Look, about AK's, real ones--ones used on the battlefields--can fire full-auto or semi-auto. Until 1986 you could buy one such as this. After that you had to buy one that was made before that date if you wanted one with select fire.

The AK's sold today are semi-auto only. The original receivers were destroyed and semi-auto receivers were made for them and they were assembled using the parts from the AK--without the full-auto parts, of course.

If I read my state law in OK correctly, for a concealed weapon permit, you DO have to recert every year, much like a police officer. This makes sense to me, as handguns are the weapons most commonly carried 'in public', and you want anyone walking around in full view of lots of people to be familiar with it's use and the safety precautions one must take with a gun.

With weapons confined, largely, to home or range use...I don't feel this is necessary. I'm biased here; I grew up around guns and have to remind myself that not everyone is given competent instruction in their use at age five the way I was.

For civillian ownership of a fully-automatic weapon, I think the requirements (and the cost) are already strict enough.

You're an exception for the norm of Houston Police Dept. Officers. (but glad to hear it)


As far as the "Citizen Qualification Testing" I have personally had my own tug-of-war about it and although the principle at heart is a good cause, it simply is a mechanism that can be too easily abused by officials to deny citizens their right to keep and bear arms. Which it is exactly that, a right.

Regardless of my or your opinions and how well-formed and intented they may be, such things are unenforceable, unworkable, unpopular, and serve to cause a sharp division between citizen and the elected government than it wopuld be of any help.

Rather than try and force people through regulation to be responsible and proficient, it's far better to attract them with competitive matches, fun events, and postive education towards the public at large.

That, I believe, will produce far better and favorable results than the other ideas I'd mulled over before.

Yes and no. I believe the qualification part would be for those who intend to carry concealed. I would hate to have someone who does not know the difference btn the mag release and the safety carrying on the public way. For your home or business, whatever you can afford.

This is more of a safety issue than restriction upon rights. That is how I see it. I maybe misguided on my thoughts but I don't see me being swayed otherwise.

Exactly what law was that? I'm aware of the Mississippi laws, and other southern state's laws, which the 14th Amendment was drafted to combat. But a Federal law, passed by congress? Please enlighten me.

Here's a little more on it:

http://www.blackmanwithagun.com/site...c_id=140000845

I still see no corellation between the NRA and the KKK SH.

The correlation was supposedly between Church and the KKK. After doing more research on Mr. Church, I have likewise come to the agreement that he was not affiliated with the KKK (let alone that he was part of the Virginia Volunteers).

:up:

I read the article twice and may be missing something. There were never any laws passed by the federal government that prohibited negros from possessing firearms. In fact they passed acts that prohibited states from enacting or enforcing these "black codes." The 14th amendment solidified this.

I just now read it, and got the same thing. It was the states that tried to do it, and congress only passed laws overriding the state laws.

If the Democrats started supporting RKBA they would pull a lot of voters away from the Republicans.

I found it!
...the answer to my question!
http://www.cheaperthandirt.com/AMM636-5.html

I don't really see guns coming up as an issue over the next year or so.
It's totally at odds with the current political atmosphere, tackling a recession, climate change, somehow resolving 2 wars at once.
Plus, didn't the Supreme Court overturn that DC ban only a year or so ago? THat alone should knock this issue into cold stoarage for at least another Presidential/Congressional term.

what would you even need an assault weapon for ?
doesnt a shutgun/pistol defend your house well enough ? or do you have the splatter the person up on the wall ?

A shotgun would do way more damage than a couple rounds from a semi-auto.

yeah, but atleast you know that after you hit the thief with the shotgun...the rounds (or whatever) wont continue out and hit something else..or incase you miss...the rounds wont go through the wall

I'm so glad there are people like you on this forum who are willing to provide the answers to people with questions like yours. If you need anything else, just ask. I'm sure you'll be glad to help.

Well the point you were making was that a semi auto rifle would do a lot more damage than a shotgun and that just isn't true.

As for penetrating walls that all depends on the walls construction. I wouldn't bet on a shotgun blast not busting through a sheetrock wall and there are special non penetrating rounds for just about any caliber rifle nowadays.

Personally I favor the shotgun for home defense though because nothing says "git" to an intruder quite like a pump racking a round in the chamber.

This discussion is odd. The premise out there is the following. If the government all of a sudden becomes evil, real men have guns to fight it.

Two problems with that.

1. The obvious one. The military laughs about private guns. They even laugh about big private guns. Why? Apart from the equipment question (tanks, jets, missles etc vs. your average Joe Desert Eagle, M16 etc), it also is an organisation matter.

Group A, hooray rednecks, trained in hunting and gunmeets. Group B, the US miliatary, veterans from wars all over the place, lots of expirience with all kinda weapons and most important, using squad tatics. Who is gonna win?

2. The not so obvious but even more important problem. No Police state and no dictatorship can survive without the majority of the population standing behind it. If the population decides to rebel on a nationwide margin, no country has the power and even more so, the legitimicy to oppose that for any given time. There are countless examples of this throughout history. Weapons do not help this cause at al unless it is a foreign invader.

This means, if a police state ever came to power in the US, you bet most civilians would run along with it. That the US population was willing to ignore human rights and accept camps, the patriot act and similiar actions completly going against the ideals of democracy and human rights show how such a state could be achieved. In fact, lawwise the US already have all the instruments in place should it ever find a president that sees a reason to stay in office instead of a reelection. Terror regimes are recogized as such only a long time afterwards. It's creeping up on ppl, it 's not happening just so from one day to the other. Bush, from all the US presidents, certainly came closest to the cliches in this regard, even though he vertainly was not a dictator at all. Still, and interestingly enough, it's the gun crowds following him. Which could lead to the conclusion that privately held weapons in the US were rather be used to support terror regimes instead of stopping them in the name of patriotism. That's nothing more then a thought experiment, though.

This way or another, I doubt any future war against opression can be won with guns at all. Technology has advances to a degree it's mostly electronic and internet warfare important here. These who win the propaganda war and claim the interpretion of pictures and messages for themselves usually also win the war.