NRA, Firearms, And Michael Moore (spillover from PA Thread)

Correct me if m wrong but it wasnt an Amendment to the constitution it was written in there from the start...?

And its also been interpreted for current times much like the "cruel and unusual punishment" thing there too...

 

It might be closer than you think... acquiring a firearm through legal channels in Germany is not very difficult, and from what I've heard its very popular to own one among middle-class Brazilians, too (to name a few). And until a few years ago the firearms regulation in Belgium was pretty lenient, too.
Speaking of which, I find that the typical way politicians react to firearms incidents is pretty naive... in Belgium, for instance, a politician (!) was doing target practice in his back yard, but a bullet ricocheted of the wall into the neighbors' yard, killing a small child. That one-chance-in-a-million incident led to stricter firearms regulations, and if I recall correctly Britain's and New Zealand's gun regulations were drastically changed, too, after shooting incidents.

Anyway, I do not disagree with the right of civilians to carry firearms. Criminals will get them anyhow, through the more dodgy channels.

 

Ok I never really read the Prop Arena thread or I'd have jumped in this debate long ago. Gun collecting and shooting are my second biggest hobby next to gaming so I've become very informed about the various firearms laws in the US. Since there is a lot of thing in this thread that I don't agree with or is flat out wrong I'm going to go point by point.

Yakumo:

I'm glad you brought up Bowling for Columbine and especially the Charlton Heston part. That is a perfect example to show how Michael Moore only shows what he wants. Yes it is true the only a few days after the Columbine Massacre the NRA held their yearly convention in Denver. Sounds truly unsympathetic. What Michael Moore doesn’t tell you is the NRA drastically cut back on the convention but by law they could not stop it. The NRA is set up much like a corporation. Every year much like at an annual stockholders meeting they must elect a board of directors. By law they must set a date for this election and announce it in newspapers for all members to see. They had already announced it and therefore could not postpone the meeting or change the place. Michael Moore left that little part out though because it didn't fit with his view.

Greatsaintlouis:

I think you get the basic jist but there are comments you made that I disagree with. First off is that you think people should only have guns for hunting/target shooting and that no one should have military or guns that are called assault weapons.
First some history on Military weapons by which I assume you mean fully automatic weapons. Yes it is possible to own full auto weapons in the US. In order for a regular person to legally do this though you must go through a full FBI background check. Not the normal check when buying a regular rifle. You must also submit it the BATF (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms) Two passport ID's and be fingerprinted. Finally you need to get permission form your local CLEO (Chief Law Enforcement Officer) and pay a $200.00 transfer tax. This whole process takes from six months to a year. I should also note that no machineguns made after 1986 can be transferred to individuals so the prices for these guns range from $3000.00 all the way up to $500,000.00 effectively pricing them out of criminal hands and making them valuable collectors items. I also want to say that the last known legally owned machinegun used to kill a person was in the early eighties and was committed by a police officer no less.

As for assault weapons there really is no such thing. A Beretta 92 handgun has magazines that can hold the exact same number of rounds of the same power as either a Tec-9 or an Uzi. It is just as deadly not to mention easier to conceal. The only difference is the Uzi and Tec-9 look more sinister. The assault weapons ban basically outlaws how a gun looks by banning threaded barrels, folding stocks, and bayonets. It was just feel good legislation that did nothing. The FBI's own statistics say it has done nothing to reduce crime. Also I should note that less than 3% of guns that are considered assault weapons are used to kill police officers in the US. Now the death of any police officer is tragic but they are not being gunned downed in the streets every night by these weapons as some would have you believe. A police officer is far more likely to be killed by his own gun then by an assault gun. Finally since you specifically mention hunting and target shooting did you know that two of the most popular guns in competitive target shooting are the 1911 handgun and AR-15 (semi auto M-16) rifle. Both military weapons and that the 30-06, .308, and .223 round most used by hunters all started out as military rounds?

Now on to your comments about the NRA. Yes I know at time the NRA seems way out there (like I probably seem by now) but unfortunately they have to be. If ever the slippery slope applied to a group of rights the second amendment tops the list. The people in this country who are heading the charge for common sense gun laws in this country don't really want common sense laws. They want to ban all guns period. All you do is check out their websites and read public statement by them to see this. Here is a quote by Diane Feinstein one of the authors of assault weapons ban.

"US Senator, If I could have banned them all - 'Mr. and Mrs. America turn in your guns' - I would have!" (Statement on TV program 60 Minutes, Feb 5 1995)

That sums up why the NRA has to act the way it does. There is no middle ground with these people. There is only the first step the next step and the final step. All they are trying to do with their common sense laws is get a foot in the door in order to get the rest. The only thing stopping them is the Second Amendment and the NRA. I really would like you to look up what has happened in Australia, Canada, and the United Kingdom and their firearms rights. They had neither the Second Amendment or a strong lobby like the NRA and their rights are either gone or rapidly approaching that point. It started the same way in all those countries as well. Take a little at a time in the name of safety or common sense so the people won't notice by the time it's too late. You don't think they had the same in mind here when they enacted the assault weapons ban. Those were the same guns that were banned first in all the other countries.

Silverbolt:

It seems like the only place you are getting your facts from is Bowling for Columbine. If that is the case then I suggest you take a look at this website.

http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html

As for your statement that "Try finding that in amerca, most americans are soooo scared and paranoid thanks to the media that they will use their guns and end up (accidentely) killing people." is just asinine. Do you realize that by saying that you are buying into the exact same media that you claim is making us paranoid. Have you ever been here? I think Greatsaintlouis and others that live or have visited here would agree that you can just about anywhere in this country and not be scared in the least. Sure there are some bad neighborhoods here but I'm guessing there are some places in your country where you wouldn't want to be caught at night either. As for your comments about locking our doors (which just seems like common sense to me) sure most Americans do. But that doesn’t mean we're going to start firing through the door if you knock on it.

With regards to your comments that "Why do americans need the right to carry a gun what the hell does the average american need it for.
If your a farmer or a cop or a soldier i can understand it but if you don't need a gun for your work/profession then you shouldn't be alllowed to have one. " do you really think only certain people should have right to protect themselves? I hope you are never in a position where you need the police to save you because that rarely happens. Police are for the most part a reactive force and not a proactive one. In the end it is up to you to protect yourself. Did you know that in every place in the US where CCW (Concealed Carry Weapon) permits are allowed crime has always dropped afterwards. The flipside is true for places that have the most restrictions on guns here. Crime is also higher. Criminals aren't that stupid. They're going to go after the easy prey. They also have the benefit of not having to follow the law like the rest of us.

Whew. I'm been writing this for a while no but I'm looking forward to the replies.

 

yes a. snow michael more is a fake.... he lies and fakes scenes....

 

Besides. That right is there for us just incase the government becomes too tyrannical and starts to take away our rights. Once people see that the government is starting to become way to bossy to where we can't change it peacefully, then these militias up in michigan, Tennessee, Kentucky, and almost every state will take up arms and get rid of the current government. We will have another civil war. That's why that right is there, so that we can prepare ourselves incase something like that happens. I doubt it will in our lifetime.

The thing is though, that right is there for people who live in the countries and good people living in the cities who want to protect their children and home.

Might I add proof that a national gun control law won't work. Washington DC has the most strictest gun laws in America, however, it ranks the highest in homicides with guns. Why? Because the criminals are going next door to Virginia which has very lax gun laws and buy them there or steal them. Now if a national gun law was enacted. It would be like Prohibition back in the 1920s. Criminals and people who need them for constructive use will have to smuggle them in from places like Mexico or Canada.

 

Okay here goes:

It seems like the only place you are getting your facts from is Bowling for Columbine. If that is the case then I suggest you take a look at this website.

http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html


No this is not my only source of information, and i'll admin michael moore isn't perfect but he does raise some valid points about the gun laws in america.

As for your statement that "Try finding that in amerca, most americans are soooo scared and paranoid thanks to the media that they will use their guns and end up (accidentely) killing people." is just asinine. Do you realize that by saying that you are buying into the exact same media that you claim is making us paranoid. Have you ever been here? I think Greatsaintlouis and others that live or have visited here would agree that you can just about anywhere in this country and not be scared in the least. Sure there are some bad neighborhoods here but I'm guessing there are some places in your country where you wouldn't want to be caught at night either. As for your comments about locking our doors (which just seems like common sense to me) sure most Americans do. But that doesn’t mean we're going to start firing through the door if you knock on it.

I'm not talking about individual paranoia, americans have generaly been getting more and more scared of eachother and especially of non-amricans and muslims after 9-11, the ammount of rascism aggainst these people has rissin out of pure fear due to the media.

And no i have not been in America yet , although i hope to someday come and visit the counrty, that is if the totaly insaine and paranoid customs will ever let me in, searching me and taking away my dangerous tooth brush or nail clipper because i might try to take over an airplane (starting to get my point on paranoia yet ? ).

With regards to your comments that "Why do americans need the right to carry a gun what the hell does the average american need it for.
If your a farmer or a cop or a soldier i can understand it but if you don't need a gun for your work/profession then you shouldn't be alllowed to have one. " do you really think only certain people should have right to protect themselves? I hope you are never in a position where you need the police to save you because that rarely happens. Police are for the most part a reactive force and not a proactive one. In the end it is up to you to protect yourself. Did you know that in every place in the US where CCW (Concealed Carry Weapon) permits are allowed crime has always dropped afterwards. The flipside is true for places that have the most restrictions on guns here. Crime is also higher. Criminals aren't that stupid. They're going to go after the easy prey. They also have the benefit of not having to follow the law like the rest of us.

Whew. I'm been writing this for a while no but I'm looking forward to the replies


Why should you need a gun to protect yourself, are things there really so bad that you live in constant fear of your life or something like that because that seems to me the only thing you would need a gun for.

And as for the police, maybe it's time the american police changes their tactics to prevention instead of intervention , that might help solve some of the problems ?

And say someone breaks into your house and you shoot them, do you go free after murdering another person when he has burgled your house ?
Here in holland you'd go right to jail for 8-10 years because such an ammount of force is in no way called for and is considered as murder.

Here in holland we have verry strickt gun laws and as a consequence have only 20-30 gun related deaths every years on a population of 16 million people, now thats say as many people as the state of new york that has to my knowlidge a far far higher death count by fire arms per year, now could that be the result of your gun laws ?

 

Well, frankly, I dont think thats something to be proud of, rather the contrary! Dutch law (and in other European countries) gives people almost no rights to self defense. Even if someone runs at you with an axe, you're not allowed to kill him with a gun as that is considered "disproportional violence" :Hangman:

Another example from Belgium, robberies on jewelers were increasing in frequency and amount of violence, even to the point that two criminals walked into a busy shopping street in broad daylight and started breaking into the storefront with sledgehammers!
So one day a few robbers storm into a jewelers store. The jeweler, however, takes a gun and kills one - and then gets arrested for murder despite of massive protests :Hangman:

 

Well, frankly, I dont think thats something to be proud of, rather the contrary! Dutch law (and in other European countries) gives people almost no rights to self defense. Even if someone runs at you with an axe, you're not allowed to kill him with a gun as that is considered "disproportional violence" :Hangman:

No in your axe swinging example you'd propaply not go to jail because your life was threatend and would be considered just self defence.

Another example from Belgium, robberies on jewelers were increasing in frequency and amount of violence, even to the point that two criminals walked into a busy shopping street in broad daylight and started breaking into the storefront with sledgehammers!
So one day a few robbers storm into a jewelers store. The jeweler, however, takes a gun and kills one - and then gets arrested for murder despite of massive protests


Same here, the jewlers life was not threatend merely his store, i admit in such a situation people can see this as life threatining but if he'd let them get away he would have been unharmed and his store re-embersed through his ensurance, so killing them was unnesissairy unless they pulled a gun on him and started shooting at him.

 

Patriot Act

Personally I find it amussing how many Americans freak out every time somone proposes restrictions on guns but no one bats an eye when a piece of legislation like the Partiot Act is put in place. The level of racial profiling has gotten out of hand. When I had to go through customs in the US after coming back from Egypt. It took them over 30 minutes to go through each Middle Eastern person but it only too about 10 with me and my family.

 

Once again you seem to be buying into the same media that you say we are. Americans have not been getting more raciest and paranoid. If acts of racism against Muslims have risen which is unfortunately not out of the realm of possibility then it isn't because more Americans are raciest but because the few assholes that were raciest to begin with are using current events like the recent beheading of an American contractor to show just how big a group of assholes they are.

As for customs I'll agree with you about tooth brush and nail clippers part but the searching of people. I'd rather go through the inconvenience of being searched than have another plane go into a building. if you think US is are bad than take a look at the Israeli’s. You know what though. They've never had a terrorist incident involving their planes.

No things are not that and don't live in constant fear of my life. I also believe that it is better to have and not need than need and not have.

Police here try to prevent as much crime here as possible but they are not mind readers and they can't protect all the people all the time. I'm sure there is crime in Holland as well. Police will always be reactive first and proactive second.

This is really too vague a scenario and also depends on where you live here as well since state law varies. Generally though in the US justifiable homicide is only allowed if you feel you are in "imminent danger" for your life. If the person that broke in my house was armed and was threatening me or my family I would probably get off if I killed him. Rightly so as well. The same if he were unarmed and started attacking me. If he was trying to escape though and I shot him as he was going out the window or chased him down after there was no longer a threat to my life the nine times out of ten I'd be going to jail.

 

Trust me Metal_4evr that there are many people myself included that are worried about the Patroit Act. It is set to expire this year and both sides are gearing up for a big fight.

 

I love living in America after reading the last few posts above me. Your countries may be 'democratic' but its actually a Unitary Democracy which is close to socialism which abstains such self-defense rights from their people.

Sucks to live over there I guess. Looks like the criminals have more rights over there than here. We kill our criminals, I don't know about you guys.

 

I think guns are shit, but I also think gun control won't work. I also think that marijuana control doesn't work, and that bitching about one but not the other is just hypochrisy.

"Guns don't kill people, people kill people." "Drugs don't do people, people do drugs". If it's someone's choice to carry a gun, it should be their choice to take a harmful substance... or in this case, an extremely benign substance compared to the other legal drugs (tobacco and alcohol). On the contrary actually, it's easy to kill someone with a gun. It's impossible to kill someone with a joint alone.

Just my thoughts. I'm sure it'll offend someone.

 

Now come on... I think you have been listening to the anti-socialism propaganda a bit too much... dont get me wrong I dont like socialism but I think linking gun control to lack of democracy is way out of line. We have a parliament as well as you do, sadly (imho) we still have a royal house but its powers of government are next to nothing. Personally, I think your bipartisan system comes closer to a lack of democracy, but maybe that's just me

(and yes, before anyone thinks I hate the US, I am an American citizen myself, I love the country but I got fed up a bit with its government, some of its people and some of its way of life as of late)

 

Seems your not too smart then... how many states actually carry out capital punishment?

 

Nationalism

Nationalism is the worst disease on this planet...

 

Re: Nationalism

Now thats something i can totlay agree on :smt023

 

My state still zaps its criminals. I know a lot of states are aboloshing capital punishment but I know that Texas will never get rid of it. I think there are 3 states, including FL and TX that carry out capital punishment. I could be wrong, there could be more.

 

Thirty-Eight states allow for the execution of criminals for certain offenses. Capitol punishment charges can also be brought at the federal level.

 

Not to be an asshole, but it's kinda true. Just like having a CDR makes you a potential pirate. If there aren't any guns, then nobody gets shot. I appreciate the "reality" factor - guns are always going to be there, but if they're illegal in the first place then there's going to be less of them. Less guns = less gun deaths.

That's because cars have a productive use beyond destruction, they transport from A to B. Death is an incidental and unfortunate accident with a car. Guns are made with one purpose: killing something. I find it harder to defend the latter purpose. And for the record, I'm pretty fucking certain it's the gun that actually does the killing. If I get into a drunken fight on a friday night here in the UK, I'll get a kicking. If I did the same in the US I risk being shot. The equation is the same except that there's a gun, and it kills me.

I'm sure all the pro-gun people have assumed by now that I'm entirely pro-restriction on this matter (if indeed they're still reading). Let me clarify: As far as I'm concerned, if you want to own a rifle for hunting, and it's actually for food, then go for it, I suppose. I just don't see why anyone needs pistols or automatic weaponry. They don't exist to hunt, or to do anything productive other than kill other people. I see no purpose for such things - if all they do is defend against other similarly-armed individuals, surely it would be better to remove them from the equation, as far as possible?

Yeah. You want to see a real restriction on civil liberty, check out the planned Patriot Act 2. I'm sick of seeing pro-gun Americans complain that they need be able to make sure they can defend themselves against their government if it goes crazy and starts infringing their freedoms, but then not to do anything about it when they blatantly do just that.

I don't like what Michael Moore did in that film, but just because he embelished a few facts doesn't mean that the entire documentary is one big lie. That's just dumb. There's a large amount of truth in there, but some people seem solely interested in the faults of the film. Makes it easier to forget the truth I guess.