Stephen King on US gun contols.

Publicly? They won't. But that doesn't mean that there aren't some who feel that way.

Are there though?
There are many thousands of elected politicians of different levels in your country, politicians are well known for spouting their mouth off and for jumping on bandwagons. Surely somone must be able to find a credible example to back up the oft repeated claim.
Even Feinstein with her silly idea makes a point of huge categories of exemptions

[Ducimus]

Originally Posted by Cybermat47

Forgive me for my confusion, but you're saying that banning semi-automatic rifles, which would still leave you with the right to bear arms, pistols and hunting rifles, is a threat to your home and family?

In a word, yes. First, you have to understand, the right to keep and bear arms, (aka second amendment of the bill of rights of the US constitution) is NOT about target shooting and hunting. Written in our Declaration of Independence you will find this:

- "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

The second amendment itself:
- "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

You can debate semantics if you want, but to me and many other people the intention is clear as day. The second amendment is the last line of defense against tyranny. No where is target shooting or hunting mentioned.

And your last sentence sounds like you're suggesting that you'll kill the guys who come to confiscate your guns, or try to kill President Obama.

What was inconceivable to me, is the thought of a tyrannical government here in America. As American's we grow up with the belief that "those things do not happen here". Tyranny taking root here, is still a hard pill to swallow. However, we have started down a slippery slope and now i can no longer deny to myself that

Wouldn't the better thing be to just hand your gun over,

You may as well ask me to surrender my rights, roll over and die.

and if there are attempts to ban hunting rifles and pistols, have a massive petition, or march on Washington to protest (not to kill anyone)

What do you think is happening all over the country?

because only if they were trying to ban guns outright would it be an attack on your rights.

Your incorrect there sir.

Originally Posted by ETR3(SS)

Not trying to answer for Ducimus here, but look at the Quote from August here. There are legitimately politicians in this country that don't want private citizens to own any firearm at all and are just waiting for the chance to make that happen. And the best thing wouldn't be just to hand my guns over for that very reason. That's why this is such a hot issue right now. That's why people are making a lot of noise over this, this is our petition.

Now about our rights being attacked (this applies to all of them not just the 2A). They won't just take it completely away at the outset. Our rights will be eroded over time. Look at the Patriot Act and the 4th, 5th, 6th amendments.

Bingo!

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by Cybermat47

The main purpose of a gun is to kill people.

Specifically,the purpose of a gun is to propel a bullet down range in an accurate and controlled manner.

I would opine that, in a civilian context, the vast majority of guns are aimed at innocent pieces of paper if they are fired at all.

But such arguments are rather silly. Objects are not good or evil. A gun has no concept of.. well .. anything.

As with most (all?) criminal issues, the problem is not an object, but the person.

The first step in problem solving is to properly identify the problem.

I fear that some people have a solution already selected and are trying to make a problem fit that solution.

[August]

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

That's such a disingenous statement. Yes, a fork can be used as a weapon, but people buy forks so that they can be used to as a utensil to eat. A gun is a weapon; and a weapon is a tool designed to inflict bodily harm on someone or something else. What are the non-violent applications of firearms?

Olympic events, target shooting and collecting to name three.

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by Platapus

Specifically,the purpose of a gun is to propel a bullet down range in an accurate and controlled manner.

I would opine that, in a civilian context, the vast majority of guns are aimed at innocent pieces of paper if they are fired at all.

And why are the guns aimed at that paper?

I practice Shodokan Aikido, holding a 2nd dan. While the practice has numerous physical and mental benefits, the art remains a form of unarmed combat. Specifically, the school was formed as a reaction against the impracticality of traditional Aikido in defending oneself. That I do not walk down the street hip throwing people does not alter the fact that Aikido is a combative art; designed to incapacitate an opponent.

But such arguments are rather silly. Objects are not good or evil. A gun has no concept of.. well .. anything.

That's not what was said. What was said is that the application of the gun was not violent in nature.

As with most (all?) criminal issues, the problem is not an object, but the person.

The first step in problem solving is to properly identify the problem.

I fear that some people have a solution already selected and are trying to make a problem fit that solution.

So, in other words, you want the gun to protect yourself from that criminal.

Originally Posted by August

Olympic events, target shooting and collecting to name three.

I did not know that you were an Olympic shooter. Also, as I asked Platapus, why are you shooting at the target? The end application is self defense, otherwise you would not be so passionate about it.

[ETR3(SS)]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Are there though?
There are many thousands of elected politicians of different levels in your country, politicians are well known for spouting their mouth off and for jumping on bandwagons. Surely somone must be able to find a credible example to back up the oft repeated claim.
Even Feinstein with her silly idea makes a point of huge categories of exemptions

This may not hit the nail directly on the head, but it comes pretty close.

http://dailycaller.com/2013/01/09/io...matic-weapons/

[Cybermat47]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

In a word, yes. First, you have to understand, the right to keep and bear arms, (aka second amendment of the bill of rights of the US constitution) is NOT about target shooting and hunting. Written in our Declaration of Independence you will find this:

- "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

The second amendment itself:
- "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

You can debate semantics if you want, but to me and many other people the intention is clear as day. The second amendment is the last line of defense against tyranny. No where is target shooting or hunting mentioned.



What was inconceivable to me, is the thought of a tyrannical government here in America. As American's we grow up with the belief that "those things do not happen here". Tyranny taking root here, is still a hard pill to swallow. However, we have started down a slippery slope and now i can no longer deny to myself that



You may as well ask me to surrender my rights, roll over and die.



What do you think is happening all over the country?



Your incorrect there sir.

You're seeing this from an American viewpoint, while I'm seeing it from an Australian viewpoint.

Seeing as you're an American, you probably have a better idea of what's going on. Also, you seem fiercely protective of your rights and, most importantly, your family. That is a truly admirable thing.

Here's what I think should happen:

• The mental health care system should be fixed up
• The police should have the hunting down of illegally owned guns as a priority

Of course, that is only my opinion.

[Ducimus]

Originally Posted by Platapus

But such arguments are rather silly. Objects are not good or evil. A gun has no concept of.. well .. anything.

As with most (all?) criminal issues, the problem is not an object, but the person.

- "The rifle is a weapon. Let there be no mistake about that. It is a tool of power, and thus dependent completely upon the moral stature of its user. It is equally useful in securing meat for the table, destroying group enemies on the battlefield, and resisting tyranny. In fact, it is the only means of resisting tyranny, since a citizenry armed with rifles simply cannot be tyrannized."

- "The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its own. Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes, but there are more good men than evil, and while the latter cannot be persuaded to the path of righteousness by propaganda, they can certainly be corrected by good men with rifles."

Both quotes by Lt. Col. John Dean Cooper, USMC. Who served in both WW2 and the Korean war.

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by Cybermat47

The police should have the hunting down of illegally owned guns as a priority

You mean like the incredibly successful way that they've been cracking down on illegal drugs? That's been one continuous money drain for decades and decades.

This may not hit the nail directly on the head, but it comes pretty close.

It doesn't come remotely close, he owns 3 different types of gun and sees no problem with ownership of those guns.
What he is calling for though goes beyond the terms of the previous AWB which of course didn't ban assault weapons despite being called an assault weapon ban.

[Cybermat47]

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

You mean like the incredibly successful way that they've been cracking down on illegal drugs? That's been one continuous money drain for decades and decades.

Forgive me for saying this, but your police are pretty bad. Our police already smashed the illegal Glock smuggling ring after two years at the most.

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by Cybermat47

Forgive me for saying this,

A typical prelude to an insulting statement.

but your police are pretty bad. Our police already smashed the illegal Glock smuggling ring after two years at the most.

And there it is.

[ETR3(SS)]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

It doesn't come remotely close, he owns 3 different types of gun and sees no problem with ownership of those guns.
What he is calling for though goes beyond the terms of the previous AWB which of course didn't ban assault weapons despite being called an assault weapon ban.

The guy is running his mouth off without any thought. Ok, he owns the smallest shotgun and the second smallest rifle and pistol as far as cartridge size is concerned. What he doesn't seem to realize is that an AR-15 bullet is nearly the same size as a .22 yet he goes on to say that...

"We cannot have big guns out here as far as the big guns that are out here, the semi-automatics and all of them," Muhlbauer said. "We can't have those running around out here. Those are not hunting weapons."

He added, "We should ban those in Iowa."

Muhlbauer, who did not list the specific weapons he wants outlawed in The Daily Times Herald interview, said he would like to see the ban implemented in a retroactive fashion.

"Even if you have them, I think we need to start taking them," Muhlbauer said. "We can't have those out there. Because if they're out there they're just going to get circulated around to the wrong people. Those guns should not be in the public's hands. There are just too big of guns."

.30-06 is a common hunting round and is significantly larger than his .22 does he want weapons banned that fire that as well? At best his comments are ambiguous, at worst completely uneducated on the subject.

[Ducimus]

Originally Posted by Cybermat47

You're seeing this from an American viewpoint, while I'm seeing it from an Australian viewpoint.

Yes I realize that. I have no expectation to change your point of view, nor of a full understanding on the subject. We are from different countries, with different laws, and different cultures.

Originally Posted by Cybermat47

Forgive me for saying this, but your police are pretty bad. Our police already smashed the illegal Glock smuggling ring after two years at the most.

I think there's more to this then simple police work. You'd have to look at population, number of large metro areas, various laws, number of firearms available, as well as available resources. In some areas, with budgets being cut, there are fewer law enforcement officers on duty.

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

Also, as I asked Platapus, why are you shooting at the target?

Well, that's a legitimate question and deserves a legitimate answer.

I used to shoot in competition so I was trying to master the difficult task of disciplining my body in order to get the bullet to precisely the right location in a short period of time. Winning an award was a rare but pleasant goal.

I no longer shoot competitively, or to be more accurate, no longer in competition with others. I am in competition with myself (playing with myself?) and I try to improve my capability of controlling my body in this task.

I have never shot anyone, shot at anyone, or threatened anyone. in 30+ years of recreational shooting.