# A Discussion About Guns and Gun Laws



## Marauder06 (Jul 22, 2012)

I like guns.  I own many guns.  I like to shoot guns as a hobby, and I keep guns in my home to protect myself and my family, because I believe it is my job as much as the government's to ensure the safety of myself, may family, and my property.  

When the law permits, I carry a gun when I feel I need to.  I believe in the 2nd Amendment and feel very strongly that the average American should have the ability to acquire, maintain, and under certain circumstances, carry and use firearms.

However, I also consider myself a bit of a realist.  As such, I do not believe in unfettered access to firearms.  I believe that there are some people who should never be allowed access to firearms, and I believe that some degree of regulation is good for our safety and for the security of our nation.

So, with all of that said, I'd like to start a discussion on guns and gun laws.  Do you think our gun laws are effective?  Are they too restrictive, or too loose?  What would you change, if you could, and why?

I'd like to see a national right-to-carry program, where a concealed carry permit is legitimate in every state, much like a driver's license is.

At the same time, I think some legitimate tightening of the ways in which we are allowed to acquire firearms could head off a knee-jerk reaction that will see draconian laws introduced down the road.

I recognize that this is likely to be an emotional issue for a lot of us, so I hope we can keep this civil.


----------



## SkrewzLoose (Jul 22, 2012)

I believe that if/when more gun laws are enacted the criminal element will devise new ways to skirt around them.  
While at the same time, Joe Citizen will continue to obey the laws.  Despite how much he/she may not like them, the average gun owning citizen (like many on this board) will file whatever paperwork, register in whatever database and jump through whatever hoop is required because they want to avoid breaking the law.  The average citizen will do what's right because they are good at heart and will try to create change through the proper avenues when required.


----------



## policemedic (Jul 22, 2012)

The federal  laws are fine as they are, with perhaps one or two exceptions where they are too prohibitive; we simply need to enforce them-particularly as they apply to straw purchases, felons in possession or firearms, and crimes committed with firearms.

As examples of overly strict regulation, I offer the 'sporting purposes' test, and  the NFA restrictions on SBRs/SBSs/suppressors


----------



## SpitfireV (Jul 22, 2012)

I'll chime in with my non-Americanski POV and how our system works if anyone wants to see comparisons.


----------



## Marauder06 (Jul 22, 2012)

SpitfireV said:


> I'll chime in with my non-Americanski POV and how our system works if anyone wants to see comparisons.


 
That would be very interesting.


----------



## SpitfireV (Jul 22, 2012)

Alright, give me a bit to write it all up.


----------



## SpitfireV (Jul 23, 2012)

OK, a brief overview of how our system works.

You are a guy who one day thinks, I'd like to go hunting. What do I need? A gun! So you amble on down to the cop shop and see the firearms officer. He gives you a form to fill out, you go down to the post office and pay the fee involved and hand it back. Then you have to book a firearms safety seminar and pass the test they give you at the end about the rules of firearms safety.

Then you have to provide two references, one family, one not. They talk to your references about your general behaviour etc and you also have a home visit. Here they inspect your house to make sure it's secure and you've got a gun rack (by law when not in use firearms have to be locked up but a rack is enough for the A Cat licence. During this they talk to you and assess basically if you're a nutter or not. This whole process *should* take about a month but because I ended up dealing with three police regions over it (because the file had to be bounced around) it took me three. If at any time they think that you're a crim or not a fit and proper person you'll have your application terminated. So obviously that neccessitates checks on the police computer to make sure you're not involved in anything you shouldn't be.

This entitles you to a A Cat licence, which means you can buy bolt actions and most semi-autos (depends on what the rifle is and what you've got on it/what magazines are in it at the time).

If you want your B Cat (pistol), you have to be a member of a pistol club and shoot there at least once a month and be recommended by them to get the licence in the first place, as well as more stringent security requirements.

C Cat is Collections, which basically encompass anything under the sun. So M60s if you want, AA Guns, etc etc. Again, more security requirements and you have to prove you're a legit collector.

D Cat is a Dealer Licence which is pretty obvious.

E Cat is what the police call Military Style Semi Autos, so it's semis with a mag capacity of over 8 (except for rimfire), folding stocks, muzzle brakes and bayonet lugs and pistol grips.

In terms of difficulty to get, I'd wager it (roughly and forgetting D) goes A, E/B, C.

There are some oddities to the system, IE let's say you owned a Mini-14. On it's own, the rifle is A Cat. You can own a 30 round magazine with no licence but as soon as you put that magazine into that rifle it becomes E Cat. So there is some strangeness but overall it works well with some exceptions, being overzealous firearms officers and the occassional anti-firearms rant from the police. Actually they got taken to court because they suddenly started deeming the SL8 an E Cat rifle after years of it being A Cat, which they had no legal basis to do, so they got clobbered in court.

My personal feelings on firearms is that they're much like a car or an aircraft, you shouldn't be allowed to just go out and get one without having either training or someone responsible with you. They're a tool but here they're certainly not a right. Actually we have one of the highest per capita rates of firearms ownership in the world but firearms crime per sey is somewhat low. I say somewhat because I'm not totally sure what the stats are exactly. I do feel people should be licenced* to own one and in general I think our system works pretty well, but I would like it if fucking hunters would actually ID their targets for once (this is where we have our death by firearms mostly).

*I do understand it is a legal and cultural issue for you guys, I'm stating my own personal views in terms of NZ.


----------



## policemedic (Jul 23, 2012)

SpitfireV said:


> OK, a brief overview of how our system works.


 
Brief, huh :nerd:

Actually, that was a very good post. I had no understanding of the NZ process until you explained it; thank you for that.

It seems diametrically opposed to what I'm going to do tomorrow. I'm going to walk into the local police supply store, show them my driver's license, and fill out two forms (which are very similar to each other). One is a federal form, a form 4473 Firearms Transaction Record (I attached one). The other is a form SP4-113 prescribed by the PA State Police to facilitate the PA Instant Check System query and which will allow the PSP to enter the handgun into their database (which they say isn't a registry, but really is, but that's another conversation). The clerk will make a big show out of checking the paperwork and making sure I'm really me (I'm on a first name basis with the staff) and then they will call the PSP Instant Check System. A PSP employee will run my name to ensure I'm not a prohibited person and will issue an approval number that the clerk will duly note on the form. I'll pay them, they will say thank you and come again ("...and bring coffee next time!"). Then I'll be out the door with my new blaster.

To answer the next logical question, being a LEO doesn't get me special processing. It used to, but since they instituted the PICS check there is no waiting period for anyone (unless there is a problem with the check, of course).

With regard to the references required in NZ, what happens if your references write, "I don't like guns and don't think anyone should have them," or some other such nonsense? Does that result in your license being denied?


----------



## SkrewzLoose (Jul 23, 2012)

policemedic said:


> ~snip
> I'll pay them, they will say thank you and come again ("...and bring coffee next time!"). Then I'll be out the door with my new blaster.


What are you picking up?


----------



## Viper1 (Jul 23, 2012)

My two cents:

Should Americans be allowed to own guns?: Yes.  I own a couple shotguns and a couple handguns.  I am a realist.  Gun violence happens in America, it happens in NC, and I want to have the necessary protection so me and LV have a fighting chance.

Should certain guns be for sale to the American public?: No.  There is no reason why anyone needs an AK-47, a Barrett .50 cal, or a even an AR.


----------



## JBS (Jul 23, 2012)

In response to this thread, and also to *Viper 1*'s post, I think one's views about firearms are determined by what one's beliefs are regarding the purpose of the 2nd Amendment.

If one believes that the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is because the Founding Fathers- _radical revolutionaries who took their lives into their own hands by violently overthrowing British rule-_ were simply fierce defenders of the right to hunt, then yes, we have no need for tactical assault weapons, or even a Glock. The only thing citizens should have is a bolt action hunting rifle, and maybe small shotguns that can fire birdshot to take foul.

If one believes that the Founding Fathers wrote the 2nd Amendment as a means of guaranteeing that the citizenry might forever be capable of overthrowing some future, out-of-control tyrannical government (or failing that a temporary shut down of the government in the face of anarchy or massive invasion), then owning AR-s and Barretts and AK's take on a different significance.

For me, the question is*, "what does one believe is the purpose of the 2nd Amendment?"*

Just to be clear, I don't think we should keep these kinds of weapons just so we can overthrow the government or repel the _"Red Dawn"_ invasion that gives every survivalist a wet dream. On the contrary, the fact that there are 300 million weapons in America means every adversarial nation on this planet fully understands that invasion of the United States is impossible. It would take a modern occupational expeditionary force consisting of a 700 million man army, plus logistical support and supplies for the next 50 years. Similarly, any theoretical group that might attempt a _*coup d'état*_ in America _*by force *_would know from the outset that any such attempt would be destined to failure, as the inevitable uprising would be unquenchable. A heavily armed population is the surest deterrent against tyranny, invasion, or usurpation of power.

We shouldn't have weapons for some revolutionary gun battle in the streets of America, we should have weapons to prevent any such event from ever taking place.  For me, hunting has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment.


----------



## 0699 (Jul 23, 2012)

SpitfireV said:


> OK, a brief overview of how our system works.
> 
> ...
> 
> ...


 
Good overview.  I think the bolded part is most important for us here to remember.  Although I don't own any guns myself, I do believe we have a god-given right to self-defense and a gun is the best way to do so.


----------



## koz (Jul 23, 2012)

Viper1 said:


> My two cents:
> 
> Should Americans be allowed to own guns?: Yes. I own a couple shotguns and a couple handguns. I am a realist. Gun violence happens in America, it happens in NC, and I want to have the necessary protection so me and LV have a fighting chance.
> 
> Should certain guns be for sale to the American public?: No. There is no reason why anyone needs an AK-47, a Barrett .50 cal, or a even an AR.


 
There's also no reason that any car should go more than 70 mph because no one needs to go faster than the speed limit. No one needs more than one six-pack or bottle of wine in their house as no one should get that drunk.  In fact why have alcohol at all since it's bad for you? (Remember that thing called prohibition?)  It didn't stop people from drinking and it only made criminals rich.    The list is endless of things we don't NEED.    These things kill FAR more people that guns.   

Why do you think you should be able to own shotguns or pistols?  Far more murders happen with pistols than AR's, AK's, Barretts.


----------



## pardus (Jul 23, 2012)

SpitfireV said:


> OK, a brief overview of how our system works..


 


What is missing here is a few very pertinent facts that are quite germane to this topic.

NZ _used_ to have high per capita gun ownership that changed with the gun laws Spitfire wrote of, which brings me to... 

I held a firearms license in NZ for a long time, in that time there were 3 different systems in place.
The first was a little red book that one was required to write each and every firearm in, serial #, make, model. 
They then went to a great system, you had a *lifetime* license, you brought and sold firearms freely without any govt/police oversight/knowledge. 
That went along for years until one mentally unstable prick went nuts with a .22 rifle and killed a bunch of people.
Then we had our lifetime license revoked and the system Spitfire mentioned put in place (sans the semi auto license). Which made us register the firearms (Overnight thousands of rifles disappeared as people said fuck you to the new law. We knew what was coming next).  Then they added the semi auto license once they knew what everyone had registered.
Firearms prices initially plummeted as people tried to get rid of them instead of face the hurdles and costs involved in maintaining them (oh and there was no grandfathering existing firearms). Firearms prices in NZ now are probably 4 times the price they are in the USA. If you want to get a semi auto imported into NZ you must hand one you already have to the cops so they can destroy it. 
The license is designed for one thing, that is to reduce the number of firearms in the public domain. The police are very anti-gun and will threaten firearms owners with loss of their license for a multitude of reasons. I was forced to report to a police station (or loose my firearms license) to explain why i had purchased a BOOK from Paladin press in the USA. I was questioned and evaluated as to whether they would revoke my firearms license because of that. I dont even want to get into how they knew Id purchased the book in the first place!

NZ has become a nation of softcocks in some regards, firearms is one of them. Guns are seen in a negative light by the general public.

New Zealand should stand as a warning to the USA of what can go wrong.


----------



## Viper1 (Jul 23, 2012)

koz said:


> There's also no reason that any car should go more than 70 mph because no one needs to go faster than the speed limit. No one needs more than one six-pack or bottle of wine in their house as no one should get that drunk. In fact why have alcohol at all since it's bad for you? (Remember that thing called prohibition?) It didn't stop people from drinking and it only made criminals rich. The list is endless of things we don't NEED. These things kill FAR more people that guns.
> 
> Why do you think you should be able to own shotguns or pistols? Far more murders happen with pistols than AR's, AK's, Barretts.


 
Car speed limits, amounts of alcohol in a house and prohibition have absolutely nothing to do with guns or my previous statements.  In my personal opinion, there is no reason why a private citizen should be able to purchase an AK-47, a Barrett .50cal, or even an AR-15.  

Be that as it may, I do know some guns owners with AR in their homes.  No big deal.  I'm not going to waste my time to write my Congressman to get the law changed.  One possible solution? Allow gun clubs to have those types of machine guns were people can go learn about the weapon and light off some magazines.  Make it into a business, a sports club, a history club, etc.  That's just one idea and like I said, I'm not going to push for major changes. 

I already gave you my reason on why I own pistols and shotguns, and I believe that should be the right for every responsible American.


----------



## koz (Jul 23, 2012)

Viper1 said:


> Car speed limits, amounts of alcohol in a house and prohibition have absolutely nothing to do with guns or my previous statements. In my personal opinion, there is no reason why a private citizen should be able to purchase an AK-47, a Barrett .50cal, or even an AR-15.
> 
> Be that as it may, I do know some guns owners with AR in their homes. No big deal. I'm not going to waste my time to write my Congressman to get the law changed. One possible solution? Allow gun clubs to have those types of machine guns were people can go learn about the weapon and light off some magazines. Make it into a business, a sports club, a history club, etc. That's just one idea and like I said, I'm not going to push for major changes.
> 
> I already gave you my reason on why I own pistols and shotguns, and I believe that should be the right for every responsible American.


 

And I believe it's the right for every responsible American to own a semi-automatic rifle.     

Cars and alcohol are absolutely no different than firearms.  I use the previously mentioned for enjoyment besides the component of defense.   Just as someone who responsibly uses a car - I shouldn't be able to tell them that they can't own the newest sports car because I don't believe in them.


----------



## Th3 Maelstr0m (Jul 23, 2012)

The problem is people make conclusions based off of how it makes them feel versus actually researching the statistics. 

The gun control debate really baffles me. This CO shooting happens and people say we need to ban AR's. Why? They are used in less than 1% of all homicides.

"Since police started keeping statistics, we now know that *‘assault weapons’ are/were used in an underwhelming 0.026 of 1% of crimes in New Jersey*. This means that *my officers are more likely to confront an escaped tiger from the local zoo* than to confront an assault rifle in the hands of a drug-crazed killer on the streets.” -Deputy Chief of Police Joseph Constance, Trenton NJ, testimony - Senate Judiciary Committee in Aug 1993​ 
According to the ATF, 90% of violent crimes do not even involve a firearm. Of those that do involve guns 94.4% are gang related (Homicide trends in the United States, Bureau of Justice Statistics, January 17 2007).

There is no evidence that gun control does not do anything to eleviate violent crime. Look at statistics in a bunch of the states & countries before and after they established gun control, & you will see that crime either did not change or violent crime went up. 

& if you don't think people should own an AR/AK, read up on the Rodney King riots & how Korean storekeepers kept their stores from getting destroyed.

According to the National Crime Victimization Survey, 2000, Bureau of Justice Statistics, this is what is prevented EVERY DAY just by SHOWING A GUN (not by firing one):
- 550 rapes
-1,100 murders
- 5,200 other violent crime

Per year, people in the US use guns to defend themselves against criminals 2.5 million times translating to once every 13 seconds. (Targeting Guns, Dr. Gary Kleck, Criminologist, Florida State University, Aldine, 1997 & Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Fall 1995)

13 lives are saved thanks due to firearms for every accidental death, suicide, and homicide (Targeting Guns).

& then there is that tiny fact that you have an inherent, Constitutional right to possess firearms, and lots of them. 

In summary, if you want to support the Constitution, human rights, lower crime rates, are a feminist passionate about combating rape & female victimization, or have the slightest inclination to better the world, then support gun rights, not gun control.

Aaannnd, I'm late for work.


----------



## SpitfireV (Jul 23, 2012)

policemedic said:


> Brief, huh :nerd:
> 
> Actually, that was a very good post. I had no understanding of the NZ process until you explained it; thank you for that.
> 
> ...


 
They're oral interviews. I don't know what the police would do but I don't think someone would nominate someone like that in the first place, unless it was like a sole surviving family member or something. As you know, police are used to dealing with shit and cutting through the bullshit so they'd just tell them to answer the questions I think lol.



0699 said:


> Good overview. I think the bolded part is most important for us here to remember. Although I don't own any guns myself, I do believe we have a god-given right to self-defense and a gun is the best way to do so.


 
God given, or Man given?  I joke, I'm just being facetious and don't want to open that particular can of worms!



pardus said:


> What is missing here is a few very pertinent facts that are quite germane to this topic.
> 
> NZ _used_ to have high per capita gun ownership that changed with the gun laws Spitfire wrote of, which brings me to...
> 
> ...


 
Thanks for the stuff on the pre-Aramoana systems, it's a bit before my time. I would agree that the hand one in/get on system is retarded but I don't agree with lifetime licences but for the same reason as I outlined before re cars and aircraft. In a lifetime there's a good chance you might lose your marbles and then you really shouldn't have access to firearms IMO. I would also argue that the thing with your book wasn't a result of the system itself but rather the firearms officer using the licencing system to another end. I remember you telling me about that book and it would *strictly* be an illegal import (probably where they picked it up or someone's reported it who hated you. That would be a small list?  ). The semi thing isn't quite right, it's correct for E Cat rifles but not A Cat semis. I know, it's retarded. The system needs fine tuning.



JBS said:


> In response to this thread, and also to *Viper 1*'s post, I think one's views about firearms are determined by what one's beliefs are regarding the purpose of the 2nd Amendment.
> 
> If one believes that the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is because the Founding Fathers- _radical revolutionaries who took their lives into their own hands by violently overthrowing British rule-_ were simply fierce defenders of the right to hunt, then yes, we have no need for tactical assault weapons, or even a Glock. The only thing citizens should have is a bolt action hunting rifle, and maybe small shotguns that can fire birdshot to take foul.
> 
> ...


 
I think this is an important post, with any legal right you need to look deeper into the spirit of the law and the intentions of the writers.


----------



## o2bird (Jul 23, 2012)

I just picked up an XDS on Saturday at a gun show here in Phoenix. Told him ill take it, filled out a one page form, handed him my License and CCW permit. He wrote down my info, handed me a receipt and my case. Whole process took less than five minutes. Then i walked out to the parking lot and got stopped by a guy trying to sell me a 1911 with the serial numbers dremeled off. Arizona makes it real easy to get a gun legally, but it is still easier to get one illegally. Which IMO is the way it will be no matter what restrictions go into effect.


----------



## QC (Jul 23, 2012)

We have similar to NZ, with some tweaking.


----------



## Centermass (Jul 24, 2012)

Almost every weapon I've taken off the street was stolen or NPR  If anything, tighter safeguards for those who do own. And if the courts/states/parole boards would ensure sentences were carried out to the maximum when guns were involved instead of the fricking revolving door syndrome, it may very well send a serious message. The one being sent right now (At least here) is a joke.

There are no "Good Guns" there are no "Bad Guns"
Any gun in the hands of a bad man is a bad thing,
Any gun in the hands of a decent law abiding citizen is no threat to anyone
except bad people.


----------



## JBS (Jul 24, 2012)

o2bird said:


> I just picked up an XDS on Saturday at a gun show here in Phoenix. Told him ill take it, filled out a one page form, handed him my License and CCW permit. He wrote down my info, handed me a receipt and my case. Whole process took less than five minutes. Then i walked out to the parking lot and got stopped by a guy trying to sell me a 1911 with the serial numbers dremeled off. Arizona makes it real easy to get a gun legally, but it is still easier to get one illegally. Which IMO is the way it will be no matter what restrictions go into effect.


In all the gun shows I've attended all over the Northeast, Southeast and everywhere from Florida to Nevada, I have never once been approached by anyone asking me if I wanted to buy a weapon with the serial numbers dremeled off.

And some of those trips, I looked pretty scuzzy / non-copp-ish... so it's not like they wouldn't have approached me for looking like a cop or something.

Now, I can say that I have been approached numerous times by people who wanted to BUY a firearm from me (one that I had listed online) while going about it in the wrong / illegal way.  That is to say, the few times I've had this happen it involved people who didn't have the right paperwork/permit to buy a handgun from me, and after pointing out that selling to them in such a manner was not an option, they usually disappear from the face of the earth.


----------



## pardus (Jul 24, 2012)

SpitfireV said:


> Thanks for the stuff on the pre-Aramoana systems, it's a bit before my time. I would agree that the hand one in/get on system is retarded but I don't agree with lifetime licences but for the same reason as I outlined before re cars and aircraft. In a lifetime there's a good chance you might lose your marbles and then you really shouldn't have access to firearms IMO. I would also argue that the thing with your book wasn't a result of the system itself but rather the firearms officer using the licencing system to another end. I remember you telling me about that book and it would *strictly* be an illegal import (probably where they picked it up or someone's reported it who hated you. That would be a small list?  ). The semi thing isn't quite right, it's correct for E Cat rifles but not A Cat semis. I know, it's retarded. The system needs fine tuning.
> 
> 
> 
> I think this is an important post, with any legal right you need to look deeper into the spirit of the law and the intentions of the writers.


 
If the book was illegal, A, how did they know, and B, why did it get through the post if it was illegal? The system is a mildly totalitarian one that is not used to its limit and therefore not noticed by the average person.  
You're also too young to remember that NZ used to be a country with more freedoms. Used to be a country where common sense was the law of the land.
If someone looses their marbles there could easily be ways to address that. The system now is more about taking weapons away from citizens.

The NRA sent representatives to NZ when the assholes were screaming and pushing the license changes to try and help. 
Yes I realize that about the E vs A cat, thats what I meant without writing it out.

The system is fucked. You would be more pissed off about it if you'd had your freedoms taken away from you. Have a look at the amount of gun violence now compared to the old days when we carried rifles through the streets.


----------



## 0699 (Jul 24, 2012)

SpitfireV said:


> God given, or Man given?  I joke, I'm just being facetious and don't want to open that particular can of worms!


 
God-given, nature-given, however you look at it.  I believe every creature from spider to man has the right to defend itself to the best of its abilities to ensure the survival of itself and its progeny.  I do not believe that our rights (any of them) are generated by a man or a document.


----------



## policemedic (Jul 24, 2012)

pardus said:


> The system is fucked. You would be more pissed off about it if you'd had your freedoms taken away from you.


 
If books can be made illegal, it's no wonder firearms are restricted.


----------



## policemedic (Jul 24, 2012)

JBS said:


> In all the gun shows I've attended all over the Northeast, Southeast and everywhere from Florida to Nevada, I have never once been approached by anyone asking me if I wanted to buy a weapon with the serial numbers dremeled off.
> 
> And some of those trips, I looked pretty scuzzy / non-copp-ish... so it's not like they wouldn't have approached me for looking like a cop or something.


 
I know exactly what you mean.   I wish someone would offer me a dremeled gun; I can use the overtime.


----------



## AWP (Jul 24, 2012)

The Founding Fathers knew what they were doing. Students of history, they were well informed of technological progress so while I doubt they were specifically thinking about a "Shoulder-fired, gas-operated, self-loading yadda, yadda, yadda" then were acutely aware of firearms, their evolution against the backdrop of other weapons and the fact that the catalyst for armed revolt began over the confiscation of firearms. It isn't second in line because it won a lottery.

"Alright Hamilton, you can draw for "Search and seizure."
"Annnnndddd, Number Four! That's the Fourth Amendment."
"Poppycock! It should be at least Number 6!"
"Rabble, rabble, rabble"

While I personally disagree with the "cooling off period" I'm willing to keep it on the books. I'm not against gun control, but it seems like every measure that is mentioned is something I would fight: ban on AR/ AK style weapons, high-cap magazines, a National registration, etc. and they also happen to be measures which would not work.


----------



## o2bird (Jul 24, 2012)

JBS said:


> In all the gun shows I've attended all over the Northeast, Southeast and everywhere from Florida to Nevada, I have never once been approached by anyone asking me if I wanted to buy a weapon with the serial numbers dremeled off.
> 
> And some of those trips, I looked pretty scuzzy / non-copp-ish... so it's not like they wouldn't have approached me for looking like a cop or something.


Yea, i hadn't either until then. He acted like he had no clue when i called him on it. Said he thought it was just scratched up. Not a very bright individual seeing as i was wearing a fire dept. t-shirt at the time. And he was out of the parking lot before i got to my truck. Would have been even better cause i was at the show with my buddy who is PD but he had parked on the other side of the lot.


----------



## JBS (Jul 24, 2012)

o2bird said:


> Yea, i hadn't either until then. He acted like he had no clue when i called him on it. Said he thought it was just scratched up. Not a very bright individual seeing as i was wearing a fire dept. t-shirt at the time. And he was out of the parking lot before i got to my truck. Would have been even better cause i was at the show with my buddy who is PD but he had parked on the other side of the lot.


That is bizarre, that a guy would do that.  He must have been high or out of his mind.  That's like someone walking up to you and just randomly asking if you want to buy cocaine.   People that dumb will get caught sooner or later.


----------



## JBS (Jul 24, 2012)

pardus said:


> Have a look at the amount of gun violence now compared to the old days when we carried rifles through the streets.


New York City high schools used to have rifle teams.

They'd walk around in the basement of the high schools and clean them and store them and were instructed by war veterans on how to respect the rifles and respect each other. Nobody ever flipped out and started shooting up the schools; nobody broke into the cabinets and started killing teachers.

It's mind blowing to think that this country has changed that much in so little time. Imagine trying to convince Bloomberg to let all the high schools create rifle teams and let students sling them on their way to class.  In New York City of all places?  The very idea is so utterly beyond impossible in today's world.

I know the example of New York schools having guns at one time speaks to a different issue, but it is interesting to see how culture has changed.


----------



## Chopstick (Jul 24, 2012)

I remember when I was in HS( back in the dark ages in the back woods village where I grew up) kids would have their deer rifles, in gun racks in their Dad's pick up truck in the school parking lot.  No one got shot..not one time.


----------



## AWP (Jul 24, 2012)

Chopstick said:


> I remember when I was in HS( back in the dark ages in the back woods village where I grew up) kids would have their deer rifles, in gun racks in their Dad's pick up truck in the school parking lot. No one got shot..not one time.


 
Not uncommon to see that where I grew up as well. Guys would clean their shotguns in the parking lot on Monday and no one said anything and no one ever thought about using one to resolve an argument or fight.

The one or two gun-related incidents, one was a fatality the year after I graduated, were a result of "Hey, look what I found at my dad's!" The guys who grew up around weapons were never a problem.


----------



## SpitfireV (Jul 24, 2012)

pardus said:


> If the book was illegal, A, how did they know, and B, why did it get through the post if it was illegal? The system is a mildly totalitarian one that is not used to its limit and therefore not noticed by the average person.
> You're also too young to remember that NZ used to be a country with more freedoms. Used to be a country where common sense was the law of the land.
> If someone looses their marbles there could easily be ways to address that. The system now is more about taking weapons away from citizens.
> 
> ...


 
You've probably had someone dob you in then. From what you'd said at in the past it had sounded like it was stopped coming in- in that case it wouldn't have got to you.

Either way, this is getting off the topic of the OP.


----------



## SkrewzLoose (Jul 24, 2012)

Gun laws cease to exist at gun shows in AZ...in the parking lot...on the last day...when it's time to go home.
I've had a very similar experience to the one o2bird described.


----------



## pardus (Jul 25, 2012)

o2bird said:


> Yea, i hadn't either until then. He acted like he had no clue when i called him on it. Said he thought it was just scratched up. Not a very bright individual seeing as i was wearing a fire dept. t-shirt at the time. And he was out of the parking lot before i got to my truck. Would have been even better cause i was at the show with my buddy who is PD but he had parked on the other side of the lot.





JBS said:


> That is bizarre, that a guy would do that. He must have been high or out of his mind. That's like someone walking up to you and just randomly asking if you want to buy cocaine. People that dumb will get caught sooner or later.


 

Wouldn't surprise me to learn that this was an undercover cop from NYPD.


----------



## policemedic (Jul 25, 2012)

pardus said:


> Wouldn't surprise me to learn that this was an undercover cop from NYPD.


 
Wouldn't that be funny.  I seem to recall the poorly thought out 'gun stings' they were doing used private investigators and not police personnel.  But either way, possession of a firearm with a defaced serial number is a big no-no.  The PI has no excuse ever; the NYPD cop (if cop he was) is also up shit creek unless he's been seconded to the local coppers or to a task force.


----------



## JBS (Jul 25, 2012)

Maybe it was part of Fast and Furious. Heh.


----------



## pardus (Jul 25, 2012)

I fully expected to hear of a NYC finger in the F&F pie.


----------



## Polar Bear (Jul 25, 2012)

Gun Rights (restrictions) are for people who follow the law. Do I follow the laws yes...one time no, I was packing in DC, but in general I follow the laws. I teach CCDW and some advanced courses. There is a fine line you must walk, I will not discuss further in an open forum


----------



## JBS (Jul 25, 2012)

pardus said:


> I fully expected to hear of a NYC finger in the F&F pie.


Could very well be.  They're all high speed now, except for when their LPOPs are turned up by the janitors in New Jersey:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...e-spying-muslims-new-jersey-article-1.1121467


----------



## policemedic (Jul 25, 2012)

JBS said:


> Could very well be. They're all high speed now, except for when their LPOPs are turned up by the janitors in New Jersey:
> 
> http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...e-spying-muslims-new-jersey-article-1.1121467


 
Bwahahaha I was waiting for this to be posted.


----------



## CDG (Jul 25, 2012)

While 9/11 was an obvious national and local tragedy, it's bullshit for the NYPD to attempt to use it as justification to do whatever the fuck they want, whenever the fuck they want.


----------



## Th3 Maelstr0m (Jul 26, 2012)

Since I know everyone here has been waiting with bated breath for the One's thoughts, here's what he has to say about the matter:
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/...round-checks-gun-buyers-aurora-033815400.html


----------



## JBS (Jul 26, 2012)

And here it comes.

Is this the beginning of the drum beat to re-instate the Clinton "Assault Weapons" ban?


> "A lot of gun owners would agree that AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers, not in the hands of criminals -- that they belong on the battlefield of war, not on the streets of our cities," the president, who has called for reimposing the Assault Weapons Ban, said in a speech to the National Urban League.


 
Once again, see earlier post about the* purpose* of the 2nd Amendment. Protecting the right to hunt, or guaranteeing the right to stay free _InExtremis? _


----------



## HOLLiS (Jul 26, 2012)

My daughter was never a soldier.   She had her first AK at 9 years of age.   She disagrees with POTUS. 

Irresponsible people should never own anything.  Even a butter knife is probably too risky for them.


----------



## TH15 (Jul 26, 2012)

There he goes again talking about another "common sense" approach. "Common sense" to POTUS translates to "are you fucking kidding me, you are insane" for many others.

I think this will be mostly just talk from him and others on the Left. I don't see them touching this issue with it being so close to an election.

This is a bit off topic for this thread, but I thought this quote from the president in the article was quite entertaining:


> "You're competing against young people in Beijing and Bangalore. They're not hanging out. They're not getting over.  They're not playing video games.  They're not watching 'Real Housewives.'  I'm just saying: It's a two-way street.  *You've got to earn success*," he said.


 
But bear in mind children, if you do become to successful remember one thing: You didn't do that. Someone else did that for you.


----------



## JBS (Jul 26, 2012)

TH15 said:


> There he goes again talking about another "common sense" approach. "Common sense" to POTUS translates to "are you fucking kidding me, you are insane" for many others.
> 
> I think this will be mostly just talk from him and others on the Left. I don't see them touching this issue with it being so close to an election.
> 
> ...


The scary thought is the one I get when I contemplate an Obama 2nd term.  The gloves will come off.


----------



## 0699 (Jul 26, 2012)

JBS said:


> The scary thought is the one I get when I contemplate *an Obama 2nd term*. The gloves will come off.


 
But it's like sex with Kobe Bryant.  It's going to happen whether you like it or not.


----------



## policemedic (Jul 26, 2012)

0699 said:


> But it's like sex with Kobe Bryant. It's going to happen whether you like it or not.


 
Why, is Kobe going to march in a parade with uniformed service members?


----------



## Marauder06 (Jul 26, 2012)

TH15 said:


> ...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
*UNLESS you have a powerful lobby in Congress, in which case you can gain "success" without earning it.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/...rogram_n_1701926.html?utm_hp_ref=black-voices


----------



## Th3 Maelstr0m (Jul 27, 2012)

Here's an article by Mike Adams on the shooting & he brings up some really good points (ignore the fact that it's on an anarcho-capitalist website):
http://lewrockwell.com/adams-m/adams-m22.1.html


----------

