Registration Failure
All kidding aside, what’s going on in Connecticut is pretty interesting. In the wake of Sandy Hook, a bunch of scum-sucking, bottom-feeding lawmakers passed a law that basically boils down to: You have to register your rifles if they look scary.
Lo and behold: the populace straight up refused to register, for the most part. Doing so makes them felons. Again, because it bears repeating, it’s estimated that over 348,000 Connecticut residents own AR-15s and AKs, and other “military-style, semi-automatic rifles”. Fewer than 50,000 obeyed this new law and registered. That means there are now close to 300,000 brand new felons in the state.
Yeah.
I am utterly opposed to this kind of belligerent legislation, and to those three hundred thousand citizens, I say: Good on ya. Fuck the po-lice. They can’t take all of you. Stand strong. To the 50K who pussied out and registered? Fuck you. You are part of the problem. Worldwide, in the last 50 years, it’s been proven in various countries that registration of this sort leads to confiscation. Point blank. One need only look at Canada and Australia on that. It is none of any American Governmental Body’s business which guns you own, or how many. That’s right there in the Constitution. I’ve said before, here in the comic, and in real life: Obama is not going to come for your guns. Your state and local government will. They are the biggest threats to the 2nd Amendment. Don’t believe me? The Federal AWB Mark 2 was dead in the water in Obama’s presidency – but California and other states and cities have no problem stomping on your right to bear arms. Watch your state and local gov’t. They’ll be the ones to bend you over a dirty trash can and fuck you.
Texas ain’t perfect, but I do love living here. Bullshit like this will not fly here. Closest we have is a ban on open carry.
In other news, I just found this band, and hooooooo nellie, I like ’em.
ADD: I don’t often engage the anti-gun fuckers, but this guy does it damned well.
To right about Australia Mate. Only up side is that we can have ours shorter (as long as it’s over 75cm it’s a rifle/shotgun, check local laws for more info) but anything semi auto is all but illegal. Our mates across the trench (New Zealand) are basically given suppressors (A good 75-90% of rifles i saw over there in gun shops were silenced) but for us it’s the same, if not worse, than semis. Pistols take at least 1 month of paperwork to get one, and at least 12 months of BS regarding Licencing and clubs. 9mm/38 is the max unless you have an exemption which lets you go up to .45. Can’t have a rimfire and 9mm pistol at the same time for the first 12 months, but you can have an air pistol and either (common thing to do is to get a 9mm/357 and an air pistol [or a 22lr conversion, not seen as a 22 if you convert it in QLD at least]. Air rifles need to be licenced, same as paintball (same licence as a 22) and Airsoft has almost no importation (milsim with airsoft is seen as a war game). At least 1 month+ of paperwork for a rim-fire/center-fire rifle licence.
This has all come to be mostly because of one massacre which occurred under the rule of a Prime Minister who let his emotions get in the way. Months before Port Arthur happened our ex-PM was on the radio and said “I hate guns, i don’t want Australia to be the US” (or close to that, it’s been a while) and not 1 week after Port Arthur he was pushing the current laws (minus some pistol stuff that came along in 2003 after another shooting) when the rest of the Gov was negotiating with the massive gun organisations about laws that made sense (as much as gun laws can make sense).
A similar incident is the reason why we can’t import Utes (pickup trucks) over 2 tonne unloaded anymore. This same PM’s sister was killed in an accident with one and later they were banned for import. This lead to a national change in how our Ambulances were made, as they were once made on the F series chassis, now they convert Mercedes Vans for the job.
Sorry for the wall of text, but this is only the tip of the iceburg.
Also as apart of our constitution the Federal Gov couldn’t do this themselves, only the states could. He apparently pressured the states (through funding or project approvals) into the system we have today. There are a couple of political parties that are trying to change this slowly but the 2 party preferred system kicks their ass, along with the impression put on by the media and the history of the party leaders themselves makeing them look like nutters. One of the major parties in trying to change this is lead by (as many call him) Bod ‘Mad Hatter’ Katter (because he seems weird and iis always wearing an Akubra).
Down here in Tasmania (where the Port Arthur shooting occurred by a very mentally unbalanced man with a history of violence) we used to have the most lax laws with the ability to own and actually use (getting harder almost every day to find somewhere to shoot that’s not a range) semi auto rifles, shotguns etc.
Now though even paintball guns are illegal.
Same with QLD on the Auto rifles. in fact QLD and Tas were the last states that let you have autos. Then port Arthur happened.
I meant full autos when I said Autos
“These high-action militaries with big clips?” What the ****?
“Did we have some attacks by grenade launchers in the United States while I wasn’t looking?” Heh.
That video is the right way to talk to anti-gunners.
That video reminded me of this song: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PScmRiaZhwk
That lil’ debate up there was great. It is nice to see people who don’t come off as a little crazy defending guns, besides which that guy was talking out of his ass.
He is getting all of the respect of anyone that wears a pink shirt and tie to work deserves.
As a man who has both pink shirts and ties in his wardrobe, I’m forced to conclude that you lack the proper stones for pink clothing.
Huh. I guess “law-abiding gun owner” doesn’t mean what I thought it did. I don’t like this kind of law either (not that it is actually unconstitutional, mind you), but ignoring it simply gives them not only a reason but JUSTIFICATION to go further. But it must be nice to be allowed to decide that some laws don’t apply to you.
You may now return to your echo chamber.
Passing a law that turns a law-abiding gun owner into a non-law-abiding gun owner is to cause an arbitrary problem. This is a manufactured crime.
No to mention that its an extreme stretch to consider the refusal to sign a piece of paper a felonious act.
There has been quite a bit of stretching over the term “felony” in the US overall. At one point (long ago), a violent crime was a felony and a non-violent crime was a misdemeanor. This is where the idea came from to prohibit firearms ownership by felons; if somebody has already committed murder, it’s intuitive that you don’t want them to have a gun to do it with again. Similarly, many countries will deny entry to convicted felons; again, it’s intuitive that you’d prefer to keep a murderer out of your country.
However, over time, we have applied “felony” to a progressively wider range of crimes; fraud, for example. This has led to some interesting consequences. If you forge a check, or intentionally write a bogus check, you can lose your right to bear arms. Martha Stewart infamously became a felon ten years ago for insider trading, and, as a convicted felon, was subsequently denied entry into Canada. (She’d also be unable to own or carry a firearm; I can’t picture her having done so even before her conviction, though.)
Note, by the way, that by refusing to admit to owning a specific gun in Connecticut, you potentially could lose your right to own any guns. Hell of a catch, there.
“Martha Stewart infamously became a felon ten years ago for insider trading.”
No, Martha was convicted for making a false statement to a Federal officer. Note the word “lying” isn’t in that sentence. She was convicted for not telling the truth about something that wasn’t a crime (they never got a conviction on the insider trading.)
“After a highly publicized six-week jury trial, Stewart was found guilty in March 2004 of conspiracy, obstruction of an agency proceeding, and making false statements to federal investigators,” from the Martha Stewart Wikipedia page. (The ImClone page says she was convicted of lying, but “making false statements” does not necessarily have to mean lying per se.)
True, I glossed over details regarding exactly what she was convicted for. The point was that the felony had nothing to do with a violent crime.
It’s called ex post facto criminals. They turned people into criminals who were law abiding citizens when they purchased their firearms.
Well said.
Oh and please tell me you truly believe you would never ignore a law you believe to be unjust. Please? Because I would TOTALLY believe you.
That is ALWAYS where one references “get to the back of the bus”.
“it must be nice to be allowed to decide that some laws don’t apply to you.”
Tell it to William Penn, Harriet Tubman, Jan Gies, and Rosa Parks. Or are you the kind of sheeple who would have turned in Anne Frank?
So you want to respect laws you feel are unjust because it’s “the law”? You’re a moron and a sheep, no better than Archibald, and the reason why some people really believe the nearly 300.000 people concerned by this law should actually be put in prison. Instead of, yknow. Considering a change of the law, since the wide majority of people refuse to comply with it.
“Law-abiding gun owner” is a joke. You are a gun owner, or you’re not, no matter your gear, and certain politicians would much prefer you had none at all. They would not be pushing this kind of law otherwise.
Anyone have a non liveleak link to that video? Job doesn’t like liveleak, blocked, and I don’t wanna wait 14 hours before I get home to watch it 🙁
Here’s the interview on YouTube: http://youtu.be/Uo9BbB6rBx0 It’s actually a little longer recording. I hope that helps. 🙂
WVCDL is one of the .orgs inspired by the Virginia Citizens Defense League, the first of those groups. I learned about VCDL when I was in line to get my VA CHL on the day that the law changed to shall-issue. Fairfax County was trying to make us jump through a bunch of hoops, beyond what the law allowed. These guys were walking up and down the line, pointing out all the stuff the cops weren’t allowed to ask us. I joined within the next year or so.
Once again proving that if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns. No… wait…
By definition, this is absolutely true, in the case of CT. They just made hundreds of thousands of otherwise law abiding citizens into felons. Keep an eye on this one – it’s gonna get REALLY interesting. CT is going to be a legal battleground state.
Hey folks
*braces herself for the inevitable backlash*
Has it occurred to anyone that that is possible to have sensible gun control WITHOUT confiscating your guns? I realise this seems like absolute insanity, and I’m sure plenty of people will jump on the opportunity to tell me I have no idea what I’m talking about, but bear with me for just a little bit.
First, I am NOT anti-gun! I grew up in rural Iowa in a family that went hunting every day of open season. I have fond memories of my father teaching me how to shoot and endless afternoons of target shooting with my brothers (which I normally win, by the way). So this is in NO WAY an anti-gun rant. I love shooting, I love hunting, and I see no reason why responsible people should be denied the ability to do those things.
Having said that, you cannot deny that the gun crime rate in the US is VASTLY higher than any other developed nation. As a prime example, in the UK (where I currently live and intend to stay until the US government decides to stay out of my crotch) the annual gun homicide rate is 0.07 per 100,000 people while in the US it is 3…. let that sink in, that’s nearly 40 TIMES as many homicides A YEAR, the vast majority of which in the US are caused by handguns (nearly 70%). And believe me, the UK is not a gun-free country. People here love to go shooting and hunting (hell, there are a dozen gun clubs within a 20 mile radius of my house) and while there are requirements to get a license for a gun, they are by no means impossible. For those unfamiliar with the UK system, let me lay out the basics:
1. You have to have a clean criminal record for the last 5 years
2. You have to have no medical conditions (physical or mental) that would impair your ability to safely operate a gun
3. You have to demonstrate that you have a safe place to store both the guns and the ammunition
4. Handguns and semi-auto/assault weapons can only be purchased with a special collector’s license
Now, before anyone starts crying out “But criminals don’t obey the laws”, let me point out that since responsible citizens and gun shop owners DO obey the laws here, restricted weapons are very difficult to come by in this country even by legitimate means. I have heard the argument “but I need a handgun to defend me home/loved ones/etc” – really? you can’t defend your home with a rifle or shotgun? (also remember the intruder won’t have a handgun either). I also hear a lot of folk saying “but it’s our right to carry guns, and we need military-grade weapons to defend ourselves if the government tries to subdue us” – again, let’s consider the full weight of that possibility. If the US government wanted to subdue its citizens, do you really think they would be sending in soldiers on the ground? No, if they have any brains whatsoever (and I realise that’s a stretch) they’d go for bomb drops and off-shore missiles until they’ve killed enough people to effectively beat you into submission or eradicate you. Your AK ain’t gonna do much about that, sorry.
So to summarize, while I love hunting and shooting, I don’t think there is anything wrong with bringing in sensible gun control regulations that aim to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the exceptionally maladjusted while still allowing the responsible gun owners the freedom to enjoy the sports and activities they love. We shouldn’t be butting heads on this and viewing it as a simple pro-gun/anti-gun matter. We should be working together to actually INCREASE understanding of the shooting culture we love while at the same time promoting responsibility and sensible control measures. There is a way to move forward, but like most matters in politics (particularly in the US) people on both sides need to put away their prejudices and actually listen to eachother.
I appreciate the irony of using a gif of Jim Carrey in this discussion.
Grant, I fucking love you, man.
AS HOMO AS I CAN POSSIBLY GET.
Mongst some of my friends, we’ve taken to saying “No Hetero” when appropriate.
I have to wonder: did you literally just look up a list of anti-gun cliches and copy/paste them?
If not, are you aware that every single argument – every one of them – that you made, is something that we’ve heard over and over, and they’re mostly fallacial arguments?
I mean, it’s going to be interesting to see which NEW forms of responding to you will crop up this particular go-round, but you really are repeating a bunch of tired, broken rhetoric that doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.
Nothing you just mentioned would have stopped Sandy Hook (just as one example).
“First, I am NOT anti-gun!” Then why do you feel the need to qualify your opinion multiple times in such a way?
“If the US government wanted to subdue its citizens […] they’d go for bomb drops and off-shore missiles until they’ve killed enough people to effectively beat you into submission” No, they wouldn’t, that would be an extremely stupid move. Your use of hyperbole appears to be an attempt to marginalize people who don’t want your model of gun control.
It appears I was correct, and that sensible discussion of the topic is not something that is going to be possible on this particular forum. Obviously you did not pay attention to the fact that I enjoy gun sports and have no wish to see them disappear. The gun statistics are fact, not rhetoric, there is a distinct difference. Until you have seen first hand how other systems work (or don’t work, in the case of some) then you should not be so quick to dismiss them as inevitable failures. But obviously you prefer to paint me with the same brush as the anti-gun nuts who actually DO want to take away our rifles rather than admit that there may be a middle ground somewhere,so I fear this discussion, and the problem in general, will not go far.
1. You are a Fudd. You are okay with the guns YOU like, but not anyone else’s. You think gun rights for hunting and sporting are cool, but ignore the true spirit of the 2A – I already did a comic making fun of this point of view. Yes, your argument is literally so cliche that there already exists a derogatory term for it. You “are not anti-gun”, you’re just anti-MY guns. Good call.
2. Of the 313,000,000 people in the USA, and 14,000,000 who die annually, an average of 11,000 of those are from firearms crime. I don’t really give a damn if you think that’s a high number – I don’t, because I have the ability to do math.
14,000,000
-11,000
__________
13,989,000 people dead annually who weren’t shot by guns. Wow. That means you are 1200x more likely to die of another cause, such as heart disease, drunk driving, medical overdose, cancer, etc.
Oh, but firearms are definitely the problem and we should all be terrified of guns. We should regulate them now, because we’re a bunch of scared-assed pussies who think the government will save us. Black rifles are scary!
[edit]It should be noted that the violent crime rate, for over a decade, has been steadily falling in the USA. But we should still be scared to death that we’re all gonna die because of scary ol’ AK-47 rifles.
3. Who the fuck are you to tell me I can’t defend my home with a .357 mag handgun?
4. Your entire argument about overthrowing a government is based on the supposition that the military will fire on the population of the USA. I’m sure plenty of service members here, both active duty, and previously so, will tell you just how much they love your view of them as evil fucks who would kill innocent civilians if they were ordered to. And yes, revolutions against corrupt governments happen all the time where the populace is armed with only AKs and pistols. Libya springs to mind.
You are NOT pro-gun. You are ANTI-2nd Amendment, and ANTI-civilian ownership of firearms – you say so yourself. At best, you’re deluding yourself into thinking you’re pro-gun, and at worst, you’re lying in an attempt to get us to agree with gun control.
And yes, you are repeating nonsense that has been brought up here so many times that typing this was boring as hell.
Hell look at what is happening in the ukraine right now, those guys seemed to do pretty good with improvised weapons, see where they immobilized the armored personnel carry with Molotov cocktails?
Bear in mind that’s what Molotov cocktails were originally designed to do to early-WWII tanks. A modern APC should be able to resist that sort of attack, but there are obviously cases where it might not.
BMP-1s sure as hell have trouble resisting anything; they’re known “death traps”, I recall a Russian joke about them being something along the lines of “caskets on wheels”, or something similar. Aren’t these things still in service in the Russian military?
Russia replaced them with BMP-2, though BMP-1 is still in use in countries like Syria.
Ukraine is calling out to get their own form of the Second Amendment.
No mention of the fact that the vast majority of people killing each other with guns in the US are already criminals? If you don’t know gang-bangers or the mafia, you’re probably never going to even know anyone who was involved in a gun death. I can’t find the figures but when you factor out gang members and the like, the US violent crime rate is much closer to the rest of the first world.
Wow….swearing and name calling…..feel better now? Because hey, I’ve never heard those statements before, I’m just a fudd who’s afraid of this gun I’ve been carrying around since I was 4 years old. I’m just the whining sack of shit that values human life and would rather see a few hundred gun deaths than a few thousand. And I’m definitely the kind of weak pussy who prefers defend herself with a pair of ironwood rods. You sleep soundly at night knowing that you can use your handgun to defend yourself and your family against intruders, long may it bring you peaceful dreams. As for me, I’ll sleep peacefully knowing the intruder coming into my house ISN’T carrying a gun and I get the pleasure of beating the living tar out of them before I even consider handing them over to the police (assuming my other half doesn’t get to them first). Cheers!
> I’m just a fudd who’s afraid of this gun I’ve been carrying around since I was 4 years old.
You sure as hell ain’t carrying it in the UK.
> I’m just the whining sack of shit that values human life
Insinuating that I don’t value human life.
> And I’m definitely the kind of weak pussy who prefers defend herself with a pair of ironwood rods.
You go ahead and bring your sticks, I’ll bring that there .357 magnum pistol you find so awful, and we’ll see who wins.
> You sleep soundly at night knowing that you can use your handgun to defend yourself and your family against intruders,
I do!
> As for me, I’ll sleep peacefully knowing the intruder coming into my house ISN’T carrying a gun
You hope.
> and I get the pleasure of beating the living tar out of them before I even consider handing them over to the police
Actually, in the UK? That’ll get you a prison sentence. Right there with the intruder. They have laws against excessive force.
If you want to keep dancing around, feel free. But keep in mind: we’re laughing at you. Not with. At.
10.000 gun deaths a year, half of which are suicides, is not what I call a problem in a country with a population of 300 million give or take. Get over it. You’re trying to preach an opinion and speeches that we see as patently false (which they are, but it’s the side you defend so I don’t expect you to have an epiphany), on a majoritarily pro-gun website frequented and commented almost exclusively by people who are pro-gun.
I’m sorry but what the hell did you expect, other than being seen as a misguided idiot? You’re treading in the mud thinking it was going to be a paved road.
“As for me, I’ll sleep peacefully knowing the intruder coming into my house ISN’T carrying a gun ”
How can you POSSIBLY “know” that???
He/she’s an intruder. Already breaking the law, big-time. But, said hypothetical intruder is law-abiding and fastidious enough to refrain from illegally obtained firearms?
*sputters, not knowing whether to guffaw or scream*
*chokes, dies*
(ANOTHER death caused by the absence of a gun!)
Grant, it’s 11000 gun deaths overall. Not just from crime. Suicide accounts for half of that if I recall correctly my readings of the FBI stat numbers.
3. Who the fuck are you to tell me I can’t defend my home with a .357 mag handgun?
Your Honour, my client, Mr Beelzebub, wishes to draw the court’s attention to the following comic, scripted by Mr J Grant.
http://ftf-comics.com/?comic=484
I know there’s a world of difference between “won’t reliably immediately stop a 250lb arsehole with one shot” and “can’t be used to defend a home,” but damn it this is such a pretty bonfire I wanted to throw on a box of fireworks (kerosene’s for amateurs).
Fine, let’s be sensible. You cited the “gun homicide” rates are .7 in the UK and 3 in the US. Let’s look at that a little further. There are approximately 290 million guns in the US and approximately 4 million guns in the UK (per the Gun Policy Center). Then let’s look at population, approx 311.6 million in the US and 62.7 million in the UK. That gives us approximately 93,000 guns per 100,000 in the US and 6,500 per 100,000 in the UK. Pretty stark difference right? Now that both statistics are per 100,000 – let’s look at what that means. In the US there are .000032 homicides per gun and in the UK there are .00011 homicides per gun. That seems to mean a gun is actually more likely to be used in a homicide in the UK than in the US – 3 times more likely. So what is the right answer? Do those gun control laws actually make one safer and less likely to be killed by a gun?
I would also like to point out your “40 TIMES as many homicide” is not correct. It is actually 4 times as many which is, coincidentally, approximately the same relationship between OVERALL homicides per 100,000 between the US and UK.
I stand corrected – you cited .07 per 100k which does make it 40 times as many. Changes the conclusion in my calculations to “just as likely to be killed by a gun in the US as the UK”.
Feeling obliged to comment on this one. A gun being more likely to be used in a murder would not mean a person was more likely to be murdered. For the same population size, if there was only one gun and it was used in 1 murder every year, that’d be a pretty low rate of gun murders per head of population relative to a million guns each used in an average of 0.0001 murders per year. It’s like comparing road traffic accident deaths per head of population per year or per hundred thousand kilometres. They’re not the same.
Woo. Lots to address here. I’m just going to touch on a few.
First, you note that the gun homicide rate is higher in the US than in the UK, and use that for your justification to limit firearms. You fail to note that the non-gun homicide rate in the US is higher than the TOTAL homicide rate in the UK. It seems to me that this shows that the high homicide rate in the US cannot be solely, or even primarily, attributed to guns, making efforts to restrict guns misdirected at best.
Second, even aside from jlgrant’s point about your worrisome perception of military ethics, you’re assuming that something that has never worked in any foreign war would somehow work in a domestic one. Iraq (twice) has needed troops on the ground. Afghanistan has needed troops on the ground. Vietnam needed troops on the ground. In all of those cases, the US and its allies have had nearly total air control and a significant advantage in armor, but this has not negated the need for infantry nor has it kept those infantry from being wounded or killed.
Third, you said, in response to regulations on handguns, “really? you can’t defend your home with a rifle or shotgun?” You previously had said, “Handguns and semi-auto/assault weapons can only be purchased with a special collector’s license”. The answer, based on both of those, is no, I can’t defend my home with a bolt-action rifle as well as I could with a pistol (whether revolver or semi-auto) or semi-auto rifle (“assault weapon” or not). You also neatly dodged the issue of defending yourself outside of your home. (Remember that high non-gun US homicide rate?)
The last thing I want to address is “sensible gun control”. That phrase (along with the term “compromise”) comes up over and over in gun debates. What it usually translates to is “the current poorly-rationalized anti-gun proposal, which will inevitably fail to solve the problem, and which will lead to tighter controls that will also be called ‘sensible'”. In the US, we’ve heard that phrase enough times to be very wary of anybody using it.
No, you weren’t correct. You came with the same tired old bullshit talking points that have been repeatedly slapped down by law, history, and personal experience, then sneeringly challenged your targets to be civil. Nobody stooped to name-calling or any other ad hominem; all of your examples are simply wrong and bear no relation to reality. You don’t like that, tough.
Have you ever considered that gun related homicide doesn’t matter as much as homicide in general? Because I guarantee you those people would be just as murdered if they were killed with hammers as with handguns.
All other things aside, concider this. A military Joe is given an order to go against the law and turn a country into a Military Junta Dictatorship of Doom!!!
Now, when is he most likely to _comply_ with this order and turn his own country into another North Korea?
1: When there is no civilian firearms and thus littel to no chance of a civilan uproar and armed resistance?
2: When there is a well armed civilian populace with a high chance of uproar and armed resistance?
That is the first and most important defence an armed populace gives. For those who think that “Hey, we might be able to set us up as kings, we have this realy advanced army of hundreds of thousands of men with tanks and planes and stuff.” also having to think “Yeah… but they have an army of everyone else. And they got guns that are almost as good as ours.”
Lil-Red-Devil Said:
“>> 4. Handguns and semi-auto/assault weapons can only be purchased with a special collector’s license”
That’s *almost* totally wrong!
(I wish it were totally wrong, just so I could say so, but you’ve misinterpreted a small derogation in the law as being for the owners personal pleasure not a business need, rather than state an outright fabrication)
“Section Five Authority” can be granted by The Home Office (i.e. by central Government) to a corporation if there is a genuine need to use a firearm that is in a category now banned from sporting use (e.g. Pistols and self-loading centre-fire rifles).
Three examples I can think of would be:
1) An instrument of slaughter used to conduct a humane kill on trapped vermin,
2) A veterinarian culling lamed horses.
3) A media armourer company who supplies working props to film and TV productions.
In all of these cases, the Authority is only granted to a company, with named users being listed on the certificate (even if the company is Bob Jones’ Vermin exterminators and the sole employee is Mr Bob Jones). I have never heard of Section Five Authority being granted to a private individual.
The only other matter that I can think you’re thinking of would be the Section-7 clause, which allowed a small number of very rare pistols to be kept by museums and similar for historical purposes. The vast majority of these licenses were granted only on the condition that these guns were not to be shot, often no ammunition (which is also controlled in this country) of its calibre can even be held in the same location.
A vanishingly tiny number of people, accredited as experts in historical firearms design, were given permission to continue shooting very old pistols “for historical research purposes” (I believe fewer than 100 exemptions were in total). However, the moment two of these experts
are on a range together and compare the scores they’ve just shot, they’re doing competitive target shooting, they are acting outside the permission they’ve been granted and are technically breaking the law.
These guys can’t even transfer these guns between themselves, or even will them to their heirs.
The 1997 Firearm Acts were drafted to abolish target pistol shooting as a competitive sport, in England, Wales and Scotland. It has succeeded.
There is no legislative mechanism for “I wanna own a modern pistol just ‘cos I’ve always wanted one, I’ll promise I’ll behave, honest! ”
Pre-emptively arming yourself with a firearm for self defence has been out since 1948.
Pepper-spray/Mace has been unlawful since 1920 owing to the wording of a post-WW1 chemical weapons ban. But, the Police write their own derogation to carry it.
Finally, I am trying to think of a location in the UK with enough population to support 20 shooting clubs, and the open space necessary to house them all, within a single 20 mile radius.
Yours,
Smiffy
British Citizen,
Licensed Slaughter-man
About as gun-nutty as you get on these shores.
“The only other matter that I can think you’re thinking of would be the Section-7 clause, which allowed a small number of very rare pistols to be kept by museums and similar for historical purposes. The vast majority of these licenses were granted only on the condition that these guns were not to be shot, often no ammunition (which is also controlled in this country) of its calibre can even be held in the same location.”
That is wrong. There is Section 7.3 and 7.1. One allows you to collect and have in your personal posession handguns manufactured before 1919 of a historical value. EG Mauser, Luger, 1911. The other one allows you to fire the gun but it has to be kept at a Section 7 approved range. I know several people (not corporations) who own these sort of handguns. They are not easy to get but not impossible.
“Sensible gun control” = “I’m an ignorant, statist little pussy who likes sucking government cock.”
Yes, I can make a rational argument, but first, you’d have to make a rational statement.
Just eat shit and die.
Hey Michael. Good to see you around. Love your blog, by the way!
“If the US government wanted to subdue its citizens, do you really think they would be sending in soldiers on the ground? No, if they have any brains whatsoever (and I realise that’s a stretch) they’d go for bomb drops and off-shore missiles until they’ve killed enough people to effectively beat you into submission or eradicate you. Your AK ain’t gonna do much about that, sorry.”
so how’s that war in Afghanistan working out, exactly?
you’re assuming we will go toe-to-toe with the US military..that’s not how this works. the military isn’t our enemy under the scenario you laid out..the leadership is. there aren’t enough cops to protect all of them..hell there isn’t enough military to protect all of them.
do you understand that is on;y 3% of US gun owners say HELL NO we outnumber every government trigger puller by at least 12 to 1? that’s counting everyone in uniform, from file clerks to SWAT team members and from yeoman to SEALs and everything in between.
poking a sleeping bear with a stick is something you might be able to get away with for a little while..but not forever.
Has it ever occurred to you to try and understand the meaning of “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED”?
SHALL.
NOT.
BE.
INFRINGED.
How many miles of land-border does the UK have with a nation renowned for its scofflaws? I ask because the US knows full well that it can’t keep anything out of the country that someone chooses to catapult over the southern fence.
That point stands separately from the recognition that removal of firearms doesn’t bother violent criminals: it provides a safe work environment. Thugs operated just fine for all of human history before firearms: it’s only SINCE they were popularized that some geriatric quickie mart clerk or your kid sister can stop a ‘roided up 275 lb thug.
That point ALSO stands separate from the note where 80% of our gun crimes occur where they’re already banned, so FOR AMERICANS, it would appear on its face that we haven’t got the respect for that law-set that Brits have. Note however that most of that violence is not due to the guns themselves, it’s due to a failing drug war. I hope to see new data within 5 years in places with legal marijuana showing solid drops in gang activity, similar to what happened when prohibition ended.
I live in the UK. You can get semi auto shotguns and 22 LR rifles. They are not “assault weapons”. I hate that term. They are Modern Sporting Rifles or Semi-auto rifles or shotguns.
The UK is a bad system for how gun ownership works. It takes ages to get a license, we can’t have handguns or centrefire rifles and we get treated like shit by the police who do the firearms licensing. Talk about the wolf in charge of the sheep (or in this case subjects) pen.
I think there are other countries in Europe who might not have as much freedom as the US when it comes to firearms ownership but have a much more sensible system. I think the UK should move towards that system with the end game being a system like in the USA.
Only if the people who registered registered all of their arms. If be willing to bet that a not insignificant number of CT residents that registered kept something off the books.
I know a few CT residents that registered a junker and hid the good ones, knowing that WHEN they confiscate they’ll still be able to fight, but they’ll be off the radar.
OOOOoooh, those crafty Connecticutians! 😀
I’m staying in Arizona. We have our issues and screwups, but guns are not among them. License? We don’ need no steenken license to carry, open or concealed! Registration? What’s that?
TBH, that’s pretty much the only reason I stay here. Seeing Arpiehole’s smug phiz on the TV, bragging about how he’s AMURRICA’S TUFFEST SHURF BY GOD, drives me into a foaming rage, but he’s OK with C&R, full auto (as long as it’s not them niggers or wetbacks trying to arm themselves). Our legislators and cops are shitheels, but I can own whatever I like and don’t have to deal with snow.
Registration leads to confiscation!
Right now in Canada, the RCMP reclassified the swiss classic green rifles as prohibited after 13 years of sales.
No compensation is being offered for these $3000-4000 rifles
About half of them are registered as restricted with short barrels, and half are no longer registered as the long gun registry was recently abolished, but you can bet that the government knows who the original purchasers are
let me get this straight.
1. Conn made a law that all gun owners need to register their guns.
2. Most gun owners refused to register their guns.
3. So when the government comes in to take “Contraband” weapons that were not registered there is going to be outrage.
You know what I would do? Get with my gun club, have it all registered with them as a club, and keep them at home. Problem solved. You welcome to find out if i have registered guns on my property when you try to break in.
Why not register them?
What part of a “Well regulated Militia” do they not understand? Now granted in the SCOTUS District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) they said it meant “nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training.” But isn’t part of proper discipline being a law abiding citizen even if you do not agree with the law?
“But isn’t part of proper discipline being a law abiding citizen even if you do not agree with the law?” I’d expect that at least some of the Founding Fathers wouldn’t see it that way. Bear in mind that the War of Independence was fought by well-regulated lawbreakers.
The action you suggested wouldn’t help; according to the new law, you must specify the locations where you will possess the guns. Either you list them as being kept at home, or you’ve violated the statute just as much as if you hadn’t registered them in the first place (and now they have a pretty good idea of what you have and where you have them when they discover those guns aren’t at the club where you said they were). I strongly suspect that belief that you’re committing a felony by keeping contraband in your home is all the probable cause they need to show up with warrant in hand. (Note that, at that point, making them “break in” rather than opening the door for them is a class A misdemeanor, as if you weren’t in enough shit already).
Note: IANAL, this is just how I understand the statutes.
“Why not register them?”
WHY register them? What possible purpose does it serve for the state to have a list of who owns what, other than eventual confiscation?
There is NO other reason to register them. A registry will not reduce crime, will not solve murders, will not make us safer.
“What part of a “Well regulated Militia” do they not understand?”
The part that doesn’t exist that you think does.
Title 10, USC, Ch 13, Sec 311 defines the militia.
Come back when you have a fucking clue what you’re talking about, kthxbye
Does that mean that women who aren’t in the national guard aren’t allowed to own firearms, since they aren’t part of the militia? What about people who technically aren’t male or female?
Do a blood test, you’ll find out if they’re male or female. I bet you won’t find out “none of the above”.
Mm, yes, let’s just go redefine words used in the Constitution 116 years later. As a “clarification”, of course. Let’s do “speech” next, shall we?
(Note that I don’t object overmuch to this particular definition so much as I believe that the growth of relativism, pragmatic non-universality, and private language in the late 19th and early 20th centuries has more-or-less wrecked natural language for use in law)
So only those eligible for the national guard, and Defiantly not woman. k thx got that. That defines Militia, what about well regulated? I guess you ignored that part about the Supreme court ruling i mentioned in my previous post
maybe you need to get some more clues before you make yourself look like an idiot
“I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few public officials.” – George Mason
“ The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are –
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia. “
=> AND OF FEMALE CITIZENS <=, you blind fucking moron.
And in this context, "well-regulated" does NOT mean "under a strict set of rules (from the government)" because it directly contradicts the purpose of the militia, which is to keep the government in line. The unorganized militia's purpose is not to be at the beck and call of the government, much the contrary. It can only mean "marked by or adhering to method or system, a well regulated life." Or "Well-adjusted," like a clock. "Well-organized," like a clean desk.
In other words, "Well-regulated" does not mean "governed". It means "well-organized". It doesn't have to be the (government's) military to be well-organized, and oftentimes, armed militia (= armed population) are very good at keeping regular military at bay, which is exactly what they were made for. Or need I remind you about your own country's history?
To be well-regulated, all we have to do is to be armed, train often, and have no restrictions on what to use other than what cash, training, and time allow. Then when the time comes, we should be able to organize ourselves into units and defend what we can; ourselves, our homes, our towns or cities perhaps, our neighbors, each other. In the grand picture that's self-defense. That's what 2A is about. And once again, "Shall not be infringed".
We have the clues you think we don't, and I believe that the idiot, sir, is you.
I find it much simpler to point to the lack of government involvement in a scuba “regulator”. The militia is to be kept “regular” like fiber does for intestines. Not sketchy, and haphazard, but outfitted in a fashion which is normalized, or reasonably even, in regards to the armament of the standard armed forces.
Furthermore, I will add that the National Guard does not fulfill the idea of a militia anymore. And if push comes to shove… Women have fought before, they’ll fight, and nothing, nothing at all stops them to do so. We don’t need to be necessarily members of the National Guard.
And yet it says right there in the quoted section of the US Code that woman are not militia unless they are part of the national guard. Since the second amendment affirms the right to bear arms in the context of the militia, and not an outright right with no preconditions, the US Code therefore implies that all women who are not part of the national guard have no right to bear arms.
No, as the Supreme Court stated in the Heller decision, the 2nd amendment is an individual right and not tied to any militia, organized or unorganized. So any argument trying to separate woman from their gun rights is just an attempt to stir emotional responses not actual debate. Please go back to watching Piers Morgan, oh wait you can’t since he was fired.
This. So much this.
I have no idea who Piers Morgan is, I don’t live in America, I just read your law as written and went ‘what the hell’. If that’s not what it means then it should be rewritten clearly, not just rely on a court ruling to change its meaning. Law should be easily accessible, not contradictory with endless tacked on footnotes.
The part where we’re all the militia, then?
Every time I see someone quoting the death by firearm rate to the homicide rate between the US and UK I have to wince. Always it is the homicide rate in the US compared to the death by firearm rate in the UK. Apples and oranges as the homicide rate per 100,000 runs about the same.
Guy Smith makes a good point: http://www.guysmith.org/blog/2014/02/24/piers-plummet/
They will not be able to prevent another Sandy Hook by registering or restricting guns because the mother was paranoid about the government taking her guns. This gets mentioned, then this gets glossed over.
What would have prevented Sandy Hook would have been her never having to tell her son “I’m putting you into an institution. I can’t handle you anymore.”
Of course, she was a moron for telling him that in the first place.
I live in CT, and I suddenly have even more motivation to move ._. I don’t have brass balls, I’m not sure if I could bear standing my ground.
come to NH! we’re not that far away, but we have the Free State Project here for a reason!
By the way – statement from the State Police in Connecticut:
http://topconservativenews.com/2014/02/official-ct-state-police-spokesman-says-that-state-police-would-participate-in-door-to-door-gun-confiscations/
That’s too many doors to smash in. There will be a ton of job openings at the State Police. Not all from officers quitting.. With that amount of doors getting kicked in, there will be injuries and deaths.
Cars are registered…. and because of that, there has never been a car stolen that was used in a crime, and there have been zero traffic deaths.
Well played.
The Sarcasm is strong in this one…
All of the laws have been water down not just the term felon.
Sex offender no longer refers to people that are either child molesters or rapist but instead people that took a piss in public.
I used to think the gun registries were a good idea but grant and all of you have made solid points that they are worthless.
Cauldron made the best and worst point because cars are registered we know when the actual owner is not using the device/machine.
However, I agree with all of you making someone a felon because they wanted a big gun is kind of crazy.
> a big gun
No. And that’s where I object. They’re not registering big rifles – in fact, there are MANY rifles of MUCH larger caliber than 5.56 and 7.62×39 that this law doesn’t touch. Worse, there are plenty of rifles in the exact same calibers that this law doesn’t touch. This law literally goes after guns that people think are scary because of how they look and how many bullets they can hold in a magazine. An AR-15, for instance, in .223, has to be registered. A Ruger Mini-14 in the exact same caliber doesn’t. Both are semi-auto, and fire the exact same damn bullet. But the Mini-14 isn’t as scary looking.
And that? That, my friend, is teflon-coated, racing-stripe painted, turbocharged, hi-octane bullshit.
Gun racism?
I think maybe.
So, here’s a simple solution to really drive the gun control nuts bonkers.
Seeing as they’re so afraid of the scary black guns, don’t make them in black! Start putting the frames, uppers, etc out in designer pastel colors! Get your AR-15 style rifle with a nice red upper and dark blue lower! Hot pink anyone? (and yes, I know this is already available) Limit black parts to a few places it makes sense (the barrels come to mind,) heck in the case of the red and blue rifle, a black barrel could be called a “racing stripe” and you could claim it to give you another couple hundred fps at the muzzle! It’s a go-fast stripe!
Yes, I know sarcasm.
Now, a serious question that I just thought of, tangentially related to this.
I live in Michigan, and have bought a couple pistols. It was required when I picked them up, that I drop off a form at my local PD, said form including information such as the SN of the pistol and my name, address, etc. Sounds like gun registration similar to CT? sound about right?
Under what authority are you required, and does that authority actually have a legal ability to require you?
Just pontificating out loud.
That’s a fine argument.
You ought to make it more public.
http://www.michaelzwilliamson.com/blog/item/we-need-to-regulate-cars-the-way-we-regulate-guns I’ll just leave this here
Not related to the topic, but I figured you would enjoy some Heavy Metal from a Botswana band.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IcPLcjnS2iM
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/feb/10/kalahari-metalheads
Little_Red_Devil, your arguments have been tried hundreds of times over the last 2 decades. Tried and failed.
All I want you to do is answer Just One Question: Can you demonstrate one time or place, throughout all history, where the average person was made safer by restricting access to handheld weapons? (H/T: Joe Huffman)
Lemme know if you can answer that in the affirmative with conclusive causative research, and then we’ll talk. I won’t wait up.
For me the problem starts with the phrase “reasonable gun control”. The core issue there is that I disagree with most gon control proponents as to what constitutes reasonable. I am then usually accused of being some kind of extremist and thus marginalized. See some of bloombergs comments if you dont know what im talking about.
That asside, ive been alive nearly 40 years, in that time there not one single gun crime committed that was not covered by a relavant law. Not one.
The simple facts are gun control laws are easy to come up with, garner favorable news coverage, and votes come election time. Comming up with a real solution for the root causes of our violent crime is messy, costly, difficult, and can cost votes as some will see it as wasting public coffers on yet another socialist program.
Small wonder why politicians choose the former option.
There is one form of gun control that I as a gun owner would back to the hilt. The gunsafe industry is all over the map as far as to their security and it can be very hard as a responsuble owner to find a good one. I have seen a video of a small child tricking several safes into opening with ease. I would love to see some government standards created to establish a quality known basic security standard for gun safes coupled with standardized tests. The current residential security container standard is a dangerous, cruel joke.
Holy shit I just had to say, this band is fucking awesome, thanks for showing them o_o
On a totally different note…
…of COURSE the fish is named “Bob”!
Most fish are named “Bob”, because it’s not just a name – it’s also a VERB!
OTHER_EXAMPLES:
Doug / “dug”
Eileen / “I lean”
Neil / “kneel”
etc.
(…sorry, I’ll shut up now…)
Bob was there too 🙂
Or Eric.
Though “I’ve heard tell that Sir Gerald Nabardo has a pet prawn called Simon – you wouldn’t call him a looney – furthermore, Dawn Pailthorpe, the lady show-jumper, had a clam, called Stafford, after the late Chancellor, Allan Bullock has two pikes, both called Chris.”
“They can’t arrest all of us.”
Tell that to 6 million jews, along with a like number of assorted gypsies, gays, Poles, and other “non-desirables”
:/
There is precedent.
Said precedent involved them all having been ‘law-abiding’ and self-disarmed. Of course, there HAVE been times when there have simply been too many people for the government to arrest… The Lakota would tell you, if you can still find any… The rest of the tribes weren’t much better off. 🙁