U.N. Arms Trade Treaty

[n11pilot]

Ok so no one agrees with me on this issue. I get the point. No more discussions on the 2nd Amendment for me here.

Jerry, that is not the purpose of free and open debate. I would never silence you or take away your ability to express an opinion. Not only is that against what the FC stands for it is distinctly un-American. Please express your opinions. I cannot guarantee that we will agree with you but we will defend your right to free speech.

[The Oracle]

Jerry, that is not the purpose of free and open debate. I would never silence you or take away your ability to express an opinion. Not only is that against what the FC stands for it is distinctly un-American. Please express your opinions. I cannot guarantee that we will agree with you but we will defend your right to free speech.

Well said. I might add that we can disagree without being disagreeable.

Dillo, it does look like it doesn't it.

[Super Ordinary Guy]

Thank you for starting this thread, Oracle. I hadn't fired a rifle in more than 20 years, but this thread (and Jerry's responses) reminded me of the urgency of staying in practice. So yesterday I went out to the range.


It felt good to put some rounds through the old Marlins. I sold my 30-06 last year because I haven't hunted in the last 20 years, but I kept the Marlins just because it's always good to have the option to reach out further than my pistols will go. I know this isn't in your league, Oracle, because I know you do competitive shooting, but it still felt good to be able to do this, after all these years of sitting in my gun safe. So thank you, Oracle, and thank you, Jerry:

Nice shooting Blackthorn...

I will share a foxhole with you any day.

That goes for a few more of you on here also....

I always had a hard time getting a good group,,,, usually one shot did it never had to fire more shots.....



Jerry, while I don't agree with all you say, I do agree with some,,,, so I guess I might flamed a bit here also....

Keep in mind I had my own gun business for 10 years but the automatic weapons and military style weapons I really don't see the need for in a sportsman's possession....

Now with that said I realize there is no way in Gods Green Earth we could ever regulate that at all ( insert lawyers & Judges will screw it up so bad even 22 pistols would be banned ) so that puts me back into the group that wants the right to own them.

I have shot them both in the service of my country and at home on the range ( no not the song ) LOL....

And I did sell a lot of them but about 90 % of my customers were either military or police, so I can totally understand that.....

If I remember from my time there, Boar hunting in Germany etc should be lots of fun,,,,,,,

Here is the last Boar I shot......386 LB Russian Black Boar.



I also hunted ducks on Chesapeake Bay and was a member of Ducks Unlimited along with several other hunting organizations( I won't bore you with any more pics ) and enjoyed every second .... so I know you are a good guy at heart you just feel differently about owning different weapons......no problem.....

[Jerry 9]

Thanks for that guys. I look forward to debating with all of you.

[Blackthorn]

Thanks for that guys. I look forward to debating with all of you.

I'm glad to see you still posting, Jerry. I didn't mean for you to quit, or to stop you from expressing your opinion. Let's keep discussing until we get tired of it, but don't stop just because we may see things differently.

On another note, I hope when you get back from your buffalo hunt that you'll share some pics here of the adventure. That is something I always wanted to do.

[Blackthorn]

Jerry, that is not the purpose of free and open debate. I would never silence you or take away your ability to express an opinion. Not only is that against what the FC stands for it is distinctly un-American. Please express your opinions. I cannot guarantee that we will agree with you but we will defend your right to free speech.

Well said. I might add that we can disagree without being disagreeable.

Dillo, it does look like it doesn't it.

Yep, you guys are right, the bottom one has the aperture sight. I wouldn't want to depend on it for anything more than 100 yards in the kill zone of a deer, but I do like not having to worry about a scope getting off if I take a hard fall on some rocks (which happened in Idaho once).

[AeroDillo]

I guess I'm the odd one here (surprise ). I collect, but I have zero interest in hunting. I guess that's something you have to be raised with, and I wasn't. I actually had to think on whether or not I owned anything that holds less than five rounds (I own one). By and large my collection has what some might call 'no sporting purpose'. Which is fine by me.

That being the case, I think part of the issue here may be a cultural one; Britain was already settled and civilized when the Industrial Revolution - and by default, wide availability of firearms - came about. America wasn't. If you lived someplace that was too remote to have a strong presence of law you were pretty much your own first line of defense. In that regard I think firearms ownership is ingrained in the national culture, at least West of the Appalachians, and is viewed more as a defensive and survival mechanism than on the far side of the pond which, if my understanding is correct, has more of a sport shooting culture.

But it could be wrong. It's rumored that happens sometimes.

Yep, you guys are right, the bottom one has the aperture sight. I wouldn't want to depend on it for anything more than 100 yards in the kill zone of a deer, but I do like not having to worry about a scope getting off if I take a hard fall on some rocks (which happened in Idaho once).

Yup. I've come to the conclusion in the past few years that for most shooting I prefer a good set of iron sights. Irons don't fog, won't crack, and don't add bulk to the gun. There's also the point that most close-range shots (generally, one in excess of 100 yards is an exception in this part of the country) can frequently be inhibited with glass.

That, and it's hard to find a scope that looks good on old rifles.

[Super Ordinary Guy]

Thanks for that guys. I look forward to debating with all of you.

I'm glad to see you still posting, Jerry. I didn't mean for you to quit, or to stop you from expressing your opinion. Let's keep discussing until we get tired of it, but don't stop just because we may see things differently.

On another note, I hope when you get back from your buffalo hunt that you'll share some pics here of the adventure. That is something I always wanted to do.

Ditto on the pics...

I actually had a buffalo hunt scheduled but my buddy got sick and we cancelled and never did get to go on one....

And Dillo I was born and spent my early years in Maspeth, NY......

I got hooked on hunting after a friend of mine invited me over to dinner and he had smoked a Turkey... next time BBQ's the Filet of deer,,,,, and in those days you just couldn't buy that stuff in a store...... but most importantly was being out in the woods alone and on your own ....

You would be surprised how sharp your senses get after hunting day after day for about 1 or 2 weeks in the woods........

After coming home i could see and hear things I normally wouldn't have....

Then try Black Powder deer hunting with an old muzzle loader flintlock... Sitting in the woods in January while the snow is coming down and all around you is frozen and silent... An experience you just can't get anywhere else......

[Major Eaton]

The irony here is compelling. Did any of you catch it?

[AeroDillo]

The irony here is compelling. Did any of you catch it?

Quite - presuming we're seeing the same irony.

[Jerry 9]

If you mean that someone from the UK wants to take your guns?! I am an American that just happens to live in the middle of England. I fly my flag every day it is not raining (this year it hasn't flown much), I celebrate the 4th with fireworks and Thanksgiving with turkey. My dual citizen children are both baseball fans, instead of soccer. And I refuse to apply for dual citizenship, because I will never be anyone's subject.

[Blackthorn]

I guess I'm the odd one here (surprise ). I collect, but I have zero interest in hunting. I guess that's something you have to be raised with, and I wasn't.

Nope, that's not it, because my dad never hunted, nor was I ever around anyone who did. But from my earliest memories I wanted to hunt. I guess I'm not that far evolved from the Neanderthals, but I'm not sorry for that. My dad thought I'd lost my mind when I began showing interest in guns and hunting. Living in CA was a great impediment, but in my late 20's I met a guy who lived and breathed hunting. I cultivated his friendship and after a few years he took me under his wing and taught me enough so that I could learn the rest on my own. I hunted avidly for ten years before getting injured at work and becoming legally disabled. I still get around fine, but since I can't carry my share of the work in bringing out an animal, I don't hunt any more. But despite parents who were anti-gun and anti-hunting, I was a natural.

[Blackthorn]

My beliefs are quite simple I go shooting every winter for birds, enjoy deer stalking in Scotland, boar hunting in Germany and Romania and am planing a trip to see a friend in Tanzania to go buffalo hunting. I am also a member of Duck Unlimited at home, I just see no need for hand guns or semi automatic rifles that hold more than 3 rounds.

Jerry, the words you chose just then are key to the discussion, as I see it. "Need." I've been listening to that propaganda line for 40 years, and it's a bogus issue. It's not a matter of us having only what we need. For that matter no one needs more than one fork (you can just wash the one you ate dinner with and use it again next time), or more than one steak knife, or a motorcycle larger than a Honda 350, or a television with a screen larger than my 19 inch. So by your reasoning that means anything else should be illegal.

We don't "need" a gov't deciding what we need or don't need.

A coworker of mine was telling me a few years ago that she and her husband each have their own 9mm semi auto pistols, but told me with a straight face that anything large enough to kill an elephant should be outlawed. When I asked her why, she gave me your line, "No one needs that much power." Since when is it up to her what anyone else needs? But being the stereotypical liberal, anything she didn't want for herself should be outlawed. She'd be the first one to take your buffalo rifle away.

[n11pilot]

My beliefs are quite simple I go shooting every winter for birds, enjoy deer stalking in Scotland, boar hunting in Germany and Romania and am planing a trip to see a friend in Tanzania to go buffalo hunting. I am also a member of Duck Unlimited at home, I just see no need for hand guns or semi automatic rifles that hold more than 3 rounds.

Jerry, the words you chose just then are key to the discussion, as I see it. "Need." I've been listening to that propaganda line for 40 years, and it's a bogus issue. It's not a matter of us having only what we need. For that matter no one needs more than one fork (you can just wash the one you ate dinner with and use it again next time), or more than one steak knife, or a motorcycle larger than a Honda 350, or a television with a screen larger than my 19 inch. So by your reasoning that means anything else should be illegal.

We don't "need" a gov't deciding what we need or don't need.

A coworker of mine was telling me a few years ago that she and her husband each have their own 9mm semi auto pistols, but told me with a straight face that anything large enough to kill an elephant should be outlawed. When I asked her why, she gave me your line, "No one needs that much power." Since when is it up to her what anyone else needs? But being the stereotypical liberal, anything she didn't want for herself should be outlawed. She'd be the first one to take your buffalo rifle away.

Agreed. I have never bought into the "need" argument as I consider it a matter of a right as opposed to a need. No one ever questions a person's "need" to say what is on their mind, it is simply accepted as the speaker's right under the Constitution. Never is one questioned as to the "need" to worship at a place dictated by a person's religious choice, again it is assumed to be that person's right under the 1ST Amendment. I am under no obligation to establish a need to own the firearm of my choice since doing so is my right under the 2ND amendment. I am not saying that a need does not exist, only that I am not obligated to provide one. The advantage of living in a land founded on the concept of individual liberty is that we are entitled to satisfy our own requirements.

Now, something has been made about the arguably ambiguous wording of the 2ND Amendment. I personally do not see the wording as ambiguous but then again I have been accused of reading way too much.
I think the best way to make the 2ND Amendment less ambiguous is to consult the Federalist Papers where the right to keep and bear arms is flatly stated to be a right that belongs to the individual.
Before anyone calls foul on consulting an outside source to clarify the US Constitution please consider this: The phrase "Separation of Church and State" does not appear in the Constitution but it is considered that the 1ST Amendment contains such a directive. The reason it is considered to be part of the 1ST Amendment is because it was explained in the Federalist Papers. If it is good for the First Amendment I see no reason why it isn't good for the Second Amendment.

[Jerry 9]

Ok so "need" may have been a poor choice of wording and I accept that in order to form a militia in the 18th and very early 19th century individual fire arms were required. So let me try a different tack.

Balancing individual right against societal good is the most difficult thing to do when writing law and I now believe we as a society are beyond the ability to effect change with fire arms. More importantly this is a good thing, violence is only an act of last resort. Clearly the right of free speech and a free press was more important to the Framers than the the right to bear arms, Learned Hand called it "the market place of free ideas" and this is where the most effective change takes place.

So considering that the chances to oppose tyranny in modern times with small arms is remote, surely the best defense against over reaching government is a well informed and educated population. Therefore I contend that hand guns and automatic assault rifles only cause more harm than good and the purchase of them should be tightly controlled.

I know the right to bear arms is enshrined in the Constitution, but so was the 3/5ths clause and the 19th Amendment and very few people argue those were good ideas.