My brother used to have a very good 03A3 that would shoot sub MOA groups from a bench with good ammo. He sold it and still says he was an idiot to do so.

Pete, I agree that the hatred here is not productive, and I've got a hope that things may settle down a bit. I'm hopin'.

Also, I happen to not be aligned with my super peace loving brethren on the gun control thing. Overall, I don't believe guns kill people, I think people kill people, so banning certain types of guns has, in my humble view, limited utility. Also, I'm nowhere near being prepared to tolerate, let alone support, limitations to my right to arm bears. Or something like that. My hippie friends are nuts when they suggest that gun bans will help anything. But for the record, the current president's agenda is so distant from mine, many galaxies distance, that this one issue most definitely pales buy comparison. To some, there is only this one issue. Unemployment could run rampant, inflation, stock market crashes, he could pave all national parks with concrete, increase in terrorist attacks sevenfold, and some people would vote for him because of his gun stance compared to Kerry. I'm not in that group.

jm, mandatory sentences look real nice to the NASCAR crowd, but in reality there's a real problem with that. First, judges get no discretion. Sometimes discretion, properly used, is a good thing. Also, unless you double or triple "correctional facility" spending, mandatory sentences are simply going to put criminals on the street. To make room for all the mandatory sentencees. It's happening right now. Washington State has a "three strikes and you're out" law. So, once a guy burglarizes three gas stations and gets caught, a child raper is put out on the street to make room for his life sentence. Try again.

My match competition Springfield is from WW1, and its accuracy is truly amazing. But it's not the perfect rifle for a 20-mile hike.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by tabs
[B]Problem is if he says he is pro gun control....he gets no votes...It's a losing proposition for politicians to be anti gun



...and that's exactly why this Pathological liar parades around in blaze orange pretending to support the 2nd Amendment.

Super- in many cases judges do get discretion in sentencing in many cases. There are now some that have mandatory sentences, but the list is short. In the case of the perp who shot me, the judge was one of those "NASCAR" types you disparage and gave the crook the full 40 years plus time for other offenses. At last check, the crook is still a guest at the Gray Bar Inn. It's quite hard for that guy to commit another crime in open society from there. If the prisons are getting filled, time to get creative and make the miscreants earn their keep. Time to bring back the prison farm. Make them grow their own food, make their own uniforms, and quit coddling the crooks. Cruel and unusual punishment?? What about letting perps off with a slap on the wrist rather than a substantial penalty of mandatory years of sentencing. As for child rapists, those guys should never check out the the Gray Bar. What's hard to comprehend about that? Or is it my southern conservative roots showing? No need to try again here, do a crime, do the time.

The problem is the dirt bags that kill people with firearms are so criminal in thier activity that the firearms violations are the small part of the list of items aganst them. Often these chrages get plead out in hopes of getting a better sentance on the harsher crimes. Prime example. From '95 to 00" 1950 people were arrested for selling firearms to minors but only 5 were convited of that charge. Were the rest set free? Not necessarily, that was a lesser charge that may have been droped to get a good meat and potatoes deal on a manslaugher or homicide charge or some other crime more serious that selling firearms to minors. Personly I think selling a firearm to a minor is pretty darn serious.

<i>"Somebody who doesn't know squat about guns wrote that one up.

The gun he was given did not have a pistol grip."</i>

Ummmmm ..... that <u>is</u> a pistol grip on JFK's Remington 11-87!!! Same grip as on my Benelli MI Field and my Citori White Lightning. The manufacturers all refer to this style grip as a "pistol grip".

As an example, please refer to Browning's website and focus in on the last 3 words of line 1 of the description.

http://www.browning.com/products/catalog/firearms/detail.asp?value=008B&cat_id=013&type_id=184

Here's a "pistol grip" shotgun:

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1094682002.jpg

Here's the identical gun with a "straight grip":

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1094682055.jpg

The point is that JFK's legislation is ambiguous at best, intentional at worst. As written, the Remington 11-87 would be banned.

Anybody know if JFK has recieved the proper permits and Federal paperwork for that firearm yet? If not, he's in possesion of an illegal firearm and may be subject to a 5-year felony sentence. :cool:

My usual response to these threads - you guys loooooove your guns.

I think of assault weapons like I do handguns - basically pointless for the vast, vast majority of gun owners, unless you want to retain the ability to maim/kill someone (or many people).

I don't see personal protection as a legitimate reason for having a gun - hunting and target shooting are fine by me though.

But you're in catch 22, because the country is full of them.

Cam,

The burden should not be on the citizens of this Country to justify the possession. The burden should be on the Government to justify the taking. This applies to anything.

Agreed. Anyhoo, the best argument for owning guns is the Swiss. Almost every able bodied man (or woman) has the latest in assault rifle technology, fully automatic, and ammunition in his (or her) closet. They are highly trained, and are excellent marksmen. In all the country, there has only been one incident involving a murder with these weapons.

That raises some interesting issues, yes?

JCM

Well, Michael Moore made a movie of it (FEAR was his "conclusion").

In NZ, its not particularly acceptable to shoot anyone - even in self defence.

It is also fine to say "the govt should justify taking them away". I think there is plenty justification for restricting access to anything not related to hunting or target shooting. The actual logistics of doing so would be almost impossible.

(edit) the Swiss are extraordinarily disciplined people - I think that helps.

Cam,

What is the justification?

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1094689360.gif

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1094689379.jpg

Bottom line...if you are among those who wish to ban all firearms, except for those in the hands of military, police, and members of congress, vote for Kerry. If you believe otherwise, Bush is the guy. Of course, this covers "only" the issue of the 2nd amendment. Cam, your arguement against semi-auto assault weapons is bogus...many ranchers in the USA western states love their mini 14 "ranch rifles". Have you ever seen a flock of sheep after it was attacked by a small pack of dogs? Not a pretty sight.

OK, I concede this much: Kerry is a small step in the right direction in regards to gun safety ..... so he doesn't use ear and eye protection ...... but he doesn't stare down the barrel like his predecessor Algore either :eek:

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1094691715.jpg

Paul - I did say the "vast, vast majority" - there are definitely people for whom an assault rifle makes a certain amount of sense. Having said that, I bet there are non-assault rifle guns which would do the job at least as well (I'm not exactly a gun expert).

To answer Burnin' Oil's question, the justification for heavily restricting (I don't believe a total ban is needed) military style semi-auto assault weapons and handguns is that they don't fit what I see as legitimate purposes for guns - hunting, target shooting (and protecting livestock, thanks Paul).

If it is designed for killing people, it shouldn't be accessible by the majority of the population. Frankly, I (and I would guess most of the western world) consider the American obsession with second amendment rights to be more or less indefensible.

You don't have a "right to bear arms" (meaning firearms) any more than you have a "right" to wander the street swinging a 3' length of chain or toting a machete. When a firearm ceases being a tool (protecting livestock, controlling pest population, the army) or recreation (target shooting, hunting) and becomes a weapon against people - whether for self defence or offence - I don't see why you have any "right".

Cam, everyone is entitled to their own opinions. In all seriousness, why do you think that a person should not have the right to use a gun to defend themselves? I obviously disagree. I have no intention of starting a fight or anything I'm just fascinated everytime I hear a person say that self defense is not a good enough reason to own a personal firearm. Is it self defense that you disagree with or just using a gun in self defense?

Its a society which even contemplates "needing" a gun for self defence that bothers me. My standpoint is "less guns good, more guns bad" - no matter whether intended for defence or offense (I have no problems with any number of people having guns for recreation, etc, as stated above).

I'd defend myself (without firearm) if I had to. "Had to" is another way of saying "if I couldn't run away". IMHO, having a firearm for defence would instill a false sense of bravado and lead, generally, to more people being shot.

Besides, if you only wanted a gun for self defence, you'd probably only have one. Not 7 (an unsurprising number of the most vigorous pro-gun people have a bit of an arsenal).

This does come down to opinion - I agree. The thing is, it also comes down to opinion in other countries around the world other than the US, but the US is the only place with this funny "shall not be infringed" concept.

Cam...I don't think any of us here are debating the constitutional issues of NZ....;) Why are you so interested in Kerry vs. Bush? I don't know the names of, nor do I care about your nation's elected (?) elite... I do understand you have a lot of sheep there, though...maybe not all of them walk on 4 legs? (edit) Article II, Bill of rights, Constitution of the United States of America, (declared in force December 15th, 1791): "Right to Keep and Bear Arms. 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." Cam, these men were NOT saying the people should enjoy only hunting and target shooting. They were saying that a government that doesn't trust it's people to be armed is a government that doesn't deserve the trust of it's people. IMHO, wise words in 1791, wise words in 2004.