of today."

I didn't quite follow you completely there but if you're saying the 2nd amendment should be read to say only guns that were available at the time the 2nd amandment was written are allowed then I have to disagree. I say the right to bear arms, not the right to bear arms that were invented before a certain date.

"I was speaking of people who have and collect weapons like an M-16, AR-15, AK-47 etc....... No need to have weapons like this at all."

Like I said in an earlier post so what if I don't "need" an M-16 or AR-15 or whatever. I also don't "need" this computer that I'm sitting at or the car I drive to work every day. I can get by without them just as I can get by without an M-16 or AK-47. But I am not a criminal. I have never used a gun for illegal purposes and don't intend to. What does it matter wheter the gun I have for my own enjoyment, and will never use criminally, has a capacity of 5 rounds or 50, whether it shoots semi or fully automatically?

Kimball_Kinnison:

"For civilian use, full-automatic (guns that can fire more than one bullet with each pull of the trigger) weapons are already illegal."

I could be mistaken but I believe you are wrong there. I think the class III federal firearms license (gun dealers liscence) allows the sale of fully automatic weapons. There is also a collecting and reenacting license that I believe, I'm not sure, allows possesion of fully automatic weapons. I don't know the details (I don't have either of said licenses) but the collecting and reenacting license may require that the gun is in a non-firing state or that it is only capable of firing blanks (think WW II reenactor). Like I said I'm not sure.

lordmaul13

 

I knew it was vague, however, to state they were added to codify these values for the people's comfort implies the intial document was imperfect and irrelevant, does it not?

I'd also say guns aren't a right anywhere but the US, thus, I'd contest the US' policy on firearms in hardly the accepted norm. I'm with DarthPigFeet on this, though I also think Jansons_Funny_Twin has a really good point. If people HAVE to own guns, then there needs to be checks and balances.

E_S