Shotguns work well in this regard. Devastating close in, unlikely to over penetrate and hurt someone outside your house.

the answer to your last question is yes, it is in the nature of every government to eat away at liberty in favor of its own power. it is the duty of the sovereign individual to resist that nature.

I'm not an unreasonable person, so no, I don't think people need to have anti-armor or anti-air capabilities, the amount of people who could afford them in the first place is would be so small it wouldn't make much difference if it ever came down to a real fight; that being said, if there was ever a fight, I like to believe that not all members of the military would go along with tyranny, and that the side of resistance would be able to get its hands on military grade weapons and training through those people, as many resistance movements have done throughout history, of note would be those during World War 2.

I assume you mean military grade automatic weapons, we can own them in the States, however they cost over $15000 on the cheap end and are highly regulated and taxed by the federal government. I prefer semi-automatic anyway for the sake of ammo conservation and accuracy.

the only restriction I would be able to tolerate would be some type of mandatory training similar to what the Swiss do. I'd like to see the government teach people to handle fire arms with respect and safety instead of it teaching people to irrationally fear guns.

Very ambivalent on this one. Setting aside police officers, soldiers etc. I think I'd rather wonder and ask the question what makes it work for some countries to not have guns at all?

I often wonder about this difference in some countries. What does the "gun-countries" have that "non gun-countries" have and vice versa? Is it a matter of crime statistics? That just doesn't make much sense to me. There must be reasons to why it works in some countries for civilians to not own firearms.

NO!! Because people are turning insane little by little.

I used to believe otherwise but experience has taught me to have less ... faith... in government agents as I have gotten older.



I'll go one step further. not only to I also believe the part in bold (I earned a set of dog tags myself (cheap set, cold warrior and weekend warrior but...) ) I also think that without that part in bold, the idea that a handgun protects you from you government is as much a fantasy as the idea that the government is free of corruption.



Full Auto: a great way to spoil aim and waste ammunition. heh. actually mostly it was a dig at the other side of the fence's attempts create a buzzword then demonize a weapon 'type' (defined very loosely by them). IE "Saturday Night Special", "Assault type weapon" and lately "High Capacity Magazines"



That would certainly be an Idea I find favour with. I think Tennessee does or had, a simple rule about concealed carry along the same lines. "you want to carry a gun? carry a badge" and essentially beefed out it's reserve police forces with anyone who wanted to carry.

The irrational fear of guns is the thing I find most irritating about my own country. Here you might as well openly admit you're a pedophile. You'd get more tolerance and attempts at understanding than self-confessed gun owner does.


---
I take it from the first and last. that you would NOT favour a law restricting people to integral magazines only and banning detachable box magazines, stripper clips and revolver speed loaders? The only private owners I know who actually have to, and practice combat reloads are IPSC competitors. and the above regulation would greatly hinder would be massacres without IMO appreciably hindering anyone's self defense. I don't particularly like the idea but I think it's more practicable than the majority of the nonsense I hear.

I have no idea if it's been studied. but I think for my country. Which I challenge anyone to say isn't free. (how precarious that freedom is might be worth debate but...) I think it's a matter of culture. People feel safe. There's a lot of faith given to our various government agencies. Hell we use our federal cops as a national symbol and they have the potential given their sweeping areas of authority to be something more akin to the KGB. but they are instead our charming little public relations heroes.

It's not like people are unarmed. Most rural folk hunt or have to control predators and pests on their farms. Shotguns and Trusty Enfields are common outside the cities.

we just... don't have a lot of crime. our per capita violent crime rate is a 1/7 the US and our total capita is a 1/10

We hear about bad things happening in the US 70 times more than they show up in our news. and the always show up. violance and spectacular crime, Crisis, angst, and doom. That's what sells newspapers.

(I have a theory on the differences between Canadian and American culture regarding crime and violence and our relation with the government. but I think discussing these cultural matters here would do disservice to the thread. There's separate threads on Canada and the US and someone could always start a new one)

The difference between Canada and America can be found in their highschoolers. The former typically sounds like an adult when discussing something serious, and the latter sounds like a prebusecent child full of angst. Usually.

It's not the cause, but its the symptom. Think about it. What kind of people get all hyped full of fear? Rational ones, do you think? - no.

I see the war starting and its simple, it should not be whether or nor that we can have/own guns, but rather how they are to be kept. Every gun based tragety of some kid (usually a young person of 10-25 though not inclusive) getting a hold of an improperly secured gun, that has its firing pin/bolt in it with ammunition readily available. As a permit holder, I am required to have the gun in a locked cabnet, unavailable to the common person, with the ammunition kept in another location, locked up, and any handgun must either be in a gun safe with a trigger lock or in the locked cabnet with the firing pin and ammunition stored in another locked location. I also must submit to any reasonable request from either the policing authorities or the master at arms office to an inspection of my hardware and its safe storage. This has gone a long way to removing the problem of shootings in Canada where gun violence is not really a problem, we prefer knives. If the USA enforced this kind of control then the whole debate would become moot.

As for carrying a gun: If properly licensed and can provide a very good and valid reason for carrying then yes, by all means. Conceiled? There is never a good reason for conceiled weaponry. I know I will be flamed for this but there are more death by cop situatons because the suspect is carrying, has identified as he is carrying and adivses and reaches for his wallet and gets shot for it. This said there are some very valid reasons for conceiled weaponry, and they will need to be properly addressed with in the system.

I am also a fan of stiffer punishments for gun related offences. Killing a person in Canada mean free room and board for 25 to life, I say work the bastard. If they dont work they get the bare minimums to survive, and they dont get all the nice privileges either. I understand the states that make use of chain gangs have a very low repeat offender count, maybe we should consider this. I know it can be seen as barbaric, but the whole point of incarseration is to educate and rehabilitate. If being nice does not work then we must be firm and fair, you will live but wont enjoy it.

I do agree that safe storage laws probably would have protected that one school. but they would have had no effect on the batman shooter. Actually not even the NRA response of 'arm everyone' would have helped with the Batman shooter. (as I understand it)

The man came prepared to be shot at. He was wearing full body armour including helmet and mask. He staged a carefully thought out ambush, timed to generate confusion and hesitation, counter attack disrupted by use of irritant gas and by his self placement so that while he and an endless supply of targets. most people who might consider shooting back had to worry about shooting through/over a crowd. In his case, neither safe storage laws (he would have ignored them) NOR everyone being armed (many were, it was a concealed carry state) I have found no record in any of the news about someone shooting back at him.

There is no right in any legal document to own a gun, even the American constitution does not give the right to own a gun. Of course this is always mis-read and simply quoted (2nd ammt) "the right to bare arms" when they stop reading the most important part, the actual text reads: "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." This means you the individual have no rights unless you are part of the militia required to protect a free state. A militia is a sanctioned army(police forces are militia). Here is a link to the second amendment: http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/second_amendment
Each specific state has added to this base right, but it is not uniform federaly

There are other laws which allow a person to protect themselves from the goverment in times of war.

Would be interesting to find out if this has actually been studied on a greater scale, it's an interesting subject. I believe you are right, that culture has a great deal to say regarding this. Culture shapes us and gives us different mindsets, sometimes it just amazes me how people are so alike and yet so far from each other in mind.

You have a very good point about the media, newspapers and the likes and it makes sense. My knowledge on Canada is extremely limited while I'm thinking the majority of people are bombarded with what happens in the U.S. As far as I know our crime rate is low where I live as well and people dying by gunshots are rare (you'd have to be a part of the really shady community to have access to firearms), but who knows, sometimes we only know as much as the media tells us.

As for your federal cops that's... I don't know. Grooves under the otherwise calm surface to say the least? I think that's all I should say or as you point out the discussion might be spun away completely from the thread subject. Thank you for taking time to respond to me.

nice how you pick and chose parts of the ammt and no I didnt mis read it maby you did

The above is AN interpretation. it's not the only one nor is it the one the follows the rules of English. The most important part is the verb, in this case 'Shall' (as in Shall not be infringed) the part about a well regulated Militia is the preamble. I won't argue that it's unimportant. It was put there for a reason. but speaking strictly as a grammarian the preamble could be a rant bout the price of Ice Cream in the Sudan for all its relevance to the part with the verb.

I will agree that there is more room the argue the legalese of the 2nd amendment than it's hard core proponents would like to admit. And I've already brought up the fact that unless it's the right to own an AA gun and some RPGs Americans are as much 'under the thumb' as any of us whom they mock as victims of tyranny due to our lack of access to small arms.

What parts did he leave out?

Probly nothing I just dont like being lectured he he he