View Full Version : Trump Victory Provides NRA Historic ‘Moment to Go on Offense’
jimnyc
11-28-2016, 07:24 PM
Excellent!!! I was so worried about losing the SC to liberal judges. That will now not be a worry. My second was what Hillary had planned for our guns. And now we get this instead.
-----
Trump Victory Provides NRA Historic ‘Moment to Go on Offense’
Donald Trump’s victory ushers in what the NRA’s Wayne LaPierre describes as a historic “moment to go on offense” and to take new ground for the Second Amendment, rather than spend the next four years trapped in a defensive position.
The offensive will include national reciprocity, also known as national right to carry, as well as deregulation of suppressors, rolling back President Obama’s executive orders, and abolishing gun-free zones on military bases.
According to the Guardian, these pursuits, particularly passage of national reciprocity, allow the NRA to go after what LaPierre described as the “tyrannical erosion of gun rights.” He knows that national reciprocity will bring states like California, New York, and Illinois into conformity with the rest of the country on concealed carry, thereby chipping away at the “deceitful web of gun bans, ammo bans, magazine bans, exorbitant fees, and taxes and registration schemes” at the state level.
The Guardian stated it this way: “This federal national reciprocity law, which Trump has already endorsed, would essentially gut existing local restrictions on carrying guns in public, and would mean that tourists from other states could soon carry their guns around New York City.”
Those who paid attention during the campaign already know that more concealed carry permit holders in more places is exactly what Trump supports. He repeatedly stressed that bad guys need to learn how it feels when “bullets go both ways.” Following the June 12 attack at the Orlando Pulse gun-free zone, Trump stressed that concealed carry could have prevented the attack or at least lessened the severity of it. He said:
If some of those great people that were in that club that night had guns strapped to their waist or strapped to their ankle–and if bullets were going in the other direction, aimed at that guy [for whom this was just] target practice–you would have had a situation which would have [been] horrible, but nothing like the carnage that we as a people suffered this weekend.
The NRA has an advocate for concealed carry and self-defense heading to the White House. The biggest prize, however, was always the Supreme Court, and remains so even now.
The Guardian quoted the NRA’s Jennifer Baker saying, “The most important issue for us this cycle was the SCOTUS [supreme court] nominee and protecting Heller. Trump will appoint a new justice soon after he enters office, so our top priority will become a reality.” The Heller decision reaffirmed that the Founding Fathers intended the Second Amendment to hedge in the individual right to keep and bear arms, rather than a collective right.
Dick Heller, the man behind the Heller suit, opined on what Trump’s election and anticipated SCOTUS nominations mean for the Second Amendment: “Now I think at least for half a generation, I think we’re OK. Maybe a full generation. Maybe two.”
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/11/28/guardian-trump-victory-provides-nra-historic-moment-go-offense/
Elessar
11-28-2016, 08:15 PM
I'm a long-time NRA member and I differ somewhat on their stance -
that of high capacity magazines.
If you cannot shoot proficiently with a 10 round magazine, you have no
business even handling a firearm.
I'm a long-time NRA member and I differ somewhat on their stance -
that of high capacity magazines.
If you cannot shoot proficiently with a 10 round magazine, you have no
business even handling a firearm.
The truth is if you cannot hit whatever you are aiming at with one bullet, 9 more misses are not going to help.... BUT if you can, 9 more hits MIGHT make a difference...
I will say that I cannot conceive of a situation where the average American citizen would ever find themselves in a full blown firefight where more than 10 rounds in a magazine would be required. If they did, they better hope that there are a few old combat vets around to help them out (find themselves somebody like Gunny and do whatever the heck he tells you to and hope he likes you...)
NightTrain
11-29-2016, 09:27 AM
If you cannot shoot proficiently with a 10 round magazine, you have no
business even handling a firearm.
I agree with you that everyone who carries should be proficient, but that's not the issue at hand, IMO.
Once you cave on the mags and allow the restrictions, there are certainly more restrictions coming - ammo, calibers, registries, gun-free-zones, etc. This isn't a fight for common sense restrictions, the gun control enthusiasts have already been caught saying the goal is to ban guns outright. The method is to steadily chip away at the 2nd on any issue they can get traction on.
That's why it's important to stand firm on the "Shall not be infringed".
Most Americans really have no need for a .50 cal handgun. Up here we do for bear protection, because even though the .44 mag has awesome stopping power, nothing says peace of mind like a .50 in your holster.... but there's only 700k of us here in AK. It wouldn't be hard to imagine "common sense" national legislation saying there's no need for American citizens to have such a large caliber weapon.
I agree with you that everyone who carries should be proficient, but that's not the issue at hand, IMO.
Once you cave on the mags and allow the restrictions, there are certainly more restrictions coming - ammo, calibers, registries, gun-free-zones, etc. This isn't a fight for common sense restrictions, the gun control enthusiasts have already been caught saying the goal is to ban guns outright. The method is to steadily chip away at the 2nd on any issue they can get traction on.
That's why it's important to stand firm on the "Shall not be infringed".
Most Americans really have no need for a .50 cal handgun. Up here we do for bear protection, because even though the .44 mag has awesome stopping power, nothing says peace of mind like a .50 in your holster.... but there's only 700k of us here in AK. It wouldn't be hard to imagine "common sense" national legislation saying there's no need for American citizens to have such a large caliber weapon.
Unfortunately, you are correct. That is exactly how we went from freedom of speech to political correctness ... chip away one little piece and before you know it, we go from "freedom OF religion to "freedom FROM religion"
Gunny
11-29-2016, 09:50 AM
The truth is if you cannot hit whatever you are aiming at with one bullet, 9 more misses are not going to help.... BUT if you can, 9 more hits MIGHT make a difference...
I will say that I cannot conceive of a situation where the average American citizen would ever find themselves in a full blown firefight where more than 10 rounds in a magazine would be required. If they did, they better hope that there are a few old combat vets around to help them out (find themselves somebody like Gunny and do whatever the heck he tells you to and hope he likes you...)
Problem I run/ran into where firearms are concerned is applicability. This is similar to the "Vote for Trump" argument on the right. Some gun owners don't want autos or whatever so they won't support those that do. The big picture is to protect the Second Amendment, not that anyone disagrees with someone's personal preferences.
I'm going for survival weapons. A 20MM chain gun don't hunt. If you can't survive, all the firepower is moot. What good does blowing half your kill away? Half your dinner?
But I will support the rights of those that want to own all that weird crap in order to close ranks and support the big picture. Our right to own them.
And to comment on the Sergeant Major's comment about me ... Lead, follow or get the hell out of my way. If you can't lead I WILL take over. If you can't follow you ain't part oif the team. If you can;t lead, don't let your ego get in the way of common sense.
Problem I run/ran into where firearms are concerned is applicability. This is similar to the "Vote for Trump" argument on the right. Some gun owners don't want autos or whatever so they won't support those that do. The big picture is to protect the Second Amendment, not that anyone disagrees with someone's personal preferences.
I'm going for survival weapons. A 20MM chain gun don't hunt. If you can't survive, all the firepower is moot. What good does blowing half your kill away? Half your dinner?
But I will support the rights of those that want to own all that weird crap in order to close ranks and support the big picture. Our right to own them.
And to comment on the Sergeant Major's comment about me ... Lead, follow or get the hell out of my way. If you can't lead I WILL take over. If you can't follow you ain't part oif the team. If you can;t lead, don't let your ego get in the way of common sense.
Does that mean I can't use my H&H .700 Nitro Express? Kidding aside, I view guns like I do tools; have the right tool for the job (screwdrivers make terrible hammers!). It only makes sense to have more than one tool in the toolbox.
Bilgerat
11-29-2016, 10:06 AM
Night Train and CSM have the right of it, it's the chipping away at rights
Take a small chunk now, come back later for more "common sense" things
https://gratuitousrex.files.wordpress.com/2016/09/wp-1474080027457.png
Night Train and CSM have the right of it, it's the chipping away at rights
Take a small chunk now, come back later for more "common sense" things
https://gratuitousrex.files.wordpress.com/2016/09/wp-1474080027457.png
Yep. When it comes to the Constitution, I have yet to see anything offered that is a better replacement. Those Founding Fathers were some pretty smart dudes. They were not perfect, that's for sure but what they came up with is far better than anything else I have seen so far.
Kathianne
11-29-2016, 12:18 PM
Yep. When it comes to the Constitution, I have yet to see anything offered that is a better replacement. Those Founding Fathers were some pretty smart dudes. They were not perfect, that's for sure but what they came up with is far better than anything else I have seen so far.
and yet, nearly all are looking for ways around it. Whether it be getting rid of the electoral college; looking for money from the feds to pave their roads; taking 'rules' by the government and applying them to private businesses; etc.
and yet, nearly all are looking for ways around it. Whether it be getting rid of the electoral college; looking for money from the feds to pave their roads; taking 'rules' by the government and applying them to private businesses; etc.
I think that is because the US citizen has gone from understanding the need for the nation to be GOVERNED to wanting it to be RULED. Being ruled relieves an individual of the burden of self responsibility and self discipline and replaces that burden with dependency and victimhood. Just my thought.
Elessar
11-29-2016, 12:55 PM
I think that is because the US citizen has gone from understanding the need for the nation to be GOVERNED to wanting it to be RULED. Being ruled relieves an individual of the burden of self responsibility and self discipline and replaces that burden with dependency and victimhood. Just my thought.
That is excellent, CSM. The liberals want to RULE, trash our founding documents and principles.
Those documents were the idea of being GOVERNED, NOT Ruled.
As to me I have an ambivalent attitude towards this issue.
From one side anybody has a Right to protect himself. From the other side every person must be duly trained to effectively use small arms and firearms under the conditions different from target shooting and field combat.
And even the experience of ordinary military man may not be enough for this.
NightTrain
11-29-2016, 01:08 PM
Balu, what are the laws concerning an ordinary Russian civilian to have firearms? Is it allowed? For all types - pistol, rifle, shotgun?
Kathianne
11-29-2016, 01:10 PM
That is excellent, CSM. The liberals want to RULE, trash our founding documents and principles.
Those documents were the idea of being GOVERNED, NOT Ruled.
Which is why I don't get the numbers of people looking to the government for saving. Good lord, the founders understood that government was a necessary evil, in dire need of being restrained while being given the powers necessary to keep the country safe.
Now folks don't understand how gender issues, businesses deciding how to conduct their business, how to get medical care, how to get their roads paved or schools built...
It seems to me that nearly all are looking to get around the Constitution and it's limits and responsibilities. Just looking for 'rights,' which they seem very willing to forgo to get something THEY want.
Elessar
11-29-2016, 01:10 PM
As to me I have an ambivalent attitude towards this issue.
From one side anybody has a Right to protect himself. From the other side every person must be duly trained to effectively use small arms and firearms under the conditions different from target shooting and field combat.
And even the experience of ordinary military man may not be enough for this.
Excellent! John Wayne said that it in The Shootist...."shooting at a target is easy when the target is not shooting back"!
Excellent! John Wayne said that it in The Shootist...."shooting at a target is easy when the target is not shooting back"!
Yep. I will say, however, that teaching the basics of safety and marksmanship does not require that the target return fire....
Balu, what are the laws concerning an ordinary Russian civilian to have firearms? Is it allowed? For all types - pistol, rifle, shotgun?
Pistols and revolvers are allowed for a restricted number of citizens such as judges, prosecutors, judicial officers, private security guards.
Smoothbore shotguns and carbines with a rifled barrel for everybody older 21 y.a. after a course of training and medical examination.
Martial premium weapons (pistols revolvers) - awarded to persons.
All the weapons are to be registered and subject to license availability.
This is in brief.
jimnyc
11-29-2016, 01:46 PM
Look at the attacks in the past 10 years only. Whether they be knife attacks like yesterday, or gun attacks like in Orlando. The body count is there and is not going to change.
But would it be different nubers and a different body count of folks had guns in some of these places?
The Bataclan? All those folks stuck into one place, and the guy picked them out like ships in the toilet. Same in Orlando.
Schools. Not every teacher of course, but how about they set something up like 3 security guards per school - and have them set in certain areas. And in colleges, just increase the numbers wherever there is a large increase in student enrollment. That's exactly why these folks are choosing schools, as it worked before and they know that.
Gun free military places. Are you EFFING kidding me? Put a stop to that YESTERDAY and that'll be the end of them getting shot at, guaranteed.
NightTrain
11-29-2016, 01:47 PM
Gun free military places. Are you EFFING kidding me? Put a stop to that YESTERDAY and that'll be the end of them getting shot at, guaranteed.
That really is the most batshit crazy rule I've ever heard of.
Yep. I will say, however, that teaching the basics of safety and marksmanship does not require that the target return fire....
The usage of weapons in crowded areas and sites requires a special training and it has special restrictions to secure the safety of the others. This is the most difficult question of which half-baked gun owners think so little and has no skills to provide it.
The usage of weapons in crowded areas and sites requires a special training and it has special restrictions to secure the safety of the others. This is the most difficult question of which half-baked gun owners think so little and has no skills to provide it.
No argument from on that. I still maintain that teaching BASIC safety and marksmanship does not require "special" training. Naturally, special circumstances require special training ... as you point out, field combat is very different than self protection in a "crowded" area or site.
Just what is a "half - baked" gun owner? Certainly any gun owner can be taught by certified teachers for the conditions under which they plan to use their firearm or are you trying to imply that gun owners are not capable of learning? I do not believe you mean that per say.
Just what is a "half - baked" gun owner? Certainly any gun owner can be taught by certified teachers for the conditions under which they plan to use their firearm or are you trying to imply that gun owners are not capable of learning? I do not believe you mean that per say.
I'll try to clarify what I meant.
A cadet, who's just received a driven license also is a "half-baked" driver. And only everyday practice make him a DRIVER.
Besides, I didn't touch such a sensitive aspect as the individual characteristics of the psyche. I don't think that instructors teach the cadets in this respect too. This is not their task.
But real situations are far from those of "The Commando" and "The Soldier" movies.
I am writing all this to justify my dual approach to this issue and nothing more. http://www.kolobok.us/smiles/standart/friends.gif
I'll try to clarify what I meant.
A cadet, who's just received a driven license also is a "half-baked" driver. And only everyday practice make him a DRIVER.
Besides, I didn't touch such a sensitive aspect as the individual characteristics of the psyche. I don't think that instructors teach the cadets in this respect too. This is not their task.
But real situations are far from those of "The Commando" and "The Soldier" movies.
I am writing all this to justify my dual approach to this issue and nothing more. http://www.kolobok.us/smiles/standart/friends.gif
I agree. As you point out, it takes practice to become skilled at anything, including firearms. Any idiot that procures a firearm, never gets basic training in that firearm or never practices shooting the damn thing is more danger to himself and is far more likely to do more harm than good.
Elessar
11-29-2016, 03:40 PM
I agree. As you point out, it takes practice to become skilled at anything, including firearms. Any idiot that procures a firearm, never gets basic training in that firearm or never practices shooting the damn thing is more danger to himself and is far more likely to do more harm than good.
I had NRA training with a rifle and shotgun at an early age, and that was safety and handling.
In the USCG, I got further training in Maritime Law Enforcement which included Police Pistol shooting
and Judgmental shooting where you go through scenarios - like a 'shoot - don't shoot' course.
The Police Pistol taught '3 from the draw' aimed at body mass. It is very unlike just qualifying on
basic pistol where you can take your time, breathe in - let it out, and aim.
The old movies of Roy Rogers or the Lone Ranger shooting a 6-gun out of a person's hand
are folly. When the juices are flowing, few if any have that skill.
Bilgerat
11-29-2016, 04:09 PM
I had NRA training with a rifle and shotgun at an early age, and that was safety and handling.
In the USCG, I got further training in Maritime Law Enforcement which included Police Pistol shooting
and Judgmental shooting where you go through scenarios - like a 'shoot - don't shoot' course.
The Police Pistol taught '3 from the draw' aimed at body mass. It is very unlike just qualifying on
basic pistol where you can take your time, breathe in - let it out, and aim.
The old movies of Roy Rogers or the Lone Ranger shooting a 6-gun out of a person's hand
are folly. When the juices are flowing, few if any have that skill.
Yeppers
I went to MLE school, also the other courses you mentioned plus Firearms Instructor
Small Boat Boarding Officer for many years, inter-spaced with various teams on vessels I also was a Boarding Officer at a Marine Safety Office doing "Special Interest Vessels".
After discharge, I became a "Rent-A-Cop" for Pinkerton (later Securitas). I will state for the record, Florida State laws and regulations are the WORST regarding being armed, but I was able to jump those hoops.
You Coasties got me beat. Of course, my mission was different so my training was different. I and a few good friends can clear a small city of all human life .... not much call for that in the US (yet).
Bilgerat
11-29-2016, 04:21 PM
You Coasties got me beat. Of course, my mission was different so my training was different. I and a few good friends can clear a small city of all human life .... not much call for that in the US (yet).
My considered opinion. When it becomes a SHTF moment, I'd rather have guys that can cycle a weapon around me :salute:
My considered opinion. When it becomes a SHTF moment, I'd rather have guys that can cycle a weapon around me :salute:
If it comes to that, I'll take any vet that knows which end the bullet comes out of. I can train him to do the rest assuming he isn't a complete dumbass. At least vets can pretty much follow orders regardless of former rank or position in life.... heck, depending on circumstance I might even listen to Gunny.
Elessar
11-29-2016, 07:13 PM
My considered opinion. When it becomes a SHTF moment, I'd rather have guys that can cycle a weapon around me :salute:
If it comes to that, I'll take any vet that knows which end the bullet comes out of. I can train him to do the rest assuming he isn't a complete dumbass. At least vets can pretty much follow orders regardless of former rank or position in life.... heck, depending on circumstance I might even listen to Gunny.
Good sentiments, Gentlemen, which I agree with.
If you were to assign me to "point A", I would be able to do that. I still have a hunters eyes.
Pick on Gunny Day, CSM?:laugh:
Good sentiments, Gentlemen, which I agree with.
If you were to assign me to "point A", I would be able to do that. I still have a hunters eyes.
Pick on Gunny Day, CSM?:laugh:
Every day is pick on Gunny day....
I had NRA training with a rifle and shotgun at an early age, and that was safety and handling.
In the USCG, I got further training in Maritime Law Enforcement which included Police Pistol shooting
and Judgmental shooting where you go through scenarios - like a 'shoot - don't shoot' course.
The Police Pistol taught '3 from the draw' aimed at body mass. It is very unlike just qualifying on
basic pistol where you can take your time, breathe in - let it out, and aim.
The old movies of Roy Rogers or the Lone Ranger shooting a 6-gun out of a person's hand
are folly. When the juices are flowing, few if any have that skill.
This good impressive BASIC INITIAL training. http://www.kolobok.us/smiles/standart/good.gif
But... There is one "but". Not to loose the obtained skills it is necessary to keep them at the appropriate level. And the only possible way is regular (ideally daily or at least two-three times a week) shooting and an excellent physical form. There is one significant drawback - all this takes time.
The USA is a country of specialists but not amateurs. Only such an approach will cause the best results.
So, I hope, you can follow my hesitations in this very case as guns are designed and constructed to kill only. Though it is rather comfortable opening a bottle of beer with Makarov pistol. http://s19.rimg.info/aee19e2775457d135efdf745e7d94e15.gif (http://smayliki.ru/smilie-1224821991.html)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Pj0OoaU-oM
This good impressive BASIC INITIAL training. http://www.kolobok.us/smiles/standart/good.gif
But... There is one "but". Not to loose the obtained skills it is necessary to keep them at the appropriate level. And the only possible way is regular (ideally daily or at least two-three times a week) shooting and an excellent physical form. There is one significant drawback - all this takes time.
The USA is a country of specialists but not amateurs. Only such an approach will cause the best results.
So, I hope, you can follow my hesitations in this very case as guns are designed and constructed to kill only. Though it is rather comfortable opening a bottle of beer with Makarov pistol. http://s19.rimg.info/aee19e2775457d135efdf745e7d94e15.gif (http://smayliki.ru/smilie-1224821991.html)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Pj0OoaU-oM
Hmmm, are we to assume then that Russians do not hunt or do any target shooting? There is no Russian biathlon team in the Olympics? Just curious.
Hmmm, are we to assume then that Russians do not hunt or do any target shooting? There is no Russian biathlon team in the Olympics? Just curious.
We speak about different things. Sport and entertainment is another pair of shoes comparing with shooting at people even for self defense. For the latter the right psychological training and skills brought to automatism are required.
I am not sure that all the gun owners have them to act under the circumstances of time pressure (deficit), psychological stress, and being surrounded by other people. Theoretically everybody is brave, but in practice would be not to wet own pants. Life is not a movie. And then, not everyone can be a star of the screen in this "film". http://s19.rimg.info/aee19e2775457d135efdf745e7d94e15.gif (http://smayliki.ru/smilie-1224821991.html)
We speak about different things. Sport and entertainment is another pair of shoes comparing with shooting at people even for self defense. For the latter the right psychological training and skills brought to automatism are required.
I am not sure that all the gun owners have them to act under the circumstances of time pressure (deficit), psychological stress, and being surrounded by other people. Theoretically everybody is brave, but in practice would be not to wet own pants. Life is not a movie. And then, not everyone can be a star of the screen in this "film". http://s19.rimg.info/aee19e2775457d135efdf745e7d94e15.gif (http://smayliki.ru/smilie-1224821991.html)
I based my question on your assertion that "guns are designed and constructed to kill only" in a previous post. Again, I am not disagreeing but rather trying to understand your position. It is my experience that there is a big difference between actually pulling the trigger on another human being and talking about doing such, especially when talking about civilians doing that. I do believe that there is an inherent desire to protect ones life, limb and property. Having said that, there are many that have neither capability nor the resolve to do so. There are many others just as determined and capable of doing so (at least in the US).
I based my question on your assertion that "guns are designed and constructed to kill only" in a previous post. Again, I am not disagreeing but rather trying to understand your position. It is my experience that there is a big difference between actually pulling the trigger on another human being and talking about doing such, especially when talking about civilians doing that. I do believe that there is an inherent desire to protect ones life, limb and property. Having said that, there are many that have neither capability nor the resolve to do so. There are many others just as determined and capable of doing so (at least in the US).
There are no contradictions. Hunting is killing in any case. Sports is a kind of competition to demonstrate the skills of shooting.
As to my position I've already said, it is dual. And I see no simple and unique answer regarding the concealed carry of handguns. But for sure this right may not be granted to everyone who wish it. There must be severe restrictions and constant confirmation of the ability to use these very weapons.
To keep rifles at home for defense - to my mind this is acceptable excluding all kinds of combat military weapons.
gabosaurus
11-30-2016, 12:23 AM
Last weekend, my sister and I went to the gun range for our monthly practice session. Our long-time instructor is an advocate of gun safety. He believes no one should be allowed to own a gun unless they pass a proficiency course. You don't allow unlicensed drivers. Why allow unlicensed gun owners?
He related a story of a guy who was angry with someone who he felt had wronged with wife. So he went and bought a large gun. Didn't know how to use it and ended up blowing his foot off somehow.
My brother in law knows gang people. They aren't difficult to find in East Los Angeles. One of their favored ways to acquire weapons is to find people with large collections, invade their houses and steal them. :cool:
There are no contradictions. Hunting is killing in any case. Sports is a kind of competition to demonstrate the skills of shooting.
As to my position I've already said, it is dual. And I see no simple and unique answer regarding the concealed carry of handguns. But for sure this right may not be granted to everyone who wish it. There must be severe restrictions and constant confirmation of the ability to use these very weapons.
To keep rifles at home for defense - to my mind this is acceptable excluding all kinds of combat military weapons.
And that is the very heart of the issue within the United States. Our Constitution is VERY clear about the right of citizens to own guns WITHOUT RESTRICTION. Unlike driver's licenses (the right to drive or even own and ride a horse is not enumerated in the Constitution). I can understand Russian philosophy regarding the right of citizens to own combat military weapons given their history, especially when taking into account their government's fear of being overthrown either by the people or their military.
And that is the very heart of the issue within the United States. Our Constitution is VERY clear about the right of citizens to own guns WITHOUT RESTRICTION. Unlike driver's licenses (the right to drive or even own and ride a horse is not enumerated in the Constitution). I can understand Russian philosophy regarding the right of citizens to own combat military weapons given their history, especially when taking into account their government's fear of being overthrown either by the people or their military.
You see... It is obvious that combat weapons are designed to fulfill combat missions which differ from self defense. I understand that the roots of American law are deep in the conquest of the wild American West. And this is your History. Every country has own History so no need to throw dust into anybody's eyes. We are speaking about other things.
Drummond
11-30-2016, 06:50 AM
You see... It is obvious that combat weapons are designed to fulfill combat missions which differ from self defense. I understand that the roots of American law are deep in the conquest of the wild American West. And this is your History. Every country has own History so no need to throw dust into anybody's eyes. We are speaking about other things.
A little clarification, please, Balu.
I've just skimmed this thread - I'm new to it. But from your last post ... do I correctly understand from it that you're trying to push the idea that American psychology is geared, from its historical roots, to one of conquest ?
If I really HAVE understood correctly .. you should look to Russia's own history. Russia, certainly during the USSR days (and I'd argue recently, under Putin) has VERY MUCH been about conquest !!
Gun ownership by American citizens is, as I understand it, about defence and the right a citizen has to not just depend upon the 'almighty State' for his or her rights to be self-secure. I fully support this .. and I wish we had more of that spirit in the UK.
You see... It is obvious that combat weapons are designed to fulfill combat missions which differ from self defense. I understand that the roots of American law are deep in the conquest of the wild American West. And this is your History. Every country has own History so no need to throw dust into anybody's eyes. We are speaking about other things.
Every soldier sees the battlefield from their own foxhole. I have no doubt that Russian law is very much based on past history. By the way, Second Amendment was written more with the recent American Revolution in mind than the conquest of the American west (which did not exist at the time as such). The Founding Fathers were very much aware that there were times when an armed population were the only insurance against a tyrannical government. They were wise men. They also were well aware that a population armed with axes, clubs and pitchforks were not going to stand a chance against a modern military force. That is why the Second Amendment does not exclude such weapons as battleships, cannons and hand grenades (all of which existed at the time). The exclusions regarding automatic weapons and such came MUCH later in our history and were based on the same arguments many (including yourself) make against the need for such weapons.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.