Trump Will Win In 2020 #DT2020

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, ronwagn said:

Democrat.s stated spending plans would surely bring inflation quickly,

Nah just keep printing. I see no issues there. 

By the way Ron ...  https://www.zerohedge.com/political/gun-sales-surge-after-democrats-demand-buybacks-confiscation      

Edited September 12, 2019 by Guest

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

2 hours ago, DayTrader said:

Jeez, Americans and their guns. There are about 50 quotes I could use here from this thread. 

Well I see a mass shooting on your news every few weeks. I don't see people dying from tripping over on your news? Certainly not 50 people at once. So to say the risk of a lunatic killing people is miniscule is clearly BS. I'm sure the families of the deceased don't agree with you either. Maybe when you're personally affected by it you will change your view on this. 

That's one way of putting it I guess. 

So how protected are you deep down with your gun when you have police with these things?

This is due to worrying about your government or fellow citizens? Also, I thought the chance of anything bad happening was 'miniscule' ?

                                                                                            - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Guys, if you want guns, I couldn't care less. I just wish people would say 'I like having a gun', 'I feel safer with a gun' etc. I have a lot of respect for many people and their views here and genuinely don't want another blazing argument about your gun laws. 

Your 2nd amendment is about citizens protecting themselves from their own government. Ok, fine, not gonna argue with that. It's very wise. 

However, I may be wrong, but I don't think even once in this thread have guns been mentioned, certainly not anecdote wise, in terms of protecting yourselves from your own government. They are used to protect yourselves from yourselves, precisely because you all have guns. It seems to be even defended here that the mentally deranged should be allowed a gun, because 'how do you determine who can have one?'  To be honest, that's not my problem, and I could argue you've had 250 years to sort that law out, and have not. 

Listed in this thread are various people saying about what certain gun they have and enjoy, there is a guy saying he would have happily blown away 3 guys despite being in a built up area (and the only reason he didn't was because he was in a built up area?), and so this quote '' I believe in my fellow American's willingness to help each other'' clearly doesn't apply to this guy Otis. There is funnily enough not one reference to owning a gun because you're worried about Trump. There is a reference to 'tell that to people in Afghanistan' as if we are talking about war scenarios.

We are not. We are talking about mentally ill Americans killing other Americans, and it is defended in terms of 'it's my right to have a gun'. Yes it is, I agree, but can we please cut the shit that ANY of you currently have a gun OUT OF FEAR OF YOUR OWN GOVERNMENT. You all have guns because you all have guns. 

 

Again, you've had years to sort this out. Don't draw a line then, defend it in terms of the 2nd amendment. When you have another lunatic killing the innocent in a few weeks we can chat again. And they won't be killing out of ''fear of their government'', they'll be killing because they're nuts, and your 2nd amendment is their handy excuse. 

 

PS - Otis, nothing personal man, you just directly quoted me. There are so many quotes I could take from this thread it's unreal. And as I say, they are all pro gun. Fine, I genuinely have no problem with that. It's the law, it's your right, and I totally get it's like part of your culture and in your blood. I just wish people would cut the shit about why they have a gun, in 2019. 

As a sidenote I assume when written it was about defending your land etc. It certainly wasn't about guns that can kill 100 people within a minute or whatever. 

Again, to clarify, I'm not saying 99.99% of the population should be penalised because of the 0.01% that are nuts. If you want guns, crack on. I just think you should do what you can to stop maniacs having a gun. It is very odd to me that this opinion is even argued. ''Well where do you draw the line?'' , ''How do you define nuts?'' etc. Not my problem. It's an American problem you've created for yourselves. Maybe when your child or parent is killed by a lunatic you will change your view, sometimes here it sounds like that's what it would take.

Anyway, peace x

 

DT, are you off your meds again?

(Chill buddy, just joking with you!).

You actually make some valid points (occasionally the blind squirrel finds a nut...couldn’t resist!😂).

First off let me say that I enjoy shooting as a hobby/sport, although I no longer hunt. I admit that I just like having guns around for personal protection and defense.

I can’t run anymore as I have an artificial hip. When I go back to visit my folks on the Western Slope of Colorado I always carry a gun when working on my Dad’s place as there are enough bears, wolves and mountain lions around to cause concern to us in the non-running category.

There are valid reasons for owning, and yes, collecting firearms.

So, yes, I simply like owning firearms and it is my right to do so...full stop.

Now as you say, the random lunatic is the real issue. Addressing that issue will take some serious thought as you will need to balance personal rights and responsibilities with societal rights and responsibilities. I hope this balance can be reached.

Once again, America is a unique place. Americans want minimal government intervention. This is at odds with most other Western societies. To attempt to place other Western cultures or societal norms on Americans is an exercise in futility and as you can see from this thread, tends to get the hackles up.

 

 

[Guest]

Ok thanks man. I'm not trying to piss anyone off, I'm really not, just trying to understand the mentality and so on. It's literally a cultural thing and you make a good point about bears, wolves and lions. We don't have anything like that here obviously, and I wouldn't ever wanna kill anything but if I was there with you I'd be the first to say 'give me that f*****g gun'. If it's me or him going down, I will choose him (although saying that, I'd have no idea how to use it, so maybe it is me going down). 

So can I ask, how do you expect a balance to be reached without government intervention? And I assume gun law is different in every state? That can't help..?   Anyway, you are the 2020 gun law sorter in our administration. 

And Otis, nothing personal man, it was just easier to paste your comments and then go from memory, as when I go back page after page to read stuff then what I've written disappears. Your comments were no 'worse' than what others wrote, you just got the rant haha. Sorry man.  

Edited September 12, 2019 by Guest

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

3 hours ago, DayTrader said:

Well I see a mass shooting on your news every few weeks.

The USA averages a mass shooting one a day.  Mass shooting is defined as four or more shot by one gunman.

3 hours ago, DayTrader said:

On 9/10/2019 at 7:26 PM, Jan van Eck said:

Never let it be said that the criminal element can out-shoot the American police.

So how protected are you deep down with your gun when you have police with these things?

Not protected at all, in reality.  First, in Vermont, more people are killed by police using AR-15 rifles than any other source.  Having the police heavily armed is a serious error.  They do that in New Jersey because of the vast amount of heavily armed criminals in places like Newark and Camden.  It is ridiculous in any rural State.  I have vigorously argued against any rifle that is not bolt-action in the State press here  (gets met with heavy boos, but that goes with the territory).  In my view the police should be fitted with tranquilizer guns that shoot a dart, they are good for lions, should be good for a human.  The suspect is dropped into a sleep, wakes up 40 minutes later in a jail cell, no guns needed, his gun confiscated.    Policemen doing killings is a serious American problem.  Here in Vermont that composes the majority of deaths by guns.  Indeed, most in the last two years have been done by one man, who has shot four, killed three. And he has not been fired, including even after my protests here.  When you ask around in his hometown, everyone describes him as a complete asshole.  SO: what is that guy doing driving around with an AR-15 and no compunction about shooting people?  This is not a man who should have a gun; it is a man who belongs in jail for murder.  25 to life, if you please.

3 hours ago, DayTrader said:

So how protected are you deep down with your gun when you have police with these things?

I am not protected at all by the police.  The nearest one is 40 minutes away.  I do not even bother with owning a gun, don't have to.  My neighbors are all heavily armed; there are more guns within a half mile in private homes then there are down at the State Police Barracks.  My neighbors protect me.  I know that; they know that; the thieves know that everyone is armed, so don't even attempt to break in a place where there are people around. In this area the drug-addict crime of choice is shoplifting from the big-box stores.  No addict tries to steal your lawnmower because they assume, correctly, that the homeowner will shoot them dead and leave the body out in the forest, for the wildlife to eat the carrion.  That is the case in any rural State in the USA.  

Look, there are two Americas.  There is rural,  which is very safe, and heavily armed, and there is urban, which in some cities is quite safe  (i.e. New York) and others where it is quite dangerous.  In those cities, i.e. Boston,  areas are quite dangerous, and gangs of blacks will attack and seriously hurt you if you are white and walking down the street.  I parked in a black area south of downtown in order to grab some dinner; a local schoolteacher (a black fellow) stopped me and warned me not to be naive and leave immediately, as I would with certainty be assaulted, robbed, and either shot or cut.  That is the reality of urban America.  Now, the politicians have disarmed the population in Urban States, and the question becomes: is the absence of personal firearms in those States correlative or causative to the crime?  That is really where the arguments are.  In my view, if you have enough policemen, such as in New York City, you have few guns and little crime.  In Boston, with much fewer policemen, you have no guns and thus you have lots and lots of crime on the person, right on the street in broad daylight.  Americans are heavily armed and do concealed carry (and open carry) precisely because the society is unwilling to pay for lots of policemen.  Vermont has no gun laws, and the lowest crime rates.  Everybody is armed, and nobody shoots anyone  (police excepted, and that is a big problem the society has not sorted out).  Is this unique to America?  Not at all.  I invite you to look at South Africa. 

4 hours ago, DayTrader said:

However, I may be wrong, but I don't think even once in this thread have guns been mentioned, certainly not anecdote wise, in terms of protecting yourselves from your own government.

I brought that up, because that is both the historical and the legal reason.   The American Founders were wary of government, knew that governments became ossified and oppressive, and did not want to have a "standing army," thinking the armed citizens were a better protecting force.  Even as late as 1960 you have generals of the Army making very public statements warning his fellow Americans about the dangers of a large army and a "military-industrial complex" perniciously feeding off each other.  That warning, by a US President who was previously an Army 4-star general, was prescient, as we now see with Lockheed Martin building the F-35 frankenplane. WLuld the US Govt, in the absence of a heavily armed population, devolve into an oppressive autocracy?  Of course it would. Would the US Govt attempt to subdue and subjugate the citizens?  Of course it would, and is doing so right now, using cyber-spying and the NSA electronic surveillance system.  Are Americans prepared to shoot those people?  Yes, the most assuredly are. 

 

4 hours ago, DayTrader said:

It seems to be even defended here that the mentally deranged should be allowed a gun, because 'how do you determine who can have one?' 

No one argues that the mentally ill should have a gun.  Indeed, all the school shooters  - 100% - were mentally ill people.  The unresolved issue is only the mechanism by which the society removes guns from those who are a risk to others because they are disturbed.  Historically,  those people were placed in confinement in mental hospitals.  Then the State  (read:  "Democrats") abolished those in favor of "community re-integrations."  That part has been an abysmal failure.  The disastrous mess today is the direct result of failed, fundamentally stupid, policies of yesterday.  And that happens; not every societal program is a rousing success.  Some are abject failures.  Keeping guns away from the mentally ill is a huge problem.  My solution is to require gun owners to have sturdy gun safes, so as to exclude others from access.   Expensive?  So are murders. So spend the money on the gun safes. 

 

4 hours ago, DayTrader said:

There is funnily enough not one reference to owning a gun because you're worried about Trump.

It would be an excellent, rational basis for owning guns.  Mr. Trump has unstable views, that are distorted.  All that said, I personally doubt that anyone, especially the Army, would go follow Trump's orders and seize parts of America.  The more likely result is that they would hunker down in the barracks, and possibly call out a battalion to ring and protect the Pentagon.  The only time I know of where a military unit shot at civilians inside the USA was in Ohio, and those men were a State Guard unit, poorly trained and undisciplined rednecks who play wannabe soldier on the weekends.  They shot up Kent State college, killing four.   Undisciplined rednecks are just as much a societal problem as black urban gangs.  So far, society has not figured out a good solution to either. 

America is not a perfect society, by any means.  The "gun issue" remains a knotty problem.  Yet it is an urban problem, not a rural one.  And that is part of the difficulty in finding a uniform solution, one size fits all.  Trust this helps you to understand a unique, exhilarating country!

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, Jan van Eck said:

any rifle that is not bolt-action

I dunno what this means, sorry   😂

10 minutes ago, Jan van Eck said:

I brought that up, because that is both the historical and the legal reason

Yes true, I just meant in terms of the recent anecdotes and certain people's listed reasons for liking or using their guns nowadays.

14 minutes ago, Jan van Eck said:

I am not protected at all by the police. 

No I meant how good is a gun if the government can be argued to have those kind of vehicles.

12 minutes ago, Jan van Eck said:

Trust this helps you to understand a unique, exhilarating country!

Definitely yes. Thankyou Jan.  

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

1 hour ago, DayTrader said:

Ok thanks man. I'm not trying to piss anyone off, I'm really not, just trying to understand the mentality and so on. It's literally a cultural thing and you make a good point about bears, wolves and lions. We don't have anything like that here obviously, and I wouldn't ever wanna kill anything but if I was there with you I'd be the first to say 'give me that f*****g gun'. If it's me or him going down, I will choose him (although saying that, I'd have no idea how to use it, so maybe it is me going down). 

So can I ask, how do you expect a balance to be reached without government intervention? And I assume gun law is different in every state? That can't help..?   Anyway, you are the 2020 gun law sorter in our administration. 

And Otis, nothing personal man, it was just easier to paste your comments and then go from memory, as when I go back page after page to read stuff then what I've written disappears. Your comments were no 'worse' than what others wrote, you just got the rant haha. Sorry man.  

At the moment firearms are regulated at the Federal, State, County and Municipal level. So even if you are complying with the all of the applicable statutes where you live, this may all go out the window when you travel to another State, county or city. For example, you may be permitted to open or concealed carry in Colorado, but as soon as you cross the State line into say, New Mexico, you may be in contravention of New Mexican law.

Furthermore, when liberals take control of the government of any State, you can be sure that even more firearm laws will be enacted (take the recent elections in Colorado for an example). As 'ignorance is no defence in the law', your gun owner who is trying to do everything 'right' must damn near become a lawyer! This is unworkable and a pain in the butt.

It used to be that newspapers had firearms in the classified ads. Where someone could sell their personal firearm to another buyer with no background check or waiting period involved. This actually worked fine, and I think that you would be hard pressed to find any crimes committed with firearms transferred in this manner. Most crimes committed with firearms are committed with those that have been stolen or obtained illegally. Gangs come to mind. That said, in the present environment, these personal transactions need to be addressed. I have not spoken to anyone who objects to a waiting period and a background check for these personal transactions as long as it is an efficient, timely process which can be carried out at the local courthouse and does not become a money making endeavor by the government. Again, if we are going to get serious about this, a seperate entity must be set up to handle only background checks. This could be a department within the FBI, but it would free up FBI resources to allow the FBI to do what they are supposed to do - catch bad guys!

As an aside, this same mentality needs to be in place when employers are trying to do the right thing and verifying that a prospective employee is actually a US citizen or green card holder.

In many Western counties right now, the Sheriff's are not so much refusing to adhere to the letter of the law regarding background checks on personal firearm transactions, they are simply saying it is impossible to enforce - which it is! Furthermore, there is the issue of one guy or gal lending his firearm to someone else. In the vast majority of cases this does not involve handguns, but hunting rifles. Say a guys elk rifle is in the shop when opening day comes along, he goes to his buddy and asks to borrow a rifle. These are NOT assault weapons and borrowing a rifle in the West is as old as the hills. Do we now want to require a background check of the guys buddy and a waiting period for loaning out a hunting rifle? 

People who are 'afraid' (for lack of a better term) of firearms or perhaps those who grew up in some areas back East or who grew up in cities will find any transfer of any weapon without some sort of government intervention as being unacceptable in the extreme, while those with a rural or 'western' upbringing find government intervention to be nothing but a pain in the arse.

I am of the opinion that ANY sale of a firearm should go through a waiting period and a thorough background check - as long as the infrastructure is in place to make it as efficient as possible. This waiting period and background check should not be seen as a way to punish gun owners for something that is their constitutional right, whether someone agrees to that right or not.

I seriously doubt that law enforcement or laws will ever be able to stop the lending of weapons between friends, and nor should they. At some point in time, especially in America, the government needs to butt out. Prohibition didn't turn out so great and people can still go out and buy cars, boats and motorcycles which can far exceed any posted speed limit. Goofy doctors still kill more people every year than do legally obtained firearms, etc.... So lets put common sense controls on firearms, see how that works out and move on to other pressing social issues.

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

2 hours ago, DayTrader said:

2 hours ago, Jan van Eck said:

any rifle that is not bolt-action

I dunno what this means, sorry   😂

 

The "action" refers to the mechanism whereby the expended cartridge shell is ejected and a fresh one is loaded in.  IN a typical automatic rifle, all you do is pull the trigger and the thing just keeps on firing, until the magazine is expended.  In the USA, you need a limited and very expensive Federal license to own one, they cost over $10,000. Notwithstanding, in some States, I think Colorado and Texas, you can readily buy a machine gun over the counter at the local gun store.  Happy shooting!  The guys that buy those go down the bayou and get drunk and blast away at old wrecked cars and busted refrigerators,  it is their idea of a good time.  Try to avoid being down-range. 

A "Semi-automatic" tones that down a bit and upon firing, it will send the round down-range and use the expelled gas pressure to drive the shell out of the firing mechanism and pull a fresh cartridge into place into the breech, so all you have to do is pull the trigger yet again. 

In a "bolt action" rifle, you have to manually reach up with one hand, grab a  handle device attached to the bolt, lift it up and over, then pull back, in order to eject the shell. Then either a fresh shell is presented, OR you manually insert a fresh shell into the gun chamber, and then slide the bolt forward and lock it into the Ready position by dropping the bot handle down through a 90-degree turn.  Because the operator has to "action the bolt," it is "bolt action."   Your typical infantryman soldier in WWII was issued such a rifle, i.e. the Mauser 96. 

Notice that the fresh rounds are placed into a "clip," and it is loaded by inserting the Clip into the rifle mechanism from the top.  The operator thus has a visual indicator at all times of how many shells he has left to fire.  When empty, he inserts a new "clip."  

The Mauser 96, in the hands of a trained German soldier, was the weapon of choice and that soldier could and did defeat any army. No army needs automatic weapons unless you are the Americans fighting the Asians, who don't much care if they die or not, so the impetus in developing fully automatic weapons, and semi-portable machine guns, all came from the USA in combat with Asians - mostly the Marines and Army in combat with Japanese and North Korean armies, and later Chinese.  Note that the typical Clip is five or six rounds.  

US versions of later models used a bottom-loading "magazine," which was a fully enclosed bullet container, and would typically hold seven rounds.  Due to the Asian land wars and related suicide charges, the Americans developed much larger magazines, copying the Russian Kalashnikov rifle, known today as the "AK-47."  Keep in mind that the Russian troops were poorly trained if at all, and thus substituted a wild spray of lots of rounds for lack of any marksmanship.  During WWII, it was common enough for a Russian infantryman to empty an entire magazine of 30 rounds and not hit anything.  This is why the Germans could defeat far larger Russian forces using only bolt-action rifles: when a German soldier fired, he hit what he shot at.  In war, training is everything.  

The main advantage of limiting firearms ownership to the bolt action is that it dramatically limits the firepower of the civilian (and military) rifleman.  That is defeated by the ready availability of high-capacity magazines.  You can cheerfully buy an AR-15  (civilian version of the M-16) with typical 30-round and 40-round magazines, or drum magazines of 90-rounds and 120 rounds.  And you can buy a "disconnect clip" internal part at gun shows that converts your AR-15 into a fully automatic rifle, so with those 120-round magazines, you can do some serious killing.  And now you see the problem. 

Edited September 12, 2019 by Jan van Eck

[Guest]

Wow. You learn something everyday. Thankyou. 

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

2 hours ago, DayTrader said:

No I meant how good is a gun if the government can be argued to have those kind of vehicles.

But remember that "the government" is a civilian police force, there to protect against criminals (and invaders, to some degree).  It is not there to put down civil revolution.  The citizens are fully entitled to overthrow the government, that is inherent in the US version of a free people and their federal government.  Indeed, President Jefferson wrote in his Federalist Papers that the US govt should be overthrown once every 30 ears or so, to clean out the deadwood and start fresh. It was probably good advice, however not followed, although some argument could be made for Andrew Jackson doing that. 

But remember that a determined people can and will overcome any obstacle.  Those armored cars are useless against a Molotov Cocktail  (gasoline bomb), for instance.  They are used against an entrenched heavily-armed street gang holed up in a barricaded house, wanted for very serious crimes and refusing to surrender, instead shooting the police.  They tend to be single-purpose trucks.  They are completely useless in a rural setting, and cost rural taxpayers money for maintenance.  Some rural communities end up putting a snowplow on the front and using them that way, plowing snow.   

[James Regan + 1,776]

I think the whole concept of gun ownership etc in USA, is a fair argument do you need an assault style rifle no, but are you allowed one yes, as long as the laws are in place and based on the Constitution an unless amended then its the law, we need to remember the an amendment is exactly whats its says, it can be amended, just because its in an old document has constitutional amendment doesn't mean it cannot be changed, most rednecks or hillbillies don't understand the word amendment.

Being from the UK we are not brought up in a gun culture show its easy for us to shrug off the  desire or rights to have guns, as we don't really desire guns as they are not part of our culture, as we have no right to have an assault style rifle of bigger calibre weapons we don't dwell on it.

Until you get the chance to get near guns and see what the whole deal is about and the leisure/sport side of it, its another world, most gun owners are very responsible and vehemently will protect the right to arm bears as its in the constitution.

Put the gun in the arms of the right person and positive things happen, put it in the hands of the wrong person and bad things can happen, same thing with a car.

I had the chance to fire a low calibre weapon while in the Big T and fell in love with guns, its a mechanical wonderland and as an engineer one comes to respect the whole concept, the engineering involved etc and end result is not a bad rush.

The 50 Cal. Barret is not something I would carry around day to day, but given the chance to own one legally, I would definitely be first in line, I got converted by rednecks with big guns, who wouldn't?

Edited September 12, 2019 by James Regan

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

52 minutes ago, Jan van Eck said:

The "action" refers to the mechanism whereby the expended cartridge shell is ejected and a fresh one is loaded in.  IN a typical automatic rifle, all you do is pull the trigger and the thing just keeps on firing, until the magazine is expended.  In the USA, you need a limited and very expensive Federal license to own one, they cost over $10,000. Notwithstanding, in some States, I think Colorado and Texas, you can readily buy a machine gun over the counter at the local gun store.  Happy shooting!  The guys that buy those go down the bayou and get drunk and blast away at old wrecked cars and busted refrigerators,  it is their idea of a good time.  Try to avoid being down-range. 

A "Semi-automatic" tones that down a bit and upon firing, it will send the round down-range and use the expelled gas pressure to drive the shell out of the firing mechanism and pull a fresh cartridge into place into the breech, so all you have to do is pull the trigger yet again. 

In a "bolt action" rifle, you have to manually reach up with one hand, grab a  handle device attached to the bolt, lift it up and over, then pull back, in order to eject the shell. Then either a fresh shell is presented, OR you manually insert a fresh shell into the gun chamber, and then slide the bolt forward and lock it into the Ready position by dropping the bot handle down through a 90-degree turn.  Because the operator has to "action the bolt," it is "bolt action."   Your typical infantryman soldier in WWII was issued such a rifle, i.e. the Mauser 96. 

Notice that the fresh rounds are placed into a "clip," and it is loaded by inserting the Clip into the rifle mechanism from the top.  The operator thus has a visual indicator at all times of how many shells he has left to fire.  When empty, he inserts a new "clip."  

The Mauser 96, in the hands of a trained German soldier, was the weapon of choice and that soldier could and did defeat any army. No army needs automatic weapons unless you are the Americans fighting the Asians, who don't much care if they die or not, so the impetus in developing fully automatic weapons, and semi-portable machine guns, all came from the USA in combat with Asians - mostly the Marines and Army in combat with Japanese and North Korean armies, and later Chinese.  Note that the typical Clip is five or six rounds.  

US versions of later models used a bottom-loading "magazine," which was a fully enclosed bullet container, and would typically hold seven rounds.  Due to the Asian land wars and related suicide charges, the Americans developed much larger magazines, copying the Russian Kalashnikov rifle, known today as the "AK-47."  Keep in mind that the Russian troops were poorly trained if at all, and thus substituted a wild spray of lots of rounds for lack of any marksmanship.  During WWII, it was common enough for a Russian infantryman to empty an entire magazine of 30 rounds and not hit anything.  This is why the Germans could defeat far larger Russian forces using only bolt-action rifles: when a German soldier fired, he hit what he shot at.  In war, training is everything.  

The main advantage of limiting firearms ownership to the bolt action is that it dramatically limits the firepower of the civilian (and military) rifleman.  That is defeated by the ready availability of high-capacity magazines.  You can cheerfully buy an AR-15  (civilian version of the M-16) with typical 30-round and 40-round magazines, or drum magazines of 90-rounds and 120 rounds.  And you can buy a "disconnect clip" internal part at gun shows that converts your AR-15 into a fully automatic rifle, so with those 120-round magazines, you can do some serious killing.  And now you see the problem. 

Jan,

You are missing alot in your post.

First, there are two main types of actions in a fully automatic hand held weapon; closed bolt and open bolt. A minor technical issue, but as you were getting technical I thought that I would mention it.

To obtain a Class 3 Federal Firearms license is not only expensive, you need to submit to a rigorous background check as well. Furthermore you must prove that you can adequately secure the weapons AND law enforcement retains the right to check the weapons and the security AT ANY TIME.

Furthermore, there is no State in the Union where anyone can walk into a gun store and buy a fully automatic weapon! That has been illegal since around the 1930’s. Where did you get this idea? Also, unless said store had a Class 3 license, they could not even possess a fully automatic weapon! Let alone offer one for sale to anyone without a Class 3 license!

Your comments regarding the Mauser 96 is complete nonsense. The M1 Garand allowed the US GI to fire 8 rounds of semi-automatic fire from an 8 round stripper clip. Our adversaries even admit that this single innovation (equipping our infantrymen with semi-automatic weapons, which no other army did in great numbers) probably had the largest impact of any weapon system fielded during WW2. Everyone else had to work a bolt action to get the next shot off. The advantage is obvious.

So you are advocating banning lever action and pump action weapons as well?

What the hell is a ‘disconnect clip’? The only way you can turn a semi-automatic rifle into a fully automatic weapon is to change the sear!

I really expected better of you Jan. Where was your research?

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

30 minutes ago, James Regan said:

I got converted by rednecks with big guns, who wouldn't?

James!   You re one seriously bad-ass dude!

P.S. for readers:  the Barrett is a specialty weapon used for military long-distance sniping, can hit a target at two miles range.  The shells will cost you ten dollars each!    (Military doesn't mind.)

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

34 minutes ago, James Regan said:

I think the whole concept of gun ownership etc in USA, is a fair argument do you need an assault rifle no, but are you allowed one yes, as long as the laws are in place and based on the Constitution an unless amended then its the law, we need to remember the an amendment is exactly whats its says, it can be amended, just because its in an old document has constitutional amendment doesn't mean it cannot be changed, most rednecks or hillbillies don't understand the word amendment.

Being from the UK we are not brought up in a gun culture show its easy for us to shrug off the  desire or rights to have guns, as we don't really desire guns as they are not part of our culture, as we have no right to have an assault rifle of bigger calibre weapons we don't dwell on it.

Until you get the chance to get near guns and see what the whole deal is about and the leisure/sport side of it, its another world, most gun owners are very responsible and vehemently will protect the right arm bears as its in the constitution.

Put the gun in the arms of the right person and positive things happen, put it in the hands of the wrong person and bad things can happen, same thing with a car.

I had the chance to fire a low calibre weapon while in the Big T and fell in love with guns, its a mechanical wonderland and as an engineer one comes to respect the whole concept, the engineering involved etc and end result is not a bad rush.

The 50 Cal. Barret is not something I would carry around day to day, but given the chance to own one legally, I would definitely be first in line, I got converted by rednecks with big guns, who wouldn't?

IT IS ILLEGAL TO OWN AN ASSAULT WEAPON IN THE USA!!!! Please get this through your head! An assault-style weapon is an appearance issue, and it is legal to own these. Unless you have a Class 3 license tou CAN NOT own a fully automatic or selective fire weapon!!!!

[James Regan + 1,776]

10 minutes ago, Douglas Buckland said:

IT IS ILLEGAL TO OWN AN ASSAULT WEAPON IN THE USA!!!! Please get this through your head! An assault-style weapon is an appearance issue, and it is legal to own these. Unless you have a Class 3 license tou CAN NOT own a fully automatic or selective fire weapon!!!!

Doug- I understand the quote and omitted the word "Style" inadvertently- Point noted and will edit accordingly, good case for shooting the messenger. Remember I'm a Limey and fully admitted its not in our culture but understand why the US is passionate regarding protecting your rights. 

Thanks for pointing out the mistake in terminology (Thumbs up)

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

This error happens often in this debate.

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

Funny enough James, I’ve lived in Malaysia for 16 years now, where it is illegal to own a firearm, any component of a firearm or any ammunition at all. I’d say that I’ve grown used to it, bit still feel ‘naked’ out on the streets. As they say, ‘When in Rome....’.

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

Jan is absolutely correct in saying that getting your second shot off with a bolt action rifle is a much slower process.

But let’s put that in a hunting perspective. Say you make a poor first shot on a big game animal, for whatever reason, at this point you need a quick follow-up shot so that the animal doesn’t run away, suffer needlessly and bleed out. A lever action, pump action or semi-automatic would give you a quick follow-up shot...but they have been banned!

I am old school and all my rifles are bolt action or single shot break open rifles. I have never needed a quick follow-up shot, but I am damn sure that alot of people do.

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

Speaking of terminology errors, without looking it up, what is the difference between a ‘clip’ and a ‘magazine’?

[James Regan + 1,776]

3 minutes ago, Douglas Buckland said:

Speaking of terminology errors, without looking it up, what is the difference between a ‘clip’ and a ‘magazine’?

I would shoot a guess that a clip would refer to a manually fed system where a helper would feed the ammunition as its mounted on a clip in system and a magazine is pre fed with rounds?

[James Regan + 1,776]

1 hour ago, Jan van Eck said:

James!   You re one seriously bad-ass dude!

P.S. for readers:  the Barrett is a specialty weapon used for military long-distance sniping, can hit a target at two miles range.  The shells will cost you ten dollars each!    (Military doesn't mind.)

https://youtu.be/xAmtgFCsgxg

My baptism by fire, a definite rush....

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

19 minutes ago, James Regan said:

I would shoot a guess that a clip would refer to a manually fed system where a helper would feed the ammunition as its mounted on a clip in system and a magazine is pre fed with rounds?

Technically a clip is internal to a weapon, such as a clip that is inserted into the butt of a semi-automatic handgun or the clip that was inserted into an M1 Garand rifle.

A magazine attaches externally such as on an M16 or AK47.

[James Regan + 1,776]

7 minutes ago, Douglas Buckland said:

Technically a clip is internal to a weapon, such as a clip that is inserted into the butt of a semi-automatic handgun or the clip that was inserted into an M1 Garand rifle.

A magazine attaches externally such as on an M16 or AK47.

Doug- I was trying to refer to this type of system, would this be considered a clip system?

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

That would be referred to as a ‘belt fed weapon’. Looks to be an MG42 (or 44), also known as Hitler’s Zipper due to it’s outrageous rate of fire and the sound that it made.

[SERWIN + 749]

11 hours ago, ronwagn said:

I like to have a firearm for every specialty. They are dirt cheap right now. People should stock up for the future. You should be able to at least get your money back, including inflation, if you ever want it. I favor Ruger for the best low priced firearms, but here are many good ones out there. 

I carry a Springfield .45 XDM in my vehicle everywhere I go, with an extra clip....13 rounds in each

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

33 minutes ago, SERWIN said:

I carry a Springfield .45 XDM in my vehicle everywhere I go, with an extra clip....13 rounds in each

At the risk of being pedantic, your Springfield contains the ammunition in  a magazine.  A "clip" is as in the picture I supplied above, where the ends of the cartridge fit into a mating groove in an open holder.  A magazine has the rounds fully enclosed and they are pushed into position with a spring underneath a floating plate inside. One aspect of the magazine is that it can be swapped out for an extended-capacity magazine, such as the one in the picture below, without any changes to the gun itself.  Incidentally, these are banned in Vermont, considered unnecessary for the purpose of that gun and thus inherently dangerous to society. Not needed in a rural society, no gangs of criminals coming at you if you are a single woman........

 

Again, one of the most unfortunate aspects of urban life is these gangs of criminals that prey upon the unarmed.  You get that in Sao Paulo and in Capetown, to the nth degree.  The defense measure is the high-capacity magazine  (and the ability to use it effectively against the vicious criminals).  All of that is in an urban setting, excepting perhaps India, where predators rape and murder young women constantly.  They do that because the State is impotent to administer any effective punishment.  Another good reason not to go there.