Welcome to the 2nd Amendment Room

[beemaster]

For over a year I have wanted to include this room in the forum, but thought it a bit self-serving for a new gun owner, so I put it off. As you may notice, I'm slimming down some of the forums rarely if ever used and likely may combine a few.

But the 2ND is just that: your place to share opinions on laws, show off some of your prized weapons or your go-to guns. Anything covered under the 2ND is fair game in this room.

Personal note, I live in NJ which is one of the toughest states on gun laws. We can not carry, can only transport (in our trunks) weapons and ammo, to and from the range. We can not use hollow point ammo, can not protect property,need to register all fire arms. And even air-soft guns and BB guns or pellet guns REQUIRED a Fire Arms ID Card to purchase.

I know most of you have more favorable laws to gun owners - I'd love to hear your stories, see your prized or just great shooter. Hope to see this forum take off. We have almost lost NY State, New Jersey has now moved into second place before California on certain restrictions. As a relatively new gun owner with a revolver, semi-auto 9mm and three WW2 rifles (all Russian) I hope to build up on handguns, but each handgun here needs a permit, and permits typically take 6 months to get - it is hard to build up a collection in NJ, time works against you - more accurately the state works against you by tying up your applications for months beyond the state law that says permit and license requests are to be completed or denied within 30 days. Of course they have added a clause extending that to whatever time is required "As to not burden the process system".

Enjoy the forum.

[mikecva]

States and the Feds. have been usurping the Constitution for many years. NJ's restrictions on being able to legally obtain a constitutional right is just another form of our governments heave handed powers over those who they swore to protect.  Now with that said, I must add that I can not understand why a civilian needs a functioning auto-weapon for hunting or target practice. 

[iddee]

And I can't understand why a civilian needs a car that will do 120 plus MPH, but the gov. isn't trying to ban them. It's called liberty and freedom. Can you understand why anyone would want liberty and freedom?

[BlueBee]

Civilians don’t need cars that will do 120mph and most cars won't do 120mph.  All modern cars have vehicle speed and engine high RPM fuel cutoffs to PROTECT the other civilians from irresponsible people.  It’s called liberty and freedom for the majority.   Can't understand why anybody wouldn't want that. :?

[iddee]

Must be one of those rich fellows that get new cars every year or two. My newest of 4 is a 2004, and it gets past 100, and I haven't maxed i out and I haven't activated any cut off switch.  NO, blue, if it were for safety, all cars and trucks would have roll bars. The so-called safety measures are all nothing but wool to go over the citizen's eyes.

[buzzbee]

MikeCVA,
In all actuality the Constitution was written to limit the powers of the federal government . All powers not enumerated to the Federal government was reserved to the states and the people.
states have their own individual Constitutions , and most  have the same protections to the citizenry that is carried in the Bill of Rights.Powers to the states were not handed down from above,as they appear to be today. The Federal government was an agent of the states.

Section 21 of the PA Constitution
"The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned."
The second amendment and similar sections in state Constitutions are there to enforce compliance of the rest of the amendments.

 

[Michael Bush]

>Civilians don’t need cars that will do 120mph and most cars won't do 120mph.

I've known hundreds of people personally who race cars.  And certainly know OF thousands.  I think they would all disagree... and racing cars has been a part of U.S. culture as long as there have been cars...  I think the government doesn't need to be telling me what I can have.

[iddee]

""I think the government doesn't need to be telling me what I can have.""

I agree, in guns, cars, and more. I just can't see why one and not the other.

[beemaster]

Good post!

I love people who NEED to put limits on things, as in "NJ limits 15 round magazines and NY limits it to 10 rounds, as does California" I went through 6 months of waiting for my firearms ID, being tested and probed in all the ways government does - including mental health backgrounds, addiction of alcohol and drugs  statements by all doctors I see and feedback from all police departments in any township I've lived in during the previous 10 years: then when I pass all that, the state still finds it necessary to limit me (us) to 15 rounds in a weapon? My point, 15 rounds (even 10) can do a lot of damage, then there are multiple magazines that can be carried. I can only assume limitations on magazine capacity is to allow a break during reload to shoot and kill someone on a rampage - I see no other reason to limit capacity.

So if the law says 10 round capacity, and someone with a legal weapon fires 10 times, a volley of fire in a Hellstorm returns? Is THAT the reason they put limits on rounds? I believe if you have passed the requirements in your state (and I know many states have few to no requirements) well if you passed, then let me have the same RIGHTS as all other law abiding gun owners. Don't throw out arbitrary numbers like 10 or 15 rounds because the anti-gunners want us to have no rounds and I can only believe the state limits rounds to appease both sides with a number they pull out of their rectum.

As I mentioned, police in NJ can not use stun Guns - is THAT safe? To quote recently deceased comic John Pinette "I say Nay Nay!" this ridiculous law does nothing but reduce the options an officer has when faced with life and death decision.

So I see no difference between a 33 round magazine in my Glock or a 15 round, nor any difference in a car that can do 120 vs. a car that maxes out at 80 - it is the driver or weapons owner, not the vehicle or weapon that is in control. If someone wants to spend $200 grand on a car that can do 170mph, and it is totally street legal and registered within a state, there is nothing legally stopping the drive from taking this car on the road. The law comes in when this vehicle that can go three times the marked speed limit exceeds the posted speed - and that comes back to operator responsibility. The same rules apply if your license is to operate a car by the law or operate a gun by the law. You have accepted responsibility to operate with in the law.

Don't lay any temptation BS on someone because they have a fast car or high capacity weapon - it is not the law abiding people breaking these laws, it is the criminal element, and surely THEY never took the time to jump through the same hoops we did to get what supposedly is RIGHTED to us in the Constitution.

Lastly, many states have fully automatic weapons, even one in the North East that I know of - in these state, gun owners abide by their laws as well. It's always the criminal element and don't get me wrong - it's a fact that many gun crimes have happened with licensed gun owners with registered guns - that does not discount the fact that this person is still part of the criminal element - the difference they chose to do it legal with the intent that if caught at a non violent crime, their "get out of jail card MIGHT be to have to surrender their weapons and license" a get out of jail free card. And don't think the criminals don't have such thoughts.

I boils down to one thing to me - you shouls be afforded what ever protection you believe you need to save your life and the life of others, and in states where permitted save your property as well. And no one other than you can be that judge. What if after a long drought, you see someone pouring gasoline along your property line to burn you out? This may not be a save property situation any more, it could be a save your family from burning to death citation - so what do you do, pop him in the head at 100 yards and drop him where he stands or wait until he starts the fire and hope he tries coming in your home and kill your family with a knife so your burnt remains look like death by fire. In this case, I say better judged by 12 then cremated by house fire.

Anti gunners need to get a grip and stop micromanaging what they think gun owners should own. If we are obeying the law, then keep your business out of our business. The same anti-gunners will beg you to go out and shoot a dog tearing their child apart, and I don't of anyone that wouldn't do that - but who did the anti-gunner go to first - not the police. It is hypocritical to say citizens don't need guns "unless in benefits" the anti-gunner.

People should be glad they have responsible people what choose to use their 2ND Amendment Rights to bear arms - it is a collective force that is at the ready if SHTF. I had to leave my wife home alone for 6 nights during the aftermath of Super Storm Sandy: she was in the living room, lit be candles and the only luxuries were hot water and a radio. Those nights she was scared because out the window she saw activity that looked shady and seemed like people eying up homes for invasion. That will never happen again, she is trained to use all weapons we own and they are close by. She will not be alone again, she'll have protection. And even if she hears jiggling at the doors, she knows the 21 foot rule - if they are closer than that, then the advantage of having a closely stowed or holstered weapon has a greatly reduced chance of saving your life. I'd be proud of her if she put a bullet into the door as a warning and end the confrontation before it escalated - but if the threat kept coming, then it's time to unload the gun as necessary and reload if possible. Citizens deserve the same motto as the police "at the end of the day it their my job to go home alive their family" and we deserve the same.

And no, I'm not a believer in warning shots - but if it stops an intruder before they breech the door - then put a 124 grain flat nose in the floor if you have to, ideally they'll quickly assess that this is not the house they plant to enter, thus move on. It is whatever it takes to survive, but luckily MOST gun owners shot paper or steel or animals, not intruders. But if an intruder knows you have weapons, chance of them coming into your home is slim to none - unless they have a death wish, then I hope they get their wish.

[Michael Bush]

My grandpa always insisted he preferred a single shot and he claimed he could shoot a single shot as fast as anyone could aim and fire a semiauto.  He did specify AIM and fire...

Ross Siegfried used to write a lot for the gun magazines and said he lent his Ruger #1 (single shot rifle) to his then fiancee' (now his wife) and she was coyote hunting.  Later that day she chewed him out because she called in five coyotes and he had lent her a single shot.  He asked if she got the coyotes.  Yes, she got all of them, but she broke a nail...

[Richard M]

And I can't understand why a civilian needs a car that will do 120 plus MPH, but the gov. isn't trying to ban them. It's called liberty and freedom. Can you understand why anyone would want liberty and freedom?

Maybe because cars, unlike semi-auto/fully auto centre-fire weapons with 30 round magazines aren't designed specifically to kill people.

The car that can do twice the speed limit is also fun to drive because with higher max speed comes better acceleration and you can still use that power safely.

I'm sorry but I just don't get with this whole 2nd amendment thing.

I'm not opposed to firearms ownership and I'm comfortable with hunting - when I lived in the bush, I owned two rifles, a .22LR, a 6.5mm Swedish Mauser and a Mossberg 12-gauge; I wouldn't have had a semi auto because unless you're chasing down elephants from the back of an F100 in the Serengeti, then they're downright useless for hunting and also intrinsically unsafe as each round fired puts another one in the chamber, cocked and ready to go from where mistakes can be and are made.

I'd define myself as centre-right politically and also spent a total of 13 years as an Army Reservist in UK (artillery) and Australia (infantry), so I'm not squeamish about guns as a matter of principle but by the same token, this experience makes me cynical of the utility of guns for self-defence in the hands of the average joe. If you don't want to be caught by surprise, it needs to be in your hand, with one in the chamber, 24/7 and you need to be mentally primed to use it at a moment's notice, which most average joes aren't. It takes months of training for most militaries to bring professional soldiers to this level of readiness and even then they don't always succeed.

And home invasions? Again, the real danger is illusory - it rarely, rarely happens - even here, where the vast majority in urban areas aren't armed and almost no one has a hand gun to protect themselves. Of the people who are killed by guns here, the ratio of accidentally shot by their own or a member of the family's weapon is far far higher than those felled during the act of a home invasion. Conclusion - in real life (not the movies), you're far more likely to be hurt yourself than hurt a crim.

When I first lived in Tasmania, there were few controls on gun ownership and in my former line (local government), I had at least 3 close calls when calling on (by which I mean knocking on the front door in broad daylight), crazies, who came to the door tooled up for a firefight. And also a case of an 8 year old girl (who I knew had mental developmental issues) who came out to see me dragging behind her (by the trigger) an SKK with magazine attached; I took this off her, unloaded the magazine and on clearing the action found a round in the chamber.

We had the laxest firearms laws in Australia, generally the most law-abiding population but also the highest rate of gun deaths in Australia. Typically male suicides, followed by wife/husband murder suicides, followed by accidents, followed (quite a way back) by armed robberies, criminal killings etc.

Then came the Port Arthur Massacre in 1996, with 35 dead and 23 injured by a nutcase with an AR15, bought from the dodgiest gunshop owner in the State; this was a massive body-blow, with a population of less than 500,000 almost everyone knew someone who knew one of the victims - I worked with the brother of one of them and I also knew one of the police officers in the TRG team who arrested the shooter. It's a small place, tight knit community.

I actually met the perpetrator years before and you wouldn't have sold him a pair of scissors, he was depriving a village somewhere of its idiot; I was also an occasional customer of the gunshop - he tried to sell me a rechambered bren-gun or at least strongly implied that he could obtain one.

This was quickly followed by a ban on semi auto rimfires, centrefires and shotguns and new bolt action rifles with magazines exceeding 5 rounds capacity, most handguns and an amnesty and tax-payer funded buy-back of the now illegal weapon categories, at market value, as ascertained by independent dealers. (A mate was paid $800 for an Uzi he bought on mail order via Soldier of Fortune magazine for $400).

You can still own a gun but it's licenced and registered and you have to provide a good reason for it - self defence (except for some security guards) isn't considered a good reason, although hunting, target shooting etc although you have to provide evidence that you have somewhere to shoot (ie permission from a landowner) and that it's bona dide, also required to keep them secure, with spot inspections by firearms branch.

After the ban, gun deaths of all kinds plummeted, annual gun deaths falling by almost half in 10 years (on the back of a rapidly increasing population, so the per 1000 rate fell more).

The result? Even though we still have more guns in circulation than most European countries (except Switzerland and some Scandinavians), we have a gun death rate, per capita that's 8% of the USA. http://www.humanosphere.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/GunViolence-620x445.png

Your firearms homicide rates lie between the Democratic Republic of Congo and Pakistan (where the Taliban live) - http://www.humanosphere.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/GunViolence2-620x477.png . I find it hard to believe that this doesn't worry you all.

Looking from the outside in, I don't get it - school massacres, workplace massacres, police who are so terrified that they shoot first ask questions after, a gun culture with 10,000+ deaths a year (not to mention 20,000 woundings, many grievous with permanent disability) - that's more than double the annual death rate of US forces in Viet Nam each year, every year.

I get the liberty to do what you want thing, I also get it that the vast majority of gun owners are law abiding people - possibly more so than average, but really is this particular liberty worth the price? If one of mine were killed by a criminal with a gun, I'd be devastated but if they were killed because of the perceived need to respect a 240 year old piece of paper, written for a very different, America, then on the edge of a wild frontier, I think I'd feel far worse. Although as a walker & fisherman, I reckon a .44 would be handy to have if you're in bear country and fair enough too.

When speaking of liberty though, what about the over-riding liberty NOT to be shot up by some clown because he's been annoyed by his boss, doesn't like teachers or doesn't feel at one with the world.

Another matter of note to me as an outsider is the right to "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" under the Declaration of Independence - I would perceive living with a 1250% greater risk of me or mine dying in a hail of bullets than I already do (on top of road accidents, cancer, heart disease etc) would tend to compromise that inalienable right apparently guaranteed by the Declaration. One estimate (see http://guns.periscopic.com/?year=2013) suggests the loss of half a million years of potential life now unlived in the USA, every year. All that human potential, productivity and uncollected taxes flushed down the drain, all that early bereavement.

And it's not all habitual criminals who are responsible for these deaths; even in the USA, over half of those deaths are suicides, which are usually a tragic waste for all concerned. Usually resulting from a transient issue that will not seem as bad over time, however easy availability of firearms vastly increases the ability to act on impulse. You can't blame it all on black kids living in the Housing Projects of Philly. Not to mention wives and partners killed by angry husbands.

However you paint it, you guys have a huge problem with firearms, you have the highest gun death rate by far for any first world country and the place is also awash (by first world standards) with guns. Go figure.

And yes, it's true, take away guns from law-abiding people and only criminals will have guns;  but make it harder for everyone to get them (such as by melting down seized illegal firearms instead of reselling them onto the legal market) and you'll find the criminals will eventually find them harder to get too. The big wealthy criminals will always get them, but less so the hard-up mugger or drug dealer who features in most street crime and who would be the ones we're all most scared of. And really, how much protection do they really give? Most killings with guns are where the gun is out, up and fired, all over in a few seconds. Draw, aim bang. The fact of  carrying a gun yourself is unlikely to be of any use if caught by surprise by an armed criminal, perceived protection is largely illusory.

And if you're looking for an example - yesterday a crazy Islamist took a bunch of hostages in Sydney; the best gun he could manage was a sawn-off shottie, which would have been double barrel max; it was obvious to all from the moment the black Islamic flag came out that he was intent on going to go out in a blaze of glory as are all of these d-heads but fortunately with only a D/B sawn-off in play we had onl two dead hostages rather than the potentially 17 had he been armed with a semi-auto assault rifle, Browning, Glock or whatever. As it was, he was completely out-gunned by the police and whilst not a happy ending, it could have been far worse.

And guns to protect you from the government? Do you really distrust them that much? - You've got a good solid constitution that's stood the test of over 200 years, an educated, engaged population with solid libertarian traditions; if you feel so insecure with what you have, that you really think you need to carry guns to protect yourselves from Washington, then you have my sympathy, it must be a terrible way to live.

Also, if you seriously think a whole bunch of you could take on the US Govt in an armed insurrection, you're seriously deluded - you have the deadliest military in the world; I wouldn't like to take them on - just ask all the people in the Middle East who tried it in recent years. But having said that, it won't happen. Your military won't turn on you for the same reason ours won't turn on us, they're YOUR military; if you ask the troops to fire on their own people you risk a military rebellion and hanging from a lamppost - remember how that went for the Tsar back in 1917.

OK. Rant over, normal service resumes.   :angel:


 

[iddee]

One question, Richard. Even tho your death rate by gun went down considerably, how much did your actual murder rate and violent crime rate go down?

[Michael Bush]

>Maybe because cars, unlike semi-auto/fully auto centre-fire weapons with 30 round magazines aren't designed specifically to kill people.

Actually they are not.  Deer rifles are basically WWII weapons that WERE designed to kill people.  those so-called assault rifles were designed to would people.  The design criteria was based on the idea that it ties up more of the enemy taking care of the wounded.  So the design criteria is that they are designed to wound, not to kill.

>The car that can do twice the speed limit is also fun to drive because with higher max speed comes better acceleration and you can still use that power safely.

You will have hundreds of thousands of times more foot pounds of energy with a car doing 120 than a 150 grain bullet going 3,000 fps.

>I'm sorry but I just don't get with this whole 2nd amendment thing.

How do you insure that the government will not turn on the people?  How do you allow people to defend themselves (a basic right if there ever was one) if they are disarmed?

>I'm not opposed to firearms ownership and I'm comfortable with hunting - when I lived in the bush, I owned two rifles, a .22LR, a 6.5mm Swedish Mauser and a Mossberg 12-gauge; I wouldn't have had a semi auto because unless you're chasing down elephants from the back of an F100 in the Serengeti, then they're downright useless for hunting and also intrinsically unsafe as each round fired puts another one in the chamber, cocked and ready to go from where mistakes can be and are made.

Can't say I have any USE for a semi-auto either.

>If you don't want to be caught by surprise, it needs to be in your hand, with one in the chamber, 24/7 and you need to be mentally primed to use it at a moment's notice, which most average joes aren't. It takes months of training for most militaries to bring professional soldiers to this level of readiness and even then they don't always succeed.

I've greeted people with a gun, who kicked in my door on four occasions so far in my life.  I would not have wanted to be unarmed.  All but one made plenty of noise.

>And home invasions? Again, the real danger is illusory - it rarely, rarely happens - even here

Rarely?  Well only four times in 60 years...

> where the vast majority in urban areas aren't armed and almost no one has a hand gun to protect themselves.

I've never lived in such a place.  I've never lived in a state where there were any less than four guns per person...

>Of the people who are killed by guns here, the ratio of accidentally shot by their own or a member of the family's weapon is far far higher than those felled during the act of a home invasion.

No one seems to count the ones where the invader simply runs and no one is shot or arrested... which, despite always calling the police, is how most of mine ended.

>Conclusion - in real life (not the movies), you're far more likely to be hurt yourself than hurt a crim.

So far I've managed to not hurt myself, not hurt my family, and not hurt the criminals...

>We had the laxest firearms laws in Australia, generally the most law-abiding population but also the highest rate of gun deaths in Australia. Typically male suicides, followed by wife/husband murder suicides, followed by accidents, followed (quite a way back) by armed robberies, criminal killings etc.

People always seem to manage to kill themselves with or without guns if that is their intention.  Cars, ropes, razors...

>Your firearms homicide rates lie between the Democratic Republic of Congo and Pakistan (where the Taliban live) - http://www.humanosphere.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/GunViolence2-620x477.png . I find it hard to believe that this doesn't worry you all.

There are lies, darn lies and then there are statistics.  I think these are very doctored numbers.

>When speaking of liberty though, what about the over-riding liberty NOT to be shot up by some clown because he's been annoyed by his boss, doesn't like teachers or doesn't feel at one with the world.

Or defend yourself if he does...

>And it's not all habitual criminals who are responsible for these deaths; even in the USA, over half of those deaths are suicides, which are usually a tragic waste for all concerned. Usually resulting from a transient issue that will not seem as bad over time, however easy availability of firearms vastly increases the ability to act on impulse. You can't blame it all on black kids living in the Housing Projects of Philly. Not to mention wives and partners killed by angry husbands.

>However you paint it, you guys have a huge problem with firearms, you have the highest gun death rate by far for any first world country and the place is also awash (by first world standards) with guns. Go figure.

Actually it sounds like we have a huge suicide problem...

#1: Heart disease Odds of dying: 1 in 6
#2: Cancer Odds of dying: 1 in 7
#3: Stroke Odds of dying: 1 in 28
#4: All types of land vehicle accidents Odds of dying: 1 in 85
#5: Intentional self harm Odds of dying: 1 in 115
#6: Accidental poisoning and drug overdose Odds of dying: 1 in 139
#7: Falls Odds of dying: 1 in 184
#8: Car accident Odds of dying: 1 in 272
#9: Exposure to prescription drugs Odds of dying: 1 in 289

Seems we have a lot of low hanging fruit we could go after if we really care about saving lives.

>And guns to protect you from the government? Do you really distrust them that much?

Anyone who has studied history should.

[Richard M]

One question, Richard. Even tho your death rate by gun went down considerably, how much did your actual murder rate and violent crime rate go down?

Firearm deaths as a proportion of homicides went from 25% to 13%.

Homicide rates in Australia by decade

1990s - 1.76 per 100,000 per annum

2000s - 1.58 per 100,000 per annum

2010-2014 - 1.1 per 100,000 per annum

Overall a 37.5% reduction in homicides from all causes between the 1990s and 2014. (ie knife, blunt instrument, strangulation etc didn't see a reciprocal increase). The place has never been safer.

[Richard M]

>And guns to protect you from the government? Do you really distrust them that much?

Anyone who has studied history should.

Hmmm, so not much trust in the rest of the Constitution then, I'd have thought that any objective study of the American Constitution and your Federal political history would lead you to quite the opposite conclusion - wasn't it the Washington that outlawed slavery, forced through Civil Rights and ended segregation in the 60s?

To put your gun death rates into some sort of perspective, at 11,000 or so a year, it's the equivalent of 3.66 x 9/11 deaths each year.

Ah well, the only upside that the rest of the First World can take from that mindset is that for the most part, while you wait with guns loaded, for the day that the government tries to oppress you, it's your kids who will continue to die and be maimed in their thousands every year, (more than a hundred thousand a decade - say 1.5 average superbowl crowds) not ours.

[Snowhitsky]

I agree with Richard M point by point but then I share his background (apart from the artillery and going to Australia) and I think this is what it's all about.

The US has a gun culture which simply does not exist in most of Europe. Even in those countries with large numbers of legally held or owned firearms, the relationship of citizens towards firearms is radically different to the US. Over here they are seen as a necessary evil best kept under lock and key and preferably in the hands of responsible law-enforcement professionals. What passes as a healthy interest in the US is seen as something to worry about over here. It's just two radically different cultures which are unlikely to ever understand each other.

As an aside, I must say I do find it amusing that almost any problem, no matter how banal, mentioned on a US forum usually ends up with at least one person suggesting a solution involving a firearm.

[buzzbee]

Richard,
Your people stood by and left the government confiscate private property. That is exactly why we behold our Second Amendment. If your government becomes tyrannical, what option do you have for removal? Did your people learn nothing from what the Nazis did to unarmed populations in WW II ? That should be recent enough history to refresh us all of the cost of  an unarmed citizenry.

[beemaster]

I think a point our foreign (relatively speaking) friends are missing is the massive population and the great use of our land. This is something Australia cannot understand due to its mainly populated coastal area and a population 10 times less than the US although we share nearly the same land area.

And not judging Spain or Europe either, but as Buzzbee said "of all places you would think Europe had a different mindset on guns" but there are many points being missed. With average response times in many areas of the US being 20 minutes or longer, is there really protection by the law if they are speeding as fast as they can to get to you but still 20 minutes away?

You need to realize too that the police agree with an armed society - in both open carry and conceal carry, incidences of gun related crime is far less that in any place where you are not armed. Not to mention all the cities where gun Rights have been taken away from the people, these are cities that are now under gang violence, people are afraid to leave their homes and black on black crime is a huge part of this point, mainly because a thousand blacks can kill each other and it won't make the news - one cop kills a thug who tries to wrestle the officer's gun away and smashes at his face, then turns and charges the cop when he finally gets out of his car to try and control the situation: this causes riots and protest. The black on black crime is stifled by the so called black leaders, because they will never accept that murder is murder, they only want to point out and milk white on black crime.

Tell me, does a store owner have a right to protect his business against arsons or mobs that will assuredly kill him if the can get their hands on them. I'm really not sure what you expect someone who is threatened with certain death to do to protect themselves?

I'm 56, and due to health issue which have plagued me most of my life, I believe incapable of protecting my wife, my home or my life if someone bigger or stronger breaks in. And don't say this rarely or never happens, in my township in the last three years 3 people were murdered in their homes - in all cases they had nothing to protect themselves with. I tell my wife if ever in a situation where she is backed in a corner by someone in our home with terrible plans while there, to shoot and keep shooting until 1 you know the intruder is dead or until the gun is empty - let the law figure it out.

As you can't relate to our country where guns played a part in the most detailed part from forming the country, to expanding to the west - guns have always been in our history. I read Michael Bush like revolvers, I do too and have a 22 Ruger that may not be the ideal home protection gun, but I doubt I'd have volunteers to stand there and let me shoot it at them. Revolvers (especially larger caliber) rarely fail and you just advance to the next round in the cylinder if they do. Being double action makes it very safe to carry and that is his chosen comfort zone. You need to know your weapon, inside and out, practice and then more practice, get your entire household trained to use them - remove the fear, raise the respect of weapons - saves lives.

Recently a young boy of about 12 killed an invader who was about to rape is sister - they were in the middle of nowhere and no help would prevent the rape. He wasn't about the get to a knife or baseball bat and no doubt the intruder would toss the boy like a doll and get back to his attack on the girl. The shotgun he fired did the trick, the guy collapsed like a bag of rocks - the boy a hero. All because everyone in that house was trained on how to use their weapons.

I honestly think you (out side the states folks) think we just pick up every gun we can afford and sit just inside the door waiting for the bad guys to come breaking in. Gun owners in plies you follow rules, gun safes, weapons kept out of site and away from strangers. Yeah, having a handgun on a nightstand seems crazy to a populous that has little access to guns, but when you grow up in an environment where guns are part of your world, it is no big deal - the young folks no to keep away, the older ones go hunting and shoot at targets and every generation in that home is prepared for the dredge of society to one day walk into the wrong house and likely the last mistake of their lives. Point is, not gun-owner (well can't no, but all most all) never want to use that gun in defending their lives, but our culture says we have to the right to use necessary force to prevent injury or loss of life and those of others.

More later.

[Richard M]

Does/should right to carry apply to everyone equally?

And in the context of protecting yourself or your community from government interference?

So how do people in a largely Christian country reconcile this with religious principles? Would religious people carry weapons and is this ok?

And then what about Civilian Militia Groups?

[Richard M]

Richard,
Your people stood by and left the government confiscate private property. That is exactly why we behold our Second Amendment. If your government becomes tyrannical, what option do you have for removal? Did your people learn nothing from what the Nazis did to unarmed populations in WW II ? That should be recent enough history to refresh us all of the cost of  an unarmed citizenry.

Marijuana is private property too and the government confiscates that on a day to day basis, however the compulsory buyback was surrender with good compensation; the money paid out on semi-autos was more than enough to cover the cost of buying a new, good quality bolt action rifle if wanted (the majority didn't).

Land is also private property but if they need yours for an airport or road project, they can take that too, by compulsory purchase - again with compensation but the principle of the government confiscating anything is hardly a novel one, or else how did your's manage to cover the country in freeways, airports etc? Voluntary sale by landowners? I doubt it. And TBH I'd be a lot more p-ssed about losing my land than losing a couple of pop guns.

On the matter of government tyranny, there's enough checks and balances in our constitution to prevent that, not least of which is that the public servants, police and soldiers are of the same community that would be oppressed by a future tyrannical government, it's their brothers and sisters, mums and dads, wives & girlfriends who would be oppressed and they would have to be party to that, bottom line it's not going to happen.

In Britain it's a little different, the reason they'd never have military coup there is that this would mean the Coldstream Guards and the Grenadier Guards cooperating and working together. Clearly this could never happen as they were on opposite sides in the English Civil War (1642-1651) and they haven't spoken to each other ever since.

If push comes to shove and you have your showdown with tyranny, a largely overweight rabble armed with M16s and M4s aren't going to be much use against a disciplined force armed with M249s, M203s, Apaches, Abrams and 155mm artillery. If going out in a massacre is your idea of making a political statement well I guess that's all pretty cool; but having seen how it worked out for the guys in Iraq, I don't know that it's a viable option.

As for opposing the Nazis (with small arms) - the ones who did try it didn't go too well; true I guess you could say that they came out with their honour intact but that wasn't much use to their families and their actions were no deterrence to the Nazis  - read up about the Warsaw Ghetto (Liquidation of). Ditto the Volksturm, civilian militia raised by the Nazis when they in turn were invaded by the Allies - those who stood and fought were slaughtered to a man. The only militias that have been a real factor in defeating a professional military force is where they've acted in or with the support of a large power ally, such as the various WW2 resistance and partisan organisations, however their chief value was in tying down troops who then weren't organised or available to fight off attacks by Allied regular forces when the invasion(s) came. The only militia that actually kicked out the Germans were n Yugoslavia and even then, only because they had massive external support and the Germans were also be kept busy by the Russians, Americans, British, Canadians etc. (Oh and the New Zealanders).

Nearest parallel I can think of where a reasonably democratic government (with some decency and foibles) fought a militia was the Boer War in South Africa at the turn of the 19th/20th Centuries. Sure the Boers made life difficult for the British but were ultimately defeated anyway, with massive casualties to both themselves and their communities - however this was against a power similarly equipped to them; the British at this time had no aircraft, no helicopters, no AFVs, no mortars, heavy weapons were short range, small calibre artillery suitable for DF tasks only and no battlefield communications. Yeah sure you'd have cellphones and email, but guess who can turn the network off in an instant? Bottom line you'd be, in Australian parlance, completely rooted.

Then there's Waco? Whole bunch of people standing up against Govt Tyranny there too, so what was the Branch Davidian: Federal casualty exchange ratio in that one? About 16:1 I think.

What our people learned in WW2 was not to rely on the French Army ....... and a few other things.