Second Amendment Under Attack In Congress

[Feuer Frei!]

H.R. 308 - Introduced by Rep Carolyn McCarthy, would ban millions of magazines for self-defense firearms

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h308/show

Bans the sale or possession of large-capacity ammunition magazines, defined in the bill as "a magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device that has a capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition.


S. 34 - Introduced by Senator Frank Lautenberg, would give U.S. Attorney General the power to deny you the right to purchase a firearm, with no court hearing or due process

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-s34/show#

Amends the federal criminal code to authorize the Attorney General to deny the transfer of a firearm or the issuance of a firearms or explosives license or permit (or revoke such license or permit)

S. 176 - Introduced by Senator Barbara Boxer, would repeal every state Right-to-Carry law in the U.S., and require you to prove your need to defend yourself and your family before carrying a firearm outside your house.

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-s176/show

http://www.boogai.net/top-story/boxers-bill-will-override-concealed-carry-laws/

her bill, S. 176 , would preempt states’ right to carry laws to make it much more difficult for citizens to obtain a concealed carry permit.

[Skybird]

Oh, the holy golden fetish gets touched again!

If they do not let me have hundreds of rounds and a semi-automatic rifle plus a 15-shot-magazine pistol on each floor of my house for self-defence, than I am no man anymore!

Oh, I meant to say: if I cannot wage private battle against hordes of monsters from the ghettos all around and am denied the capability to slaughter them by the hunbdreds, then I am not free a citizen in this country anymore!

For defending your family, choosing an appropriate liviung place is the best thing, if that option is available. For defending your house or yourself, you do not need machineguns and who knows what else. A single pistol does the job in the overwhelming majority of cases.

I do not buy the self-defence argment. It is an alibi for wanting to continue to hail the great fetish in American historxy and society: weapons. Its an obsession. The only case/film when the fat man really was right from A to Z, was Bowling for Columbine. And his diagnosis was: craving for drama, and a very basic, very disconnected-from-reality fear of that drama one is craving for.

Call it shizophrenia.

I have turned in recent years from opposing private gun owning, to tolerating it. But with limits:
No military items. No MG/MP-type weapons, no automatic rapid fire weapons. Hunting guns in hunting grounds and for farmers only. Self-defence: limited to the borders of own property, one weapon (pistol or revolver) per property. No carrying of arms in public space, no concealed weapons in public space. Mandatory regular training in a shooting club (like sports pilots must file x numbers of flight hours per quarter of the year), and when asking for a license, a police record check and a psychological assessment. Brutally pushing back the profit-craving firearms industry that tries its best to turn people into gun-craving addicts. No special ammunition on public sale, for exampel so-called cop-killer ammunition and armour breaking ammunition.

Self-defence is just this: self defence. The monopoly for using violence/force in all other cases, should be with the law-enforcement.

[August]

You Germans seem to have a fetish for judging others. What business is any of this of yours?

[Skybird]

You Germans seem to have a fetish for judging others. What business is any of this of yours?
Board business. What is posted on this board, is free to be chosen as somebody's business by him/her just coming here.

Also, that American gun-laws are being brought up frequently, every couple of weeks or months.

Also, yours and our fetishes are quite complementary. You love weapons, and we love to moralise about weapons. :D

[Penguin]

woo, hold your horses, August. It is a weak-counter-argument to the blunt generalization that all (U.S.) gun owners have somehow a fetish, to generalize yourself and call all Germans judgemental.

Especially in GT, we all make our judgement calls, towards other views and towards other nations. I think Sky's view is (in this case!;)) quite represantative of the German view about American gun owners. Making a statement which already defines a law with all exceptions is not.

I speak for a minority here when I call this proposal idiotic, making nearly every Glock owner illegal - though I find it funny that it is called 308...:DL

Personally I felt much more safer in states that allow open or concealed carry than in other states. Most owners I met are not distinguishable in their mental health from their non-owning counterparts - and yes: I've been to gun fairs in the deep South :03:

[August]

You people like nosy neighbors who always have to comment on our choice of bathroom wall paper, or the way we wash our cars, or any number of other personal things that have absolutely nothing to do with you.

Well the right to free speech allows you to be a Butt-in-ski but the same right also allows me to tell you what I think about such rudeness, and to think the less of you for being the moralizing busy bodies that you are.

[Armistead]

Oh, the holy golden fetish gets touched again!

If they do not let me have hundreds of rounds and a semi-automatic rifle plus a 15-shot-magazine pistol on each floor of my house for self-defence, than I am no man anymore!

Oh, I meant to say: if I cannot wage private battle against hordes of monsters from the ghettos all around and am denied the capability to slaughter them by the hunbdreds, then I am not free a citizen in this country anymore!

For defending your family, choosing an appropriate liviung place is the best thing, if that option is available. For defending your house or yourself, you do not need machineguns and who knows what else. A single pistol does the job in the overwhelming majority of cases.

I do not buy the self-defence argment. It is an alibi for wanting to continue to hail the great fetish in American historxy and society: weapons. Its an obsession. The only case/film when the fat man really was right from A to Z, was Bowling for Columbine. And his diagnosis was: craving for drama, and a very basic, very disconnected-from-reality fear of that drama one is craving for.

Call it shizophrenia.

I have turned in recent years from opposing private gun owning, to tolerating it. But with limits:
No military items. No MG/MP-type weapons, no automatic rapid fire weapons. Hunting guns in hunting grounds and for farmers only. Self-defence: limited to the borders of own property, one weapon (pistol or revolver) per property. No carrying of arms in public space, no concealed weapons in public space. Mandatory regular training in a shooting club (like sports pilots must file x numbers of flight hours per quarter of the year), and when asking for a license, a police record check and a psychological assessment. Brutally pushing back the profit-craving firearms industry that tries its best to turn people into gun-craving addicts. No special ammunition on public sale, for exampel so-called cop-killer ammunition and armour breaking ammunition.

Self-defence is just this: self defence. The monopoly for using violence/force in all other cases, should be with the law-enforcement.

Listen to yourself...No machine guns are sold for private use, outlawed, so only outlaws can and will get them or convert them.

You expect me to defend my family by moving, even that's beyond you.

90% of people defend their homes with pistols or shotguns. I have several guns, but like most would grab the 12 gauge, I don't want to miss.

Over 200,000 americans a year defend themselves with guns during acts of violence against them, store owners, home owners, etc.. I guess these just have to die, because the crooks will still have guns.

I am for guns laws. I have no problem with a 3 day wait, no problem with required training for guns like pistols, most rifles and shotguns, you have to have training to get your hunting license. I think all guns should be sold by dealers that have a certified store, training, etc...

Only farmers should hunt, are you serious, most farmers don't hunt, they don't have time, they let others hunt. The game population would die from disease if we didn't have a mass hunting population...You're being silly my liberal friend and you know we agree on many things.

Try to take guns in America and it's prohibition all over, crooks would have them, others would hide them..it would solve nothing. We've seen how good gun laws work in these big cities where only crooks have guns, no thank you.
Not to mention government would have to put mass assets to collect, search and lawyers would be getting rich

[Skybird]

Penguin, I did not feel attacked inappropriately at all by what August said. No cautioning needed, therefore! ;)

August, this board in not "nationals exclusively", but is public and international. Everything being posted here is free to be commented by everyone, that includes me and of course also you.

Over here, we are not interested in the parking fees in let'S say Phoenix or Sacramento. It does not effect us in any way, and so we are not even taking note. The latest decisions by the Fed however do interest us, for they effect us as well.

What also does effect us is the national attitude of a foreign nation that defines the way it approaches international issues and other nations/people. Clture and media is such a thing. American movies and TV are omnipresent in many places of the world that are not any American at all. and what thes epropgrams are more filled with than anything else are violence, and weapons, and explosions, and then more of that. And this impacts on our own cultural climate over here as well. So we wonder why this is so, and we note this fetish that weapons are in your culture - you can hardly argue that it is only about pragmatic self-defence. For some, it is an obsession, for more it is a paramilitary issue, and for many it is a fanbatsy of one day needing to fight back hordes and hordes of criminal attackers that mean them bad.

Note that I said above that I have turned from somebody being against legal weapon ownership for principal reasons to somebody who tolerates and accepts gun ownership for self defence. It's just that I mark tighter limits than the American gun industry wants to see in place. And paramilitzary equipement and weaponry for me still have no legitimation to be distributed to a wide general public. Leave this where it belongs: with the military and law enforcement.

I described it above. It is softer a set of limitations than the laws we have in Europe, at last in Germany, and it is tighter a set of rules than it is in many American states.

Western media culkture is a very violent media culture, by content. Violence is the most favourite topic, the more explosions in a movie, the more successful it is. That may be true for Japanese or Korean movies as well. It's just that these are not so dominant on european media markets.

And I think it wouldn't hurt us if our culture would be less obsessed with violence and weapons. Media are one, though not the only point on the list to start with.

Of course you poeple inAmerica will do what youwantg to do inAm,erica anyway. But since we get effected by this issue as well, I just comment on this (having passed on the last two or three opportunitis when gunlaws were discussed in threads, btw. :D ). If you prefer to discuss parking fees in Phoenix, I'll pass. :shucks:

[mookiemookie]

American movies and TV are omnipresent in many places of the world that are not any American at all. and what thes epropgrams are more filled with than anything else are violence, and weapons, and explosions, and then more of that. And this impacts on our own cultural climate over here as well. So we wonder why this is so, and we note this fetish that weapons are in your culture - you can hardly argue that it is only about pragmatic self-defence.

American media wouldn't have the success it has internationally if there wasn't a demand for it. If Germans or Poles or Swedes or whoevers didn't have the appetite for violent American movies, TV and games, then there'd be no money in exporting them for foreign consumption. Demand creates product, not the other way around.

[Skybird]

Listen to yourself...No machine guns are sold for private use, outlawed, so only outlaws can and will get them or convert them.
I do not know all the correct terms, so when saying MG/MP typed guns I mean things like quick firing automatic attack rifles that hardly are used for hunting deer or getting the fox that steals your hens. I am talking about laser markers, night vision goggles, and people stockpiling ammunition as if they were saving for the next war. For self-defence, you do not need all this military or paramilitary equipment. Even a 40 year old small callibre PKK is sufficient for this kind of job most of the times.


You expect me to defend my family by moving, even that's beyond you.
I said where one has the option to move from a warzone, one should do it, because that is the best way to protect your children from criminal harm. If you voluntarily raise your family in a place where you expect shooting incidents, and by doing so making your kids soldfiers in your crusade for principal issues, you may think about for a monent what this tells about you and your claim to just "defend" your family. In fact you are just subborn and will to put them at the frontline of your own pride. That pride is pokay when you are speaking for yourslef only. When you have family and children, the kids interest go first. So, when you can, move out of a place where you expect of needing to defend them by the use of firearms againms threats that include firearms. Or do you think of your kids as your future private army?


Over 200,000 americans a year defend themselves with guns during acts of violence against them, store owners, home owners, etc.. I guess these just have to die, because the crooks will still have guns.

90% of people defend their homes with pistols or shotguns. I have several guns, but like most would grab the 12 gauge, I don't want to miss.
For the third time in this thread I hereby declare that I have turned from someone once having been against private gun ownership in principal, to someone now accepting private gun ownerhsip on a level that strictly is tailored for direct and immediate self-defence against violent crime. That means the robber in your house, shop robbery, and the rapist, in most case I assume.




I am for guns laws. I have no problem with a 3 day wait, no problem with required training for guns like pistols, most rifles and shotguns, you have to have training to get your hunting license. I think all guns should be sold by dealers that have a certified store, training, etc...
Yes, etc. See my ideas above, maybe they are tighter than yours, maybe not, however, we do not disagree completely.

Only farmers should hunt, are you serious, most farmers don't hunt, they don't have time, they let others hunt. The game population would die from disease if we didn't have a mass hunting population...
I assume some farmers may have a rifle of any kind to fight their lifestock against any predatory animals that may pop up in certain areas from time to time, or needing to kill a sick animal for mercy, the horse that broke its leg or whatever. Even self-defence when livbing in a very isolated area is a valid argument, when the police needs two hours to arrive in case of an emergency.

You're being silly my liberal friend and you know we agree on many things.
Ah, today it is liberal day then, thanks for the reminder, I often get confused by the many different days we have, when I get called a phobic or a Nazi or a rightwinger or a socialist or a hawk or a dove as well. Has all happened, will all happen again.


Try to take guns in America and it's prohibition all over, crooks would have them, others would hide them..it would solve nothing. We've seen how good gun laws work in these big cities where only crooks have guns, no thank you.
Not to mention government would have to put mass assets to collect, search and lawyers would be getting rich
I am not against (fourth time saying this now) against private gun possession in principal. I am however questioning the answers some people - not few people by the sales number of the gun-producing industry - give to what kind of arsenal it takes to succesfully repel a hostile attack, eh - I mean self defence against a rapist or robber.

Heck, I have several swords and knifes myself, though not storing the swords in my household. Could you imagine what bloody mess I could create with a Katana, even more since I got trained with it? I am not that phobically against weapons like you and maybe also August (not sure about him) seem to believe.

I just question the excesses that gun fetishism is being driven to by some people who seem to argue self defence means to be armed up to the teeth like a one man army. Want to protect your household and family? Doesn'T take half a dozen of weapons and stockpiles of ammunition. A pistol or revolver is enough. If it isn't or you cannot make something out of that, then more weapons or bigger callibres or a higher rate of fire or 500 shots in the ammo box will not serve you any good anyway.

One should not argue in absolutes here. Numbers show that gun ownership also does a lot of damage, kills and hurts by accidents, or making criminals more aggressive and acting preemptively with higher brutality just becaysue the suspect their iuntended victim has firearms. Some weeks ago I linked to a meta-analysis claiming right this.

You have to weigh things. The damage being done by legalising widespread gun ownership, and the damage done by excessive crime that represents the exception from the rule of how to define the lion's share of self defence situations.

[August]

I am not that phobically against weapons like you and maybe also August (not sure about him) seem to believe.

Then rest easy Skybird. I do not believe you have a phobia against weapons. :salute:

[Skybird]

American media wouldn't have the success it has internationally if there wasn't a demand for it. If Germans or Poles or Swedes or whoevers didn't have the appetite for violent American movies, TV and games, then there'd be no money in exporting them for foreign consumption. Demand creates product, not the other way around.
No, it is not that one-lane road you claim. Demand can artifically be created, and is all the time. To do so is the job of the advertisement industry, and lobbying. One would not spend billions into that effort year by year if it were not producing returns the companies can count in dollars and cents.
That includes the weapons lobby. That includes Hollywood.

And like kids can get used to not like sweets as much as they usually do, you can also educate or influence people to find images of violence and weapons less attractive. For many of us, this also happens all by itself, naturally, when we become older.

[Wolfehunter]

I disagree with you sky on these issues. If the person is responsible and has commonsense it shouldn't mater what weapon he owns as long as its used right. Now a battleship I agree is abit much.. But Heavy weapons should be fine. Government has to stop screwing the people. So people need a way to defend themselves. Pop gun isn't going to cut it dude. ;)

[yubba]

Fear the government that fears your guns. What part of, not to be infringed upon don't the consitutionaly impared understand ???:O::O::O:Can't have a well arm state miliatia if we don't have the same arms as the oppressive federal government.

[MH]

If the person is responsible and has commonsense it shouldn't mater what weapon he owns as long as its used right. ;)

That's the heart of issue.
Are there laws in USA that ensures for the above to be implemented or you talking about yourself.
I have a gun in my drawer too but i don't thing that everyone should be able to carry one.
There is no need for that.
Is USA a war zone or conquering the wild west.
Yes not fair.
Freedom to carry a gun seems to me more of American symbol than necessity.

[Platapus]

I would not get too upset about this. These types of bills come up every congressional session and every congressional session they die in committee or get .. uh.. well.. shot down. :D.

[Armistead]

I would not get too upset about this. These types of bills come up every congressional session and every congressional session they die in committee or get .. uh.. well.. shot down. :D.

Yep, the supreme court will shoot it down, not to mention bad timing with the election coming up. The fact is too many Dems are for gun rights, well, might be against them, but for them to get voted in.

[Platapus]

Yep, the supreme court will shoot it down, not to mention bad timing with the election coming up. The fact is too many Dems are for gun rights, well, might be against them, but for them to get voted in.

I will bet a scooby snack that this gets no where near the Supreme Court.

I doubt it will get out of committee. :yep:

[mookiemookie]

No, it is not that one-lane road you claim. Demand can artifically be created, and is all the time. To do so is the job of the advertisement industry, and lobbying. One would not spend billions into that effort year by year if it were not producing returns the companies can count in dollars and cents.
That includes the weapons lobby. That includes Hollywood.


So if there were commercials for buggy whips on TV, it would become a viable product again? Sorry, doesn't work that way. Demand creates supply.

[Platapus]

When was the last time anyone saw an advertisement for a gun on TV/Radio?

You rarely see advertisements in magazines for guns and than only in specialized gun magazines.

[mookiemookie]

When was the last time anyone saw an advertisement for a gun on TV/Radio?

You rarely see advertisements in magazines for guns and than only in specialized gun magazines.

Oh I was just sidetracking the whole thread by taking issue with one of Sky's points about U.S. media corrupting the rest of the world. Never mind me. :salute:

[Platapus]

No worries, I believe we are in agreement here. :up:

[yubba]

eeew eeew pick me, here in florida they, had an ad for the Henry rifle on channel 9 Orlando.

[Rilder]

I've seen a couple gun commercials too, some repeating rifle or something.

Personally don't give a crap about guns.

[Penguin]

So if there were commercials for buggy whips on TV, it would become a viable product again? Sorry, doesn't work that way. Demand creates supply.

What about snake oil? ;)
I just watched half an hour of commercial tv - which happens seldom enough in my private time, so I announce it. I asked myself the whole time while watching advertisements: It can't be real what kind of dumb, unnessessary stuff those folks want to sell..
Demand and supply definitely also works the other way around - yes, in its boundaries, everybody needs to drink, but the advertisement of a special beverage creates demand for this.

Then there is something you guys may not know about U.S. tv series and movies here. When the American studios sell their broadcast licenses, they usually sell it in bundles. They combine the pearls, some good stuff and lots of garbage together.
This is one of the reasons why there are so many american crap shows and films shown on tv here. This goes for Germany, but I am sure the studios have the same policy in other European countries.

[Penguin]

An on-topic question:
What is the supposed sense of banning "high capacity" magazines? All I know is that CA and NY already have the 10 bullet cutoff. Afaik it was also the law when "assault weapons" were banned, though old magazines were still legal to posess, unlike the proposal now.
I don't really see any convincing argument for this. Do people think that somebody who goes on a killing spree would stop and think it all over when changing a magazine? :hmmm:

[mookiemookie]

Demand and supply definitely also works the other way around - yes, in its boundaries, everybody needs to drink, but the advertisement of a special beverage creates demand for this.


Demand in economics is defined as the desire for a product, the willingness to purchase a product, and the ability to pay for it. Advertising in and of itself does doesn't create "demand" in the economic sense that wasn't already there - it raises awareness. The only people who are going to purchase your product after seeing your ad are the ones who would have already been willing to purchase such a product in the first place. Think about how many new foods and drinks that marketers come up with that fail - colored ketchup, spaghetti and pizza at McDonalds, the Ford Edsel. Despite all the advertising that these companies did for these products, they couldn't get over the fact that there was no organic demand for them. Look at ads for drugs for diabetes, or dry eyes, or arthritis, or whatever. Nobody who doesn't already suffer from one of those ailments is going to purchase your drug no matter how much advertising you do, i.e. they don't have a built in demand for it. Advertising only creates awareness, not organic demand.

An on-topic question:
What is the supposed sense of banning "high capacity" magazines? All I know is that CA and NY already have the 10 bullet cutoff. Afaik it was also the law when "assault weapons" were banned, though old magazines were still legal to posess, unlike the proposal now.
I don't really see any convincing argument for this. Do people think that somebody who goes on a killing spree would stop and think it all over when changing a magazine? :hmmm:

It supposedly limits the lethality of a weapon. If I had a 20 round magazine, I may carry one or two extras. If I had a 8 round magazine, I may carry that same one or two extra. Lower capacity, fewer bullets.

[Armistead]

I myself see no use for assualt weapons, although I own a few, they sit in the closet and use to target shoot with them, so I understand some like that. The problem is those few crimes are committed with such. The clip issue is also silly, person could just carry two guns.

You could ban such weapons and you would see no change in gun violence, none at all.

The reason many of us moderates on guns don't want any laws changed to any degree, because we know the liberals seek to outlaw all guns, so why give an inch.

[Penguin]

Demand in economics is defined as the desire for a product, the willingness to purchase a product, and the ability to pay for it. Advertising in and of itself does doesn't create "demand" in the economic sense that wasn't already there - it raises awareness. The only people who are going to purchase your product after seeing your ad are the ones who would have already been willing to purchase such a product in the first place. Think about how many new foods and drinks that marketers come up with that fail - colored ketchup, spaghetti and pizza at McDonalds, the Ford Edsel. Despite all the advertising that these companies did for these products, they couldn't get over the fact that there was no organic demand for them. Look at ads for drugs for diabetes, or dry eyes, or arthritis, or whatever. Nobody who doesn't already suffer from one of those ailments is going to purchase your drug no matter how much advertising you do, i.e. they don't have a built in demand for it. Advertising only creates awareness, not organic demand.


You have a point with those stated examples - though I personally liked green ketchup ;)
However the drug examples also support the theory that advertisement can create artificial demand. It is quite astonishing for Europeans to see how aggressively drugs are advertised in th US - hard on the border of false promises, thus snake oil. One can argue that health is a demand that every human has, but it surely doesn't get satisfied by placebos or unnessesary diet supplements. Drugs are also not only used for treatment, but also for prevention.


It supposedly limits the lethality of a weapon. If I had a 20 round magazine, I may carry one or two extras. If I had a 8 round magazine, I may carry that same one or two extra. Lower capacity, fewer bullets.

:hmmm: If someone has the strong desire to off as many people as possible, I can't think that carrying some extra pounds of low capacity magazines would stop him. On the other hand, if someone has a gun for defense purposes, one would like to have as many rounds as possible, regarding the stress factor of a situation like this.

[Skybird]

Even here in Europe, the NRA is known for not beeing shy to massively lobbying weapon business interests, the NRA is a synonym for business lobbying. It gets listed with these white spendings for pro gun advertising in 2010:

Total Lobbying Expenditures: $2,650,000
Subtotal for Parent National Rifle Assn: $2,250,000
Subtotal for Subsidiary NRA Institute for Legislative Action: $400,000

Even more valuable is the NRA connections to politial representatives whose voice may be heared and whose votes do count. The lobbying and advertising payments done by NRA members who stay unknown and unnoted, is not really known, but is estimated to be a factor of the above. Lobby investements payed by NRA sister organisations and affiliates, are also not included.

Beside this, mookie, daily TV will show you examples of commercial adverts introducing new products that before nobody ever has needed and nobody ever has missed, according agencies have the explicit order for which they get payed to artifically create the demand - by in principel nothing else but brainwashing. Whirer than white, cleaner than clean better than best. 3 blades razors.4 blade razors. 5 blade razors. Ha! At university I had to do 3 mandatory semesters in employement and market psychology, and we were told by the books that advertising business has two major fields it cares for: to either ensure brand-loyalty of consumers and prevent them from changing to the products of another company, or to create artifical demand for a new product that nobody knows, nobody cared for, and has not missed. The rbainwashing concept targets at making people think that they cannot live without this item any longer and that they simply MUST haved it.

The other way to create demand artifically, wich is being done especially in the consumer electronics and hopusehold machinery segments, is to artifically shorten the durability and lifespan of lets say washing machines. This can be done by either using materials with inbuilt failure features (using construction or material selection to ensure that after some years it breaks), or by stropping to produce needed spareparts. The market for cionsumer electronics in the West was saturated in the fist half of the 80s, after WWII finally almost every household was equipped with the basic machinery you use to find in modern households. The demand declined, threatening industry profits. What happoened? You can read from the statistics, that since then the longevity of consumer electrnics like TVs and washing machines has reduced by roughly one third until today.

Live with it, mookie. Our system depends on constant manipulation of people'S behavior, and precise misinformation of people's thinking.

But we must not like it! ;) The internet gives us the option to trade independent information around the globe in no time. That's why I think it is of paramount importance that commercial interests get stopped from taking command of the internet, and regulation get minimised and prevented as well.

One thing people should understand. Nio business company spends a single dollar on advertising for something new if it does not get a profit return from that that is solid and increases the total sum on it'S banking account. The simply fact that comapnies spend hilarious sums for commercial advetising and lobbying in politics is evidence that it works by the inention, and more than compensates for the initial investement into adverts and lobbying. Else they would save the money and don'T waste it. Prestige alone does not pay their bills, and does not make their stocks booming.

[CaptainMattJ.]

phew. that was close. seeing as how my semi automatic grenade launcher holds 6 rounds, i think im in the clear :DL

[mookiemookie]

Beside this, mookie, daily TV will show you examples of commercial adverts introducing new products that before nobody ever has needed and nobody ever has missed, according agencies have the explicit order for which they get payed to artifically create the demand - by in principel nothing else but brainwashing. You're confusing demand in the economic sense with the act of demanding a specific product. Products and services are designed to fulfill the desire or perceived need that's already there - it doesn't create the desire in and of itself. All advertising does is inform people of that message.

Whirer than white, People want clean laundry. Whiter whites are perceived to be cleaner. cleaner than clean People already wanted clean, they want as clean as can be. Saying "Our product cleans better than the other guy's!" is only saying that the product fulfills the consumer's desire for clean. better than best. Consumers desire the best. Advertising informs the consumer that your product will fulfill that desire. 3 blades razors.4 blade razors. 5 blade razors. All means to achieve the fulfillment of a consumer demand that's been around for ages - a closer shave. The 5 blade razor wouldn't exist without the consumer's demand for a close shave

The other way to create demand artifically, wich is being done especially in the consumer electronics and hopusehold machinery segments, is to artifically shorten the durability and lifespan In a developed country, the demand for washing machines is fairly constant. You're describing replacement. That's not new demand - the person already owned a washing machine.

Live with it, mookie. Our system depends on constant manipulation of people'S behavior, and precise misinformation of people's thinking. You're right, but for the wrong reason. Advertising is the art of making people believe that your product fulfills the consumer's demand for ______ (a close shave, clean clothes, a tasty beverage, a car that's a status symbol etc). Nobody has demand for a product that doesn't fulfill one of their needs. Hence why you can advertise the heck out of buggy whips, but you won't sell many.

[Freiwillige]

I own a 9mm service pistol, a .22 revolver (Made in Germany) And now as of yesterday one of these! Its a Bulgarian parts kit -the receiver that I am building

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GXuoGy3wHPI

I built the front barrel assembly today and come payday I order the receiver and the rest of the bolts and rivets to bolt this bad boy together.

Now some would call it an assault rifle, It is not, at least not any longer. It does not have full auto capability only semi auto use which makes it just a semi auto rifle.

The big question always posed by the anti gun lobby is "Do you need to own such a rifle?" My thought's are this. When I find out that I NEED to own such a rifle isn't it already to late? :hmmm:
Maybe just maybe I enjoy owning and shooting Military firearms without the sudden murderous compulsion to just put rounds into everybody I see.:D

But the Final point in the argument is the one that trumps all others and that is that the forefathers had the foresight to put in the Second Amendment to this glorious Constitution of the United States of America.

[gimpy117]

I don't think you will ever need a rifle in 7.62x39 for home defense. It's called home "defense" not "home assault" for a reason. It would be a fun gun for range time, but I think it's overkill for personal defense and an example of what Skybird is talking about. And it's still an assault rifle. has to do with the cartage

[the_tyrant]

Slightly off topic:
how does the NRA get its funds? though membership fees and donations?

[August]

Slightly off topic:
how does the NRA get its funds? though membership fees and donations?

Yeap.

[Growler]

No, it is not that one-lane road you claim. Demand can artifically be created, and is all the time. To do so is the job of the advertisement industry, and lobbying. One would not spend billions into that effort year by year if it were not producing returns the companies can count in dollars and cents.
That includes the weapons lobby. That includes Hollywood.

And like kids can get used to not like sweets as much as they usually do, you can also educate or influence people to find images of violence and weapons less attractive. For many of us, this also happens all by itself, naturally, when we become older.

PARTY FOUL.

You mean to tell me that the European desire for American movies is solely based on media presentation and advertising? Sorry. that rationale doesn't work, Sky. EVERYONE who pays to see a movie - American or not - makes a CHOICE to do so. Where the rubber meets the road, it's a CHOICE. Unless, of course, the American media companies are subtly brainwashing Europeans into going to the movies... ?

No, sorry, total party foul. American movies are made today based on the perception of European ticket sales - I know this for a fact. If there's little to no European appeal in a title, it's chances of being made by a large studio become almost nil, because there will be so little European ticket sales. Advertising is only a small part of the whole process.

[Skybird]

There is much to be said about "free will" and neural determinism, and in how far our freedom to chose depends on earlier stimuli that have formed our percpetion of ourselves and the world. But it is late over here (or early...), and I just remind of this and tell you that it is by far not that simple as you try to make it appear.

And no, I did not say that movie preferences are completely based on commercials. I hinted at that there is more reason than just commercials why people prefer violent, weapon-heavy action movies - resulting in more of that kind of movies and thus: according commercials. Which means I said something quite different.

Well, full stop here. It's 5:30.

[MH]

Now some would call it an assault rifle, It is not, at least not any longer. It does not have full auto capability only semi auto use which makes it just a semi auto rifle.

.

I don't remember shooting my assault rifle in full auto during my army service.
That is besides few times to prove how wastefully and ineffective it is.
Ok so you cant preform rage shooting with this rifle but you still have high velocity long range gun.

Why any one would want to own AK 74 is beyond me but have fun.

[Freiwillige]

I don't think you will ever need a rifle in 7.62x39 for home defense. It's called home "defense" not "home assault" for a reason. It would be a fun gun for range time, but I think it's overkill for personal defense and an example of what Skybird is talking about. And it's still an assault rifle. has to do with the cartage

Its not a 7.62x39 although that translates into a .308 or 30 cal popular for hunting:hmmm:

It is a 5.45x39 which is similar to the .223\5.56 NATO round. In fact it is a copy of the idea. So that equates it to basically a .22 caliber bullet.

It has nothing to do with the round but the designed intent of the firearm.
Assault weapons are fully automatic. Once that equation is removed the only thing remaining is the looks. My Rifle will look just like the AK-74. It will be based off the AK-74. But it will be just a magazine fed rifle.

[Freiwillige]

I don't remember shooting my assault rifle in full auto during my army service.
That is besides few times to prove how wastefully and ineffective it is.
Ok so you cant preform rage shooting with this rifle but you still have high velocity long range gun.

Why any one would want to own AK 74 is beyond me but have fun.

Reason's to own an AK-74.

1. Cost. Dirt cheap right now as low as $399 at some online retailers.
2. Ammo cost. 1,040 rounds of surplus soviet\ukrainian ammo in sealed tins $149 U.S. !!!!!!!!!!!!! That's far less than even 9mm ammo for my handgun
3. maintenance ...almost none, Gun will outlast me and probably my great grandchildren.
4. Fun to shoot a piece of military history

Its not for home defense and I never claimed it was. That's what my 12 gauge is for. Shooting is a hobby just like many other hobby's.

A Ruger mini 14 ranch rifle
http://www.americanfirearmsschool.com/Rifle%20Pics/RUGER_MINI14_INV225.JPG

Now a militarized one
http://cdn5.thefirearmsblog.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/tapco_mini_14-tfb.JPG

So it goes from being a ranch rifle to an assault rifle just by putting cool looking parts on it that have no effect on its actual function?

[Wolfehunter]

Freedom to carry a gun seems to me more of American symbol than necessity.Here is the key of it. Necessity is all the time. When you have crazies walking the streets or criminals legal or not doing what they want. Tools suppose to protect us are being abused. Who do you trust? Who do you give up your rights to and believe they will protect you and the people you love? I'm never going to give up my right to defend myself ever. If that means the police or invader will shoot me so be it. I will die trying to protect my family and ---- the system.

States interests aren't your interests. These policies are set for a select few to control the rest. Nothing more nothing less. I personally don't care if the rules are in US, Russia, Europe or any other nation. You have a right to defend yourself Period!

[Tribesman]

But the Final point in the argument is the one that trumps all others and that is that the forefathers had the foresight to put in the Second Amendment to this glorious Constitution of the United States of America.
If they had the foresight it wouldn't be an amendment would it

[yubba]

Actually it should have been the first amendment, we didn't drive the British out of our country and win our independence from them, by talking nicely to them, we shot and killed them. The gun is what made us free and is what keeps us free, and you guys better not forget that. Anyone that hates your gun rights more than likely hates your other rights too.

[mookiemookie]

If they had the foresight it wouldn't be an amendment would it

Some of them did have the foresight. The anti-Federalists demanded a Bill of Rights be included in the original Constitution.

[MH]

You have a right to defend yourself Period!

OK..sound really great.

In my opinion lots of street/home shootings may be caused just because everybody expect every body else to have gun.
So i would not go for your wallet unless equipped with one and shoot you if you twitch.

Don't get me wrong i admire USA for its freedom.
Some of those laws seem to me a bit ancient though and cause more harm than good.
I haven't digged into this issue but thats how it seems at glance.

[MH]

So it goes from being a ranch rifle to an assault rifle just by putting cool looking parts on it that have no effect on its actual function?

I'm not gun freak just used to be an user i don't really know what they sell at Wallmart .:D
If the only difference is the AUTO option then its true.
You actually already own military assault rifle without this small technicality.

[yubba]

First off the term assult rifle was made up to demonies weapons. Assult means attack, so if it sits in the corner, I guess it is a peace rifle.

[Tribesman]

Some of them did have the foresight
So some of them did and some of them didn't, the ones that didn't won out at the writing of the constitution but then they argued some more over the arguements they had already had and the ones that did won on that arguement.
So they did more writing, but then it turns out despite all the arguements the ones who did didn't really as what they wrote is still argued about over two hundred years later as their foresight and writing wasn't very good.

[Tribesman]

First off the term assult rifle was made up to demonies weapons.
Watch out for those demonies which want to assult you:rotfl2:
Though in the real world these guns name developed as a translated term which was meant to promote the weapon.

[MH]

First off the term assult rifle was made up to demonies weapons. Assult means attack, so if it sits in the corner, I guess it is a peace rifle.
No its a purpose.
Every one to his own though.
When i have the time and peace of mind ill probably will go into airplane models building.

[gimpy117]

Its not a 7.62x39 although that translates into a .308 or 30 cal popular for hunting:hmmm:

It is a 5.45x39 which is similar to the .223\5.56 NATO round. In fact it is a copy of the idea. So that equates it to basically a .22 caliber bullet.

It has nothing to do with the round but the designed intent of the firearm.
Assault weapons are fully automatic. Once that equation is removed the only thing remaining is the looks. My Rifle will look just like the AK-74. It will be based off the AK-74. But it will be just a magazine fed rifle.

but with much less powder behind it. do you have any clue how bullets work? A .308 the .30-06 cartage has a much higher powder charge making it more powerful. lust because it has the same caliber does not mean it's just as effective for hunting. Also, a 5.45x39 is not anywhere the same as a .22 either. Much higher powder to bullet ratio.

I also reject the idea that cartage has nothing to do with the making of an assault rifle. why? because an assault rifle cartage is the basis of the gun itself. A full sized .308 firing full auto would be known as a automatic rifle, Like the BAR or FG-42. However, the idea of an assault rifle is an automatic rifle firing an intermediate cartage between a pistol and a full on rifle. If your gun fired 9mm I'd call it an SMG, If your Gun fired 7.62x54r then I'll call it a Dragunov or SVD which is a Rifle.

[Sailor Steve]

So some of them did and some of them didn't, the ones that didn't won out at the writing of the constitution but then they argued some more over the arguements they had already had and the ones that did won on that arguement.
So they did more writing, but then it turns out despite all the arguements the ones who did didn't really as what they wrote is still argued about over two hundred years later as their foresight and writing wasn't very good.
It's funny. James Madison didn't want any rights enumerated because he believed that all rights belong to the individual and none to the government. He felt that no matter how many they listed they would inevitably leave something out, and sooner or later some legal weenie would come along and say "See, they left that one out, so they must not have meant it!" Turns out he was right.

but with much less powder behind it. do you have any clue how bullets work? A .308 the .30-06 cartage has a much higher powder charge making it more powerful. lust because it has the same caliber does not mean it's just as effective for hunting. Also, a 5.45x39 is not anywhere the same as a .22 either. Much higher powder to bullet ratio.

I also reject the idea that cartage has nothing to do with the making of an assault rifle. why? because an assault rifle cartage is the basis of the gun itself. A full sized .308 firing full auto would be known as a automatic rifle, Like the BAR or FG-42. However, the idea of an assault rifle is an automatic rifle firing an intermediate cartage between a pistol and a full on rifle. If your gun fired 9mm I'd call it an SMG, If your Gun fired 7.62x54r then I'll call it a Dragunov or SVD which is a Rifle.
So my bolt-action five-shot Ought-Three Springfield is an assault rifle? It was considered one in 1917, but today is clearly outside the legal definitions of that category. Should it be included? I've had it since 1987, and I have yet to shoot anybody with it. Or even any deer, for that matter.

[Tribesman]

It's funny.......
@Steve It is always funny when people talk of the founding fathers and a particular viewpoint or intention as all encompasing when the founders had many different viewpoints and intentions.

[yubba]

Gee what could have the founding fathers been thinking :hmmm: well let's see, we had just driven the British off the contentinet, at the end of our muskets, we were settleling untamed wilderness with dangerous animals and hostile native americans, most food that was gathered, was the takeing of wild game. Seems pretty staight forward to me, so what part of not to be infringed upon don't you understand.????

[MH]

So my bolt-action five-shot Ought-Three Springfield is an assault rifle? It was considered one in 1917, but today is clearly outside the legal definitions of that category. Should it be included? I've had it since 1987, and I have yet to shoot anybody with it. Or even any deer, for that matter.

In Israel you probably would have to remove/destroy firing pin if you are collector or keep it locked somwhere and get civilian license which might difficult.
Crazy....

Still doesn't seem like adequate weapon for home defense and may be pain to carry around.:D
9mm hand gun is more than enough for defense and doesn't endanger whole neighborhood when some happy shooting starts.

[yubba]

Nine's are nice but I like stuff that can shoot through schools:doh:

[MH]

Nine's are nice but I like stuff that can shoot through schools:doh:

:rotfl2:
Put gatling gun your window

:salute:

[Tribesman]

Gee what could have the founding fathers been thinking
Well a thinking person would look at what they said and wrote at the time relating to the amendment.

Seems pretty staight forward to me
Yes yubba and we see regularly how straight your mind works.:doh:

well let's see, we had just driven the British off the contentinet
:har::har::har::har::har::har::har::har:
Could you sign yourself up for some very basic history lessons just to get you started off in life on an elementary footing?

[Rilder]

:har::har::har::har::har::har::har::har:
Could you sign yourself up for some very basic history lessons just to get you started off in life on an elementary footing?

I think that came off a bit offensive Tribesman.

You are right though, the British were far from kicked out of North Amerika, unless Yubba doesn't actually believe in Canada.

Edit: Maybe he thinks Canada's existence is liberal propaganda?

[gimpy117]

So my bolt-action five-shot Ought-Three Springfield is an assault rifle? It was considered one in 1917, but today is clearly outside the legal definitions of that category. Should it be included? I've had it since 1987, and I have yet to shoot anybody with it. Or even any deer, for that matter.

Its a rifle. it's a full length cartage. it was considered a rifle back then too. Sailor, you know as well as i do that a 1903 Springfield isn't An AK-47, If anything its closer to any 5 shot bolt action hunting rifle you can but at almost any gum shop in the US.

although i would like to own one. I say a 30-40 Kraig carbine in a pawn shop that I wish i could justify spending $400 on the other day. Alas, college is pricey

[Platapus]

Nine's are nice but I like stuff that can shoot through schools:doh:

"They made it for him special. It's an eighty-eight Magnum"

"It shoots through schools"

Awesome movie!

Dames are put on this earth to weaken us, drain our energy, laugh at us when they see us naked. :D

[August]

His mother hung him on a hook once..... Once!

[Platapus]

First off the term assult rifle was made up to demonies weapons. Assult means attack, so if it sits in the corner, I guess it is a peace rifle.

Unfortunately, in the US, the legal definition, in the context of gun control laws, of an "Assault Rifle" is very different from the actual definition of an Assault Rifle.

An assault rifle sounds so much more scary than the more accurate "semi-automatic commercially available, civilian model rifle made to resemble in appearance an assault rifle, but is incapable of operating as an actual assault rifle"

You just can't scare the house fraus with that. :nope:

[Freiwillige]

The term Assault rifle comes directly from Hitler's mouth. The first ever Assault rifle known by Hitler as the SturmGewehr 44

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StG_44

From wikipedia
"Developed from the Mkb 42(H) "machine carbine", the StG44 combined the characteristics of a carbine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbine), submachine gun (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submachine_gun) and automatic rifle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_rifle). StG is an abbreviation of Sturmgewehr. The name was chosen for propaganda (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda) reasons and literally means "storm rifle" as in "to storm an enemy position" (i.e. "assault", leading to the modern terminology "assault rifle"). After the adoption of the StG 44, the English translation "assault rifle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle)" became the accepted designation for this type of infantry small arm."

My AK is missing the Automatic rifle portion hence the (NOT AN ASSAULT RIFLE) label.

[Freiwillige]

but with much less powder behind it. do you have any clue how bullets work? A .308 the .30-06 cartage has a much higher powder charge making it more powerful. lust because it has the same caliber does not mean it's just as effective for hunting. Also, a 5.45x39 is not anywhere the same as a .22 either. Much higher powder to bullet ratio.

I also reject the idea that cartage has nothing to do with the making of an assault rifle. why? because an assault rifle cartage is the basis of the gun itself. A full sized .308 firing full auto would be known as a automatic rifle, Like the BAR or FG-42. However, the idea of an assault rifle is an automatic rifle firing an intermediate cartage between a pistol and a full on rifle. If your gun fired 9mm I'd call it an SMG, If your Gun fired 7.62x54r then I'll call it a Dragunov or SVD which is a Rifle.

If my gun fired a 9mm you would call it a SMG. How is that possible since a SMG, Sub Machine Gun has to be fully Automatic AKA Machine gun?

So the Ruger 14 ranch rifle is an assault rifle since it fire's .223\5.56?

[Platapus]

My AK is missing the Automatic rifle portion hence the (NOT AN ASSAULT RIFLE) label.

But in the context of gun control laws, it may, depending on the state, be considered an "assault rifle".

Does not make it right, logical, historically correct, or even common sense, but it establish legal status.

Personally, I am all in favour of restricting civilians from owning Assault Rifles, but not restricting stuff that may kinda look like an assault rifle. :nope:

[yubba]

"They made it for him special. It's an eighty-eight Magnum"

"It shoots through schools"

Awesome movie!

Dames are put on this earth to weaken us, drain our energy, laugh at us when they see us naked. :D
Only shot it once.:haha: ok, contenietal United States, they still got the boot. ggggeeeeeeezzzzz nice to know somebody knows their history, but I still nailed it:O: At least the British got to go back to England, get it ???????

[Sailor Steve]

Its a rifle. it's a full length cartage. it was considered a rifle back then too. Sailor, you know as well as i do that a 1903 Springfield isn't An AK-47, If anything its closer to any 5 shot bolt action hunting rifle you can but at almost any gum shop in the US.

although i would like to own one. I say a 30-40 Kraig carbine in a pawn shop that I wish i could justify spending $400 on the other day. Alas, college is pricey
I know it's a rifle. I thought you were talking about the cartridge making the "assault" part. Sorry if I misunderstood.

[Sailor Steve]

@Steve It is always funny...
But I only mentioned one. Of course he happens to be the one behind the creation of our Constitution, and he happens to be the one behind the Amendments to same, so his opinion does count for something.

[gimpy117]

I know it's a rifle. I thought you were talking about the cartridge making the "assault" part. Sorry if I misunderstood.

it's more of a combination of the two in my opinion

[Wolfehunter]

Some of those laws seem to me a bit ancient though and cause more harm than good.
Why do you believe freedom to own weapons causes more harm than good?

[MH]

Why do you believe freedom to own weapons causes more harm than good?

As i said before in may view it raises the barrier of violence.
In a society where every one in potential firearm owner gun is a must have tool for simplest criminal.
I don't read the statistics but i'm quite sure that even if USA has lower certain crime rate(i doubt that)than other countries overall the crimes are more violet and end up with more dead people.
Every potential robbery is potential gun fight.

[Tribesman]

ok, contenietal United States, they still got the boot. ggggeeeeeeezzzzz nice to know somebody knows their history, but I still nailed it
No yubba you didn't nail it, in fact you were so far off nailing it that you forgot to have either a hammer or a nail.


But I only mentioned one.
@Steve,....but that exchange originated from a comment by someone who didn't.

[yubba]

No yubba you didn't nail it, in fact you were so far off nailing it that you forgot to have either a hammer or a nail.



@Steve,....but that exchange originated from a comment by someone who didn't.
Ok then, you explain what the founding fathers meant when, they added the second amendment, and what not to be infringed upon means.:doh:

[mookiemookie]

Every potential robbery is potential gun fight.

Not just potential robberies. Minor traffic breaches of etiquette become gunfights.

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2011/05/19/20110519gilbert-road-rage-mall-shooting-killing-no-charges.html

[August]

Not just potential robberies. Minor traffic breaches of etiquette become gunfights.

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2011/05/19/20110519gilbert-road-rage-mall-shooting-killing-no-charges.html

Sounds like a good example of using a legally owned firearm in self defense.

[Tribesman]

Ok then, you explain what the founding fathers meant when, they added the second amendment,
They each meant several things for several reasons, some agreed on more than one thing and more than one reason with people who they disagreed on other things and reasons.
You only have to look at the changes in the text and the arguements over the wording and meaning to see something so obvious

and what not to be infringed upon means.
one thing is for sure, it certainly cannot mean "not to be infringed upon":yep:
After all terms and conditions always apply and any single one is clearly an infringement.
So since they have existed under the people who wrote and voted on the amendment it is indisputable that it cannot mean what you think it means

BTW the "you didn't nail it" relates to the obviously huge holes in your knowledge of very basic politics history and even geography which you exhibit nearly each time you make a post

[mookiemookie]

Sounds like a good example of using a legally owned firearm in self defense.

Hard to argue with that, but it also sounds like the world has gone insane when this sort of thing escalates into a gun battle with one person ending up dead.

[Growler]

Hard to argue with that, but it also sounds like the world has gone insane when this sort of thing escalates into a gun battle with one person ending up dead.

This whole world IS insane, and has been this way for a long time - at least, people seem to think so. Nature's pretty content to allow nature to be natural and do what comes natural. We seem to forget that includes US.

Life ain't fair; ain't ever gonna be. The weak will always be prey to the strong - not only is that human nature, but it is nature's nature, too.

I can't make it any simpler than that; people killed people long before firearms, and still do so, even without them. Life ain't fair, death ain't pretty, and that's the price we pay for living in the world. If it weren't a gun battle, it would have been swords, or knives, or sharp sticks.

[Alky]

The most dangerous place on the planet is a "Gun Free Zone"

[August]

Hard to argue with that, but it also sounds like the world has gone insane when this sort of thing escalates into a gun battle with one person ending up dead.

One person might have ended up dead in any case. Gun control only makes the more law abiding of the two the defenseless victim.

[Feuer Frei!]

Here's something to ponder:

With a shocking altercation between Philadelphia police and a 25-year-old IT worker putting the spotlight back on open-carry gun laws, local authorities are warning gun owners that they will be "inconvenienced" if they carry unconcealed handguns in the city.
Lt. Raymond Evers, a spokesman for the city police, told FoxNews.com that gun owners who open carry, which is legal in the city, may be asked to lay on the ground until officers feel safe while they check permits.

"Philadelphia, in certain areas, is very dangerous," he said. "There's a lot of gun violence." Several officers have been killed in the line of duty in the past three years, local authorities say.
The warning comes after Mark Fiorino, a suburban Philadelphia IT worker, posted an audiotape to YouTube of his tense, 45-minute encounter with police in February over his exposed handgun. The video went viral and captured national attention.
After Fiorino released the audiotape, he was charged with disorderly conduct and reckless endangerment. He now faces up to two years in prison.
"The police department and assistant district attorney are coming after me, in my opinion, to make an example of me because I stood up to them and exposed them for their lack of knowledge," Fiorino said, who called the trial "absolutely inappropriate and a waste of taxpayer money."
Fiorino said he did nothing reckless, nor did he endanger anyone's life.
"I had a gun pointed at my chest," he said.

Only seven states ban the practice of openly carrying guns, and Pennsylvania isn't one of them, according to OpenCarry.org, which advocates gun rights. In Philadelphia, a permit is required to carry handguns openly. But on Feb. 13 a police sergeant who was unaware of the law -- which dates back to at least 1996 when the state Supreme Court referenced it in an unrelated ruling -- stopped Fiorino, who was walking to an auto parts shop in Northeast Philadelphia with a gun on his hip.
Sgt. Michael Dougherty can be heard yelling out to Fiorino as "Junior," and asking him to show his hands as Fiorino protests having a gun pointed at his chest, prompting Dougherty to call for backup.
Dougherty grows increasingly agitated as Fiorino offers to show his permit when he is ordered to get on his knees, causing Dougherty to threaten to shoot if he makes a move. Dougherty then unleashed a string of profanities as the two argued over the legality of open carry.
"Do you know you can't openly carry here in Philadelphia?" Dougherty yells.
"Yes, you can, if you have a license to carry firearms," Fiorino responds."It's Directive 137. It's your own internal directive."
When several other officers arrive, Fiorino is forced to the ground as he tries to explain that he's not breaking the law.
"Shut the f---- up!" Dougherty yells.

Police found the recorder while searching Fiorino's pockets. Officers eventually released him after speaking to the department's lawyer and being told that he was within his legal rights.
Police Commissioner Charles Ramsey took issue with Dougherty's language and his lack of knowledge about the law during the altercation, Evers said, but not with the stop itself.
Evers, who has been an officer for nearly 20 years, said "very rarely do people open carry in Philadelphia." But he added he wasn't make excuses.
"We weren't as up on that crime code as we should have been," he said, adding that officers are being re-educated on open carry in response to the incident.
Dougherty is facing disciplinary action pending the outcome of an internal affairs investigation, Evers said.
Fiorino's trial is scheduled to begin in July and the district attorney's office emphasizes that Fiorino's response to the police, not his gun rights, are at issue.
"This office respects and upholds the rights of a citizen to lawfully carry a firearm," Tasha Jamerson, a spokeswoman for the district attorney's office, said in a statement emailed to FoxNews.com. "The permit to carry a concealed weapon, however, does not mean that a permitholder can abuse that right by refusing to cooperate with police."
Jamerson said Fiorino "allegedly became belligerent and hostile" when police officers "were legally attempting to investigate a potential crime."
But Fiorino's attorney, Joseph Valvo, said the case is larger than Fiorino.
"It's my position that this entire prosecution is an effort by Philadelphia authorities to send a message to legitimate gun owners that open carry as a practice is not welcome in Philadelphia despite the fact that it's constitutionally protected behavior and that's offensive to me as a citizen and as a lawyer," Valvo said.
Gun rights advocates say they're are also offended.

John Pierce, a co-founder of OpenCarry.org said, Philadelphia police have sent a clear message to gun owners that will chill their rights to openly carry.
"Even if it's legal, we can punish you financially and by disruptions in your life," he said.
But the district attorney's office dismissed as "ludicrous" claims it is seeking retaliation or trying to send a message.
"This office only charges people with offenses that we think we can prosecute," Jamerson said in an interview with FoxNews.com. "We just don't willy-nilly charge a person with a crime as retaliation for an incident."

The February incident wasn't the first time Philadelphia police officers have confronted Fiorino about his unconcealed gun. Since July, he has been stopped twice and he has had an audio recorder on him each time in case a cop is having a bad day or doesn't understand the law, he said.
His handgun was confiscated once for five months, but neither occasion escalated like the third encounter.
Fiorino said he studied Pennsylvania law for a year before he started openly carrying a gun. He said he carries the gun openly because some of his friends have been held up at gunpoint and he's not willing to allow himself to be helpless.
Police spokesman Evers said Fiorino appears to be inviting trouble from the law by "surreptitiously" recording his encounters with police.
"If you put everything together, it was more than him walking down the street to go to an auto parts store -- without a jacket in the middle of winter," Evers said.
But Fiorino denies that he was looking for trouble.


SOURCE (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/05/21/altercation-philadelphia-police-say-wont-look-way-open-carry-gun-owners/?test=latestnews)


"Inconvenienced"? They drew down on and threatened to kill a citizen who was simply exercising his rights. That is hardly being "Inconvenienced".
(http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/05/21/altercation-philadelphia-police-say-wont-look-way-open-carry-gun-owners/?test=latestnews)

[Platapus]

The most dangerous place on the planet is a "Gun Free Zone"

Criminals love gun free zones

Imagine if we had a "lock and alarm free" neighbourhood. What impact would that have on burglary?

Or if we had a "police free" zone on a highway. What impact would that have on speeding?

[Takeda Shingen]

Criminals love gun free zones

Imagine if we had a "lock and alarm free" neighbourhood. What impact would that have on burglary?

Or if we had a "police free" zone on a highway. What impact would that have on speeding?

The obvious counter argument is that locks and alarms are not weapons.

[August]

The obvious counter argument is that locks and alarms are not weapons.

But they are all defenses.

[Feuer Frei!]

But they are all defenses.
Defenses which can't kill. Or maim.

[CCIP]

But they are all defenses.

But ONLY defenses? I don't think a door can be maliciously used to kill someone 100 yards away, even if you were REALLY malicious...

[August]

But ONLY defenses? I don't think a door can be maliciously used to kill someone 100 yards away, even if you were REALLY malicious...

Good luck hitting a man sized target at 100 yards with a pistol or shotgun round.

[MH]

Good luck hitting a man sized target at 100 yards with a pistol or shotgun round.

Good point so why sell AK 47s as a right for home defence?

[Tribesman]

I don't think a door can be maliciously used to kill someone 100 yards away, even if you were REALLY malicious...
It depends on how you are measuring the 100 yards, how deadly can a door be when thrown off a 300foot drop?:03:

[August]

Good point so why sell AK 47s as a right for home defence?

Is that what they sell them for in Israel?

[MH]

Is that what they sell them for in Israel?

As strange as it may seem you cant buy a AK 47 here.
You cant buy assault rifles at all.(legally)
To get a civilian licence for a hand gun requires you to prove that you need it for self defence.
You also are not allowed by law to shoot at burglars even if they are at your home at night.
Unless off course burglar points gun at you.

Most gun carrying is related to policing/security or solders returning home or to bases.

[Sailor Steve]

Here's something to ponder:

"Inconvenienced"? They drew down on and threatened to kill a citizen who was simply exercising his rights. That is hardly being "Inconvenienced".
(http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/05/21/altercation-philadelphia-police-say-wont-look-way-open-carry-gun-owners/?test=latestnews)
I used to work with a retired cop, who told me he always considered a legally armed citizen to be his best backup. Relative you your story, he once said to me "When guns are outlawed only the police will have guns. Do you feel safer now?"

[August]

As strange as it may seem you cant buy a AK 47 here.
You cant buy assault rifles at all.(legally)
To get a civilian licence for a hand gun requires you to prove that you need it for self defence.
You also are not allowed by law to shoot at burglars even if they are at your home at night.
Unless off course burglar points gun at you.

Most gun carrying is related to policing/security or solders returning home or to bases.

That must be a great feeling knowing that you are dead meat if Palestinian terrorists decide to invade your home.

[MH]

That must be a great feeling knowing that you are dead meat if Palestinian terrorists decide to invade your home.

Depends where you live.
In some dangerous arias in West Bank or around Gaza people have guns given to them by military.
On another hand i know many guys that live in west bank that don't own even 9mm hand gun.
IDFs job is to protect them there.

But it has nothing to do with crime its about terror.
Burglars come to still TVs in most cases terrorist for a murder.

[Platapus]

"When guns are outlawed only the police will have guns. Do you feel safer now?"

If that could be true, I could live with that.

As soon as a politician can guarantee that all criminals will have no chance of having a gun, then I will believe that gun control laws work.

When seconds count, the police are minutes away.

[Freiwillige]

A police cruiser can travel up to 120 MPH.

A .357 can travel at 1,600 feet P/S.

When seconds count who can afford to wait minutes?

Any questions?


And I just realized that any semi auto AK-47\74 is actually not an AK because AK stands for Automatic Kalashnikov. I am therefor building a K-74:D

[Sailor Steve]

If that could be true, I could live with that.
I couldn't. His point was that a police state is scarier than any criminal, and if only the police have guns there's a chance of that being right around the corner.