pepsi71ocean

3 things... I have bought a few guns online, but they still have to be shipped to an FFL first before you pick it up. 2nd thing.. I spoke to my nephew in Holland, i'll have to paste back with his answer when i get it, but he im in a rush atm. and 3rd. these idioits remind me of why not to pull a prank like this http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/10/teen-shot-in-head-during-home-invasion-prank/ morons, yes luckly the friend didn't kill his friend with this, but i bet alcohol was involved.

What?! I can own a fully automatic assault rifle?! Since when? No, trust me, you cant own a fully automatic assault rifle in the Netherlands, unless youre in the army and on duty. It is even illegal to carry around imitations of fire arms (airsoft guns that resemble actual guns for example). Civilians can at best carry around airpressure guns and even then not outside their own property. You can get a permit for owning actual fire arms, usually for hunters and people who are part of a shooting club, but even then the kind of weapon you can own is restricted to I think just semi automatic pistols. My mothers, sisters husbands son(from former marriage) lives outside of Amsterdam and owns firearms, he has a friend that he goes to the range with that lives near i think Lijnden who owns a Select fire M14. I have seen pictures of them at the range. He came out here (i think its two years ago now) with his kids and i took them all to the range and we shot off my collection there and i know the kids had a blast, and he had alot of fun shooting rifles that he said he can't own because they restrict you to a maximum of 5 guns. He has a few semi automatic rifles, a M14 clone (M1A) and two bolt action rifles. And i think a semi auto shotgun, because pump shotguns are illegal, or is it the other way around, im not sure i haven't seen him in almost two years. although he brought the kids over because he felt that the US is going to follow the Netherlands eventually in gun laws, and that feel his kids may not get to fully enjoy shooting by the time they are 18(At the time). I think the oldest son is now 16 or 17. But i could be wrong, i never did research out the gun laws in the netherlands, i just know i wouldn't move there, maybe switzerland or Israel but nowehre that restricts guns worse then New Jersey. Ima going to see if i can find him on FB and shoot him a message and see what the story is, from what i saw two years ago it seems like they had it better then us.

I think the Swiss can keep their gun when they go home, and are even expected to maintain and train with it. Although I think youre not permitted to walk around on the street armed if youre not in uniform or something, and the discussion about this rule was getting louder. These guns are often used in sucides or murder suicides. Yes people will commit suicide by firearms as a means, but the question what is the % per 100,000, and it is way lower then in countries like Japan, were there are no firearms and yet suicide is still high. People will do it if they are serious enough. We must not forget that the side of a country like Switzerland also eschews its statistics, as far more people in England kill themselves per year then in Switzerland, even if the rate is lower. I feel that the prevalence of firearms will have little effect on lowering the suicide rate, since people will find alternative means. Now the Netherlands you can even own fully automatic assault rifles, which makes me jealous, since owning a semi automatic look alike here in jersey gets you pulled over for fun. And yet your suicide deaths are lower then england, yet the percentage is roughly the same. So firearms ownership doesn't play that much of a role in death then it is perceived to be. i could go on and on about rates of suicide, but i posted an article up somewhere on another forum but i have to find it. made a good debate argument, where it shows that rapes and MDK are lower in countries or areas with high firearm ownership, such as the USA, but are higher in England and other guns restricted areas. Mainly i feel the leech pin on all of this has to do with conceal carry.

WOW! This looks like the best recreation of Downtown i have seen in a very long time!

how can you blame the markets, its the worlds fault that they chose to "tie" them selves up. Back in 1920, when Germany collapsed, its economy was NOT tied to the rest of the world, and volla the world didn't crash, fast forward to expansionism again in the late 1920's where the western world was tied together and the market crashed it was worse. The problem then like the one now is that money didn't exist where it should have, Its like ENRON but just way bigger. Our government's best accountants are copying ENRON so well, we hide our massive debt in everything, we monetize most of our debt, why do you think our dollar is so weak? Its so weak because we have decided to print trillions of dollars, about 1/2 of Obama's stimulus was monetized on creation, and with the supply and demand economics, if more US dollars are in the markets the LESS they are worth, (sound familiar, Say 1924 Germany). The Fact is that the Morgage holding companies that underwrote the mortgages for the poeple who were stretched(why were they stretched, because Slick Willie allowed the removal of the load requiremens to everyone can get a loan, something i believe the president or two before him did when the S&L banks collapsed in the 1980's. Point is Companies like AIG, Fannie mae and freddie mac both took loans on that couldn't be covered without the collateral of other loans, all of the bad loans piled up to where the banks couldn't cover, as a result to prevent a "world" wide disaster the government decided to bail out the banks. Its finny to note that the Bush bailout is making us more money in interest the Obamas buy of GM. (where the government started selling its shares at a LOSS). In the end i can sum it up the best way this way, "If companies operated like the government no one would make money, why do you think Politicians do not run business?" Oh way is that because in Government we can spend what we don't have, Ask our friendly Former CEO of Goldman Sachs Jon Corzine, ran a great company but doubled the debt of the state of NJ. How can a CEO of Goldman Sachs, who also served on the President Clinton's Commission fail to fix new Jersey? Because he didn't care he got his 500 million from GS, something we all pay for now!

The Republics The Great Seal of the Republics In 1987 The Phoenix Empire collapsed. It was one of the last large dictatorships in the world. For the longest time the Chinese and the Phoenix Nations held a Cold war in which each country tried to out do each other. In the end The Chinese out lasted the Phoenix Empire. The Phoenix Empire was a vast state. Its size rivaled that of the British Empire of nearly 200 years ago. Its downfall was a violent one. Many people would die during the breakup. The total casualty figures are unknown, but are estimated in the millions. It was total anarchy, something stereotypical to that of a common overthrow of a country. The end was so abrupt that the Country literally became a war zone. Many Countries, and the UN refused to send troops to quell the violence, many afraid that there soldiers would end up in the middle of a fire fight between radical groups, or that they would be there for a long time, and sustain huge casualties similar to that of the Korean Civil War. In the end no one got involved, and the country stabilized over the course of the next 6 years. But one thing is for certain the new Republics are more stable than its predecessors of nearly a decade ago. We welcome you to spend an eternity in this new peaceful phoenix world. Here are the regions that involve any of the Republics! Pict Updated August 04, 2006 This is a shot of the Republics Homeland. The long name is The Republican Phoenix Empire, but The Republics is a shortened version. Some of you may remember this region for some where else, mainly at ST. But it, along as Indochina have seen almost and in some cases a double in region population! Pict Updated April 24, 2006 This is a shot of Indochina; Note that Singapore is part of the UCLEH and not Ludwigs. Due to the recent border issues between the United Cities of Little Egg Harbor, and Ludwigs Republic travelers to the area should be warned not to leave the city limits on the north. And Now the Space Colonies! Pict Updated April 24, 2006 The Republics Mars Colony Since our last visit, two new regions have been added, colonies to be exact. The Republics Mars Colony, and Planet Earthtron have seen some region growth, but due to there location on other planets there growth is limited to the funding that they are given. Nonetheless there presence is a mile stone towards showing the cooperation between the 3 countries of The Republics. Pict Updated April 24, 2006Pict Updated April 24, 2006 Pict Updated April 24, 2006 Planet Earthtron I welcome you to spend your time here, and that you may find The Republics a happy place to live!

*Pops* head in, this place is empty. I will look into starting this CJ back up in the future, but i have to first contend with finding all of the old saved game files, otherwise i might just start out new with the same land masses if i can get them. I have just been in a current Empire total war binge, especially since i installed Darthmod.

Read the gun laws, and then get back to me, because Felons, and violent offenders and mentally unstable people are not allowed to have them, that is what Brady act was for, but of course not all states will provide the requested information. Jared Laughtner was on the list and denied a gun at the first store, but the second gun dealer was crooked and sold him the gun anyways. Perfectly sensible. Know any politicians who would listen? I wanna

I never disagreed with you, but my point is that most states that have CCW, require some sort of training to get CCW, the ones that are exempt are ak, AZ and VT. I went on board fully knowing that there was a risk, and at the time (my high school sweetheart dumped me), so i had nothing to loose (back then in my mind), so i was the best candidate for it, i went in knowing what i had to do and i was prepared, now did my preparedness i had my training from the academy to help focous and hone my skills, and my dedication was unquestionable, i have shot center fire, trap and skeet, tactical shoots etic since i was about 12. I was shooting BB guns and playing war when i was 12. So i knew what i was doing, when i decided to retire from doing this it was because i found as girl, and i had finally decided to change careers, there is no future as a hired gun, so i came back got a part time job at Target till i could get my foot in the door at brinks, and now i drive an armored car, and yes i carry a gun still but from the looks of it it seems way safer then free lancing on a boat. I also collect firearms now, i do take them out shooting, and to competition. I still have my toys but i have found that collecting them, and teaching the next generation how to handle firearms properly is on the top of my list. And back to why i remembered to post here(after simtropolis wouldn't let me login). http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-june-21-2011/the-fast-and-the-furious---mexico-grift Jon Stewart couldn't have said it better.

I do have training i spend a long time at a Military Academy, i also was a member of the center fire club in high school, by the time i graduated high school, i have (i want to say), over 8,000 rounds downrange. I also was a security guard at the casino's in AC when i got out, which got me to my other job moving boats around, i didn't lie when i told my parents i was a first mate on a boat, i just never told them i was a hired gun as well. The captain was quite blunt when he said there is a good chance you will get shot at, we go alot of places, and i have been through alot of places in the Caribbean, and the Gulf of Mexico, even the Pacific ocean, i have to say it was the best 2 years of my life. I agree, people should take CCW courses, look i can tell you that it is one thing to shoot at a paper target, but i know for a fact that alot of people might have qualms about shooting at someone, especially when you shoot to kill. Me i killed enough people it doesn't bother me at all, but then again my baptism in fire was quite different, the big difference is i think anyone who is going to CCW needs to spend alot of time at the range, and they need to undergo mental training so they can deal with the stresses involved. The last thing you need is a soccer mom killing a mugger then killing herself because she can't deal with the "burden", of her actions. Those i believe shouldn't have CCW. And as stated earlier, no one robs houses here because everyone owns shotguns, and whenever people get shot here its usually city drug addicts who find out how things go out here. There was about 3 of them that broke into the local deli, tried to steal the cash register, and ATM machine, but left 4,000 dollars in cigarets, and Oh wait the cash box sitting in the next room I remember when the guy down the road was robbed, he shot and killed one of the robbers, the other one died a few hours later, but point is, they came in and tried to steal jewelry and money, and when the homeowener presented him self the addict tried to rush him and he pulled the trigger, didn't think twice, he called it "like killing a deer", shame it took the staties almost an hour to arrive! Now what is the difference is that the neighbor down the road has been hunting all his life, and did two torus in Vietnam, he can handle him self in a suituation, now as for the soccer mom, im not going to waste my breath on that one

i have been in firefights, a few actually. i did post it up i think but maybe it didn't post? Anyways for a while back in 2007 2008 i was bringing sport fishing boats back and forth between central America and the US, i have been in a few firefights, 1 boarding, but 90% of them it is who can fly the most lead in 30 seconds wins. Almost gentlemen like when you fight the pirates from haiti, cuba area, and then go through it again when you get down by Panama(when you go through the Canal. It's a good thing you won. These guys want boats for drug running, and simply deep-six the crew if they win. It is getting to the point where you can't take a private yacht though there outside a flotilla guarded by a gun boat. Something like the eastern Med. International yachtin in some areas is getting to be very risky. i remember a sail boat got taken, we picked up the the oweners of the sail boat, they were lucky that the pirates took the boat and didn't kill the crew, the crew had interesting stories to tell, i feel bad for the wife though, she saw some serious action. I remember them asking why they didn't come after us, and i said that they most likely did as we were attacked earlier but after a 5 mins gun battle they just gave up and sped off towards our bow, and i figured they ran across that sail boat. None of the 3 ppl on the sailboat had any guns at all.

i have been in firefights, a few actually. i did post it up i think but maybe it didn't post? Anyways for a while back in 2007 2008 i was bringing sport fishing boats back and forth between central America and the US, i have been in a few firefights, 1 boarding, but 90% of them it is who can fly the most lead in 30 seconds wins. Almost gentlemen like when you fight the pirates from haiti, cuba area, and then go through it again when you get down by Panama(when you go through the Canal.

actually my Springfield GI45 is more accurate then i am at 25 yards, and feel that almost all classrooms are less then 100 feet long from point to point. And even then on a sled or sandbags my GI45 can shoot 3 inch circles at 25 yards, But on hand with good shooting i can hit a human head sized target, however if i was presented in a situation where i was in a classroom with a handgun, i would take for the body, knowing that the 230gr 45 round will go through about anything just shy of Kevlar soft body armor, and most psychotic people do not go in with body armor to begin with. Actually i don't think anyone who gone on a shooting rampage has used body armor. Texas you can make that argument about, but Vermont and Alaska have no large urban areas and thus inherently don't have the crime problems that come along with them regardless of what their laws say about guns or anything else. Well in that case we should add Georgia, Florida and Virginia to the list. Georgia has a very high rate of CCW, my uncle lives there, my sister CCW's she lives in FLA, and my other aunt and uncle live in AZ, they open carry. I know my uncle lives outside of Atlanta GA, and when we went to the football game he carried his short barreled 45 with him. And i should note that the guy who we parked our van with was very nice, and i can still remember him say to this day saying "don't worry mister aint no one touching your van here, as he sat with a shotgun in hand.

not as rare as you would think. I know alot of ppl that go into AC all the time who CCW, i know of people down there who come from out of state and CCW. (i spent alot of time down there, and have friend who go play poker down there. the argument for CCW is it keeps homnoest and borderline people honoest. Lets face it i bet if you polled a prison and ask if the robber knew that his victims was CCW before he robbed them im sure they would have said that they were not going to rob them. Why is crime lower in Alaska, Vermont, Arizona and texas where CCW is widly used. Conversely Florida has handed out many CCW permits, and i do believe that only 17 out of 225,000 were later revoked for various reasons. When i drove a truck for i did CCW in my cab, and i can't tell you how many times i had to pull it out because i was in a bad situation. I found that the farther south i was the less likely i was to be attacked by criminals, especially out west, Utah, AZ, CO out there crime seems to be non-existent, vs being out here in the north east. I had a guy who was trying to open up the back of the trailer, when one of the other truckers saw it he radioed me and said yo guy someone getting in, so i went out and confronted him, he pulled a gun and i pulled mine, and then he backed off, just enough for another trucker to grab him, it took the police 20 mins to get there to fill out the report. (and FYI if you are a CDL driver you cannot carry guns on you, but once again the cops understand and the cop asked me if i carried it and i said no it is for personal protection and that is legal. now i have stot people before, when i was bringing a boat up from down south(central America), we were attacked by pirates, and yea that was the first time i shot someone, but i felt like i was shooting a paper target, the only dead ones were the ones who boarded the ship. SO fast forward two years later(this is why i wasn't on simtrop for the longest time), and do i feel hesitant to shoot someone when threatened no. and i wouldn't hesitate because as it was drilled into me at the Military Academy, if you hesitate at the moment of truth you will become a statistic, not the survivor.

In theory yes, however i don't know of anyone who CCW's who doesn't have training on thew firearm, many states require you take classes and courses before even being granted a CCW license. AND FYI, there is a percentage of Stockton and Rutgers students who CCW handguns to their campus every day since Virginia Tec. I know of at least a dozen classmates who do. now they do NOT allow CCW in new jersey and as such they are doing it illegally, but (if i did go to college there to say), would i feel less safe knowing there are students who have handguns with/on them, absolutely not, why? because when the shooting starts at least i know that the bad guy is going down in a fight. That is not to say i didn't carry knives in high school for similar reasons, we had a kid who wrote a letter to the school claiming he was going to bring an end to those who sent him away, and i started carrying, because even though i didn't know the kid(he was a class ahead of me), he had alot of enemies, and i figured if he is going to come in shooting i would rather die in an attempt to stop him then let him gun me down without the possibility of doing anything to stop him. Such begs the questions about what if, what if those teachers who had CCW(one being a ex cop) could have had their guns on campus, would the shooting have ended earlier, how many less students would have died if one of the kids in the dorm had a handgun, and shot the crazy asian who was shooting the place up? You all think that guns are the reason the world is dangerous, i must disagree but the facts still show you are more likely to be raped in Australian, and England then in the USA, i wonder why?

in NJ a pocket knife will land you in jail because that is illegal, especially if it (i can't remember if it is larger or smaller) then the palm of your hand. In NJ,(like CA, IL, NY MA and CT) handguns are restricted heavily, automatic weapons are impossible to get(unless you have the $$$$$$$$ to afford the permits and lawyer fees to get one) It took me almost a year to get the paperwork through so i could buy shotguns and rifles, and i didn't get a handgun until i got a job working for a security company, and even then the carry laws in NJ suck.

having grown up near Trenton, then moving out to the suburbs (little egg), and then finally into the true "country" i will say that gun ownership goes up the farther away you get from the city. Yea people have guns in the city, but no one knew how to handle them correctly, (as a city boy) i grew up on the notion of "fear firearms", but it was not until i got out to the suburbs when i was about 10 that i was first exposed to firearms, it is normal out here to teach people how to use firearms and and how to use them at a young age, most of the people i went to school with got their first shotguns at 12 or 14. Growing up out here, no one fears our neighbors, but we also know that help is a long ways off, there is no law and order out here. we don't fear that our neighbor might be stock piling guns for Armageddon, but we do know what is going on. Out here there is a different respect for guns, we have them because we all believe(withing a few degrees) that we have a right to have them, and that there is no stopping a country or a government if your people are unarmed. Yea we all own guns, we all shoot them for sporting/hunting, and just for fun, but we also understand that we are not "free", without the a gun, because what is to stop the Government from doing what they want, and who knows, if they ban gun's then they can turn into nazi Germany, except this country it would be worse.

I agree, i am not in the true sticks, i live in a rural town but i know of people who have some serious black market collections. And they seem to have started to grow after Ohbama came to office, and ever since the tuscon shooting there is a jump in gun sales.

I don't think that they decided to pass a law because they know people will do it, but i know that the though of would be good enough to keep most people honest. Lets face it, I live in a state where CCW is illegal, people do not carry, let alone carry other things (knives etic), so i know odds are greatly in my favor if i wanted t carjack or mug someone for their cash, hell mug someone in AC and you could make as much in one time as you would working a week or so. Now that there are only 2 police officers in 1 squad car paroling the whole Casino district that means the odds of getting away with mugging them and not being caught are even better. So why don't i do it? because i was raised better, but more importantly i valve my freedom over some quick 500 bucks in cash. Why not? You, your family, or your property can come under threat anywhere. No harm in having the ability to defend yourself. What you are saying is that the civil authorities can't protect you, even in church. Remind me not to come and live there. I live in the rural south of new jersey, we have state police, so when our neighbors got robbed it took the state police 45 mins to come to their house, funny the robber died by then, before he pulled out his ILLEGAL hand gun to shoot our neighbor. Go figure. Oh it gets better, the gas station got robbed down the road, and turns out the attendant pressed the hold up button, at the same time two guys came into the station for gas, when the attendant didn't come out one went to look for him inside the store, saw the two guys with guns, then he went back and they two guys went into the gas station with their LOADED (they loaded them), shotguns and held up the robber for over 40 mins, by then the state police after 40 mins arrived. And yes no one was shot that time, although the town hear about it, and then later found out that the two guys (who robbed the station) broke out of the Trenton state just a week before and making their way south and needed cash and a vehicle. Can you image what if those guys were unarmed, and the robbers then stole their truck, by the time the state police would have arrived those guys would have been gone, almost out of the state. Have i ever been house robbed, no, and i make it know i have an alarm system and video cameras (both real and fake ones), but when the day comes i know i have a .45 waiting, along with a heavy .223 round that i know between both should keep anything at bay until i can get to the armory.(yea like that will ever happen, maybe when the zombies arrive).

No, the Homeowner must report any theft of firearms to the police withing days, its written law, now in the case of Class 3 weapons the NFA(national Firearms act 1934) weapons the Select fire weapons you speak of then they must prove how hard it was, if you have a registered Class 3 weapon you must keep it locked up, and If you can afford the 20,000 dollars for a Select fire weapon you can afford a gun vault to keep it in. We have to keep everything locked up, even weapons such as .22 rimfire rifles. And the safe has to be secured to the house/floor in some manner. Ammo doesn't have to be secured to the ground, but still needs to be locked up, and in a seperate enclosure. However, my point still stands: the black market is responsible for the firearms used, certainly, and they aren't used by registered gun owners. However, i'm sure that theft of registered guns is a large source of that black market trade (of course a lot of it is going to be illegal imports, which should be stopped if possible of course). Also, pumnp action centrefire rifles have become quite popular here in the last decade due to them being legal to own, and semi automatic rifles no. All i can say is LOL, i though in New Jersey you had to keep everything locked up, hell here you can't even get Class 3 stuff, let alone rifle magazines over 15rds and handgun mags over 10. But yes it is a crime in Nj to leave your gun's withing (what they deem) reasonable accessible to a minor. So they explained that a padlock going through the safety of a M14 or a M1 Garand type firearm is completely not legal, however in their eyes it is perfectly to store a 98k without a trigger safety, provided the the "safety" switch is set to safe? WTF) i know. Anyways my Jersey Legal set up is a locked armed closet(with a separate alarm from the house one), then the gun vault its self is made using 1/2 sheet rock on the outside wall, then 3 inch of plywood, tile and rebar then more sheet rock, then a nice hard wood interior using finish plywood. The door its self is a reforced door with 2 inch thick plywood with rebar slid inside between the two, the whole thing is inside this dam closet door and the whole thing is concealed as well. And when the State police cam to inspect they found it satisfactory. Total value of firearms 5,000+ USD total cost of building gun vault, more then the guns were worth Sastifaction of building a Jersey legal gun safe worth :bunny: :bunny:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/03/03/...n%3BcontentBody There is the link. And according to it the ATF told them to let the guns into mexico which makes me want to go and say WTF. The way i see it is the US government was letting guns walk into Mexico, was this to propose a gun ban (the liberal agenda)(like the Mexican President saying to all Americans to fix the gun holes and institute a ban to save Mexican lives), or was it to help feed the Capitalism machine and expand the gun industry, (like we did in Vietnam by sending over Campbell Pork and Beans and selling it to the North)? Either way There we go creating our own problems again! So it seems that our gun laws are not our problem, the Government is. We must feed the killing machine, by letting thousands of guns walk into mexico, through the black market, i would NOT be surprised if our own ATF was buying them legally to begin with.

Is that total homicide or firearm homicide only? Here's a comparison: Australia had, in 2008, 282 homicides total. Firearm homicides made up about 11% of these, or around 30. In 2008, Australia's population was about 21 million. 12% as many firearm homicides for about 2.5 times as many people. It is likely the decline is related to the increase in gun control after the 1996 Port Arthur massacre. In the 15 years since then, we have not had a mass shooting. Monash University was close, with 2 deaths and 5 injuries. The shooter was stopped while changing guns by the lecturer (who had been shot in the arm and knee) and a student who had martial arts training. You say liberal like it's a bad thing. No-one knows exactly what the founding fathers were thinking. It is likely, however, that high-powered rifles or any weaponry capable of delivering precise death at a distance were not anywhere in their minds. In any case, I tend to read it as allowing one to be a member of the military. The language as it was at the time supports this. That was number of homicides traced to gun oweners. where the gun owener actually went out and killed someone. That doesn't include non certified perole to have them. Well many gun oweners look at the situation to where only the anti-gun brady people, and then leftist "liberals" are the ones to blame for an ever tightening hanging rope to our gun ownership. We in New Jersey are already so restricted it takes more money then it does brains to buy guns. the last guy who was issues a Class 3 license in NJ, spent something like 15,000 dollars entertaining state police and judges before they granted his permit. Me, i can barely afford to keep up withy current costs, and so NJ will become one of those you have to pay to play states, where only the rich can have firearms. A revolver is more dangerous then a semi-automatic handgun, especially when loaded because it has no saftey for the hammer to catch if it were accidentally knocked backwards. In this sense there is no difference between a revolver that can fire 6 round before you use a speed loader. Frankly have you ever scene a competition shoot where they use revolvers with speed loaders they can usually keep up with the guys with semi-automatic hanguns. Your making a anecdotal statement that implies all who carry guns will kill others, and i must ask on what fact can you base this on, the part where Vermont has (no gun restrictions, and very little crime, where people openly carry their firearms?) Or is this based on the Jared Laughtner scenario, where he was not mentally fit to even be issued a gun, and got one anyways and went on a rampage. Sadly i wish there was a open carry person there and that they shot him down, because im almost certain it would have ended on a different note. Now, i know i'm just picking up a point on your entire argument, however, its very true, registered weapons are much less likely to be used for crime. However, i'd be willing to guess that the presence of larger numbers of registered weapons in a country leads to a higher presence of unregistered weapons, due to thefts etc being more common. I mean, if someone broke into the home of an owner of one of these automatic weapons, (or any other weapon), somehow found a key and stole it, and then used it in a crime, would the ATF still count it as a "legally owned" weapon? No, the Homeowner must report any theft of firearms to the police withing days, its written law, now in the case of Class 3 weapons the NFA(national Firearms act 1934) weapons the Select fire weapons you speak of then they must prove how hard it was, if you have a registered Class 3 weapon you must keep it locked up, and If you can afford the 20,000 dollars for a Select fire weapon you can afford a gun vault to keep it in. I can understand the rationale behind restricting the sale of automatic weaponry (though I will again point out that of the 185,000 legally owned automatic weapons in the US, ATF records show no indication that any of them have ever been used in the commission of a crime), what determines a rapid fire weapon? For example, a M-16 can be set to fire one round per trigger squeeze, then switched to fire 660 rounds per minute, then back to one round per trigger squeeze, all with the flip of a switch. What do you classify it as? Even more difficult, how do you classify a handgun that is semi-automatic, but capable of rapid fire if the operator is capable of pulling the trigger fast enough? Definitions are vitally important here, and current gun technology makes many guns capable of being many things to many different people. Why? Revolvers are more complex and require more maintenance than many modern handguns which makes them more prone to failure in the hands of the general populace. Additionally, they tend to be significantly more dangerous to children than many modern handguns. Furthermore, there is no real proof that revolvers make killing sprees more difficult to execute, and finally, there are plenty of revolvers that are far more deadly than a typical 9mm Glock handgun. One of the things you are very good at is lifting things out of context. The point of my post is the remove from private hands any fire arm that could be fired more than once without a pause to load the chamber. The m-1 is a military weapon, and should not be on the streets, for example. It is an automatic weapon because it can be used that way. This is the kind of hairsplitting that got your country into its second amendment mess. The country has made its bed, and now must lie in it. It is important to understand the intention of legal/constitutional pronouncements and avoid taking license from them. One of these days, the people will find that they are in a corner on this, and the angst between states like Montana and New Jersy could well come to more than suits in the courts. I can load and fire my Mauser and or my Lee enfield as fast as my brother armed with a M1 garand, Hell i have been to Vintage centirefire matches where i can keep up with the guys who are toting M-14's and Ar-15 look alike around, and guess what they say you think you can keep up, and they are amazed at how i can keep up. There is a video somewhere let me find it http://tyoberg.multiply.com/video/item/5 This match has all people armed with AR-15's and M-14's(and one guy with a M1 Garand) all are semi automatic firearms, note how fast he can keep up with those guys who have large magazines(of 20 rounds). My point is regardless when in the hands of skilled people a bolt action rifle can keep up, why do you think the British keep the Lee Enfield in Service until 1957, (i think it was the mad minute that they could go as fast as the guys with Garands) They are pushing Conceal Carry through in New Jersey, but the last i heard NJ will issue you a carry permit after you put down a 500 dollar non-refundable cost to determine electability, now im sure it will pass if they raise it high enough, hell this state loves money. And i know of hundres who would drop the money for them. And i know of many friends who carry their handguns when they go into center city Camden, Elizabeth, Union Newark, and Atlantic city is starting to get out of control. I was down there and almost got mugged by a guy, till i pulled out my knife and returned combat, after which he ran away, do you think scum like that should be allowed to live so they can rob the next white guy in line, i think we need to bring the mob back and let them take the trash out.

As a Gun collector and an active shooter in the centefire community i would think that a gun ban would have issues. A majority of americans don't support a gun ban, nor do they want to see more laws, just better enforcement of current laws. As a person living in the Peoples Republic of New Jersey i can tell you have harsh gun laws are here, and while i think they are harsh and a little to much, i also believe that because of that i am safer as well. It all comes down to the gun shop/ the carrier or who ever is selling guns illegally, that is the problem. While gun ownership is small in new jersey only about 3 million FoID's exist for a mere 8 million residents i can say that the number of gun owners who committed crime was so insignificant that the state police reported "0" last year infact according to the Mayor of Newark only 1 homicide was committed in 2009 by a lawful gun owner, the rest 250 or so were committed by illegally possessed weapons or were used by person who do not fit under the NJ state for gun ownership. We need to remember that the right to bear arms is not so you can hunt, its so you can protect all of the anti-gun liberal who use their 1st amendment right so well, that they forget that the 2nd amendment protects the first, and in the end it is the doomsday amendment, the one in which all other methods fail, then at least one will survive, and the founding fathers knew this.

Originally posted by: Duke87 It's been pointed out that what's going on in iran right now is an argument in favor of the second amendment. Can you imagine if those people rioting in Iran all had guns? The regime and its police wouldn't stand a chance! That, ultimately, was the intent behind establishing arms as a right. Enabling the citizens to overthrow an oppressive government, as our founding fathers had just done. Self defense and home defense are important, yes, but they fall second to defense of the rights of the people. quote> A unarmrmed popluation fears its government more then its government fears its people..... A good video on a 2nd Ammendment issue with the Supreme Court. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4069761537893819675&p "The capaicty of a clip means nothing, it just takes one second to switch clips out. No matter what kind of gun you have it doesn't matter.

Originally posted by: Barbarossa Originally posted by: pepsi71ocean BUT it is a proven stitistic that no guns cause more crime.quote> I think this calls for a source. How did you come to this conclusion? I don't necessarily disagree, but once you find that source, then try to find how many crimes result in death when a gun is involved. The absence (read as "restriction") of guns would lead to fewer deaths, but perhaps crime would rise. I, personally, and willing to see more crime and fewer deaths. Barbarossa quote> My Senior year i wrote a Thesis paper on crime in England after guns were banned, yes gun involved crime dropped however knife and tireiron crime shot up. In the 5 years after guns were banned crime shot up almost 1,000% before finally turning around and going down. Gun Control doesn't stop crime, and to be honoest i have yet to see a place where guns outnumber the people ina tow that will have crime. I know that where i live, and both my Aunts and Uncles (one in GA and the other in AZ) they have reports of Zero gun related crime. As for me i sleep with my doors unlocked because i know robbers won't come down to a tow where everyone has a gun and the "fear" of being caught and shot is worse then that of a town wehre there are more peope then guns. Since i don't have alot of time i just copied this from another forum the creater his name is toroca and this was part of a 2nd Ammendment thread that came up. Here is the posts location http://www.simphoni.net/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=15268&view=findpost&p=394914 Here is his post in its entirety. Let's look at the overall murder rate first. The UK doesn't rank anywhere near the US in terms of total homicides. Here's one of several sources I found that say basically the same thing: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_...ders-per-capita According to that, the US murder rate is 4.3 per 100,000 people, as a national average. That's over three times the rate in the UK, which is listed as 1.4 per 100,000 people. They break it down a little further, and have a page specifically for murders by firearms. http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_...arms-per-capita There the difference is striking, and huge. In the US, it's 2.8 per 100,000. In the UK, it's just a fraction of that, 0.1 per 100,000. Let's put that another way: the US murder by firearm rate is an astonishing 28 times that of the UK. I don't know about the rest of you, but that really makes me wonder where our murder rate would be if we HAD better controls on firearms, since guns account for well over half of the murders in the US, but only 1/14th of the murders in the UK. Now, if you look at burglaries rather than murders, pepsi's got it right, and the numbers are rather interesting: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_bur_...ries-per-capita There, the US has 710 burglaries per 100,000 people. But look at some of the countries that come in above the US, with more burglaries per capita. Some of them are surprising, to me anyway. In reverse order, the ones that surprised me: Switzerland, Iceland, Canada, the UK, New Zealand, Finland, Denmark, and topping the list, Australia. Those are all countries that, if asked, I would have guessed probably have lower crime rates than the US. But they don't, at least not when it comes to burglaries. Vid said: "Canadians don't have guns and typically don't lock their doors and robberies are less common here," well, hate to break it to you Vid, but the rate in Canada comes in at 894 per 100,000, which is over 25% more than the US. The UK is worse, with 1,383 per 100,000 citizens. And look at Australia, on top of the list. 2,175 burglaries per 100,000 people. For anyone who's counting, that's a little over three times the burglary rate of the US. Pick any random 100 Aussies, and 2 of them will be burglarized during the year. Nationmaster's been informative thus far, so let's look at some more stats. How about assaults? Well, there the US and UK are right together, with 757 and 746 per 100,000, respectively. http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_ass_...ults-per-capita How about rapes? http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_rap_...apes-per-capita Well, the US is high in the list, including above the UK, but we're beaten by Canada and Australia again. The US rate is 30 per 100,000, slightly over twice the rate in the UK. Canada, however, sees 73 per 100,000, and Australia has 78 per 100,000. Both of those are well over twice the US rate, surprising me again. Finally, let's look at total crimes of all type per capita. http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_tot_...imes-per-capita The US rate is 8,006 per 100,000 people. That's a lot. Supporting pepsi again, the UK comes in a little higher, at 8,555 per 100,000, a difference of about 7 percent. Canada's not far behind the US, with 7549 per 100,000. Overall, the impression this data gives is that you're more likely to be a victim of a crime in the UK, but you're far more likely to be murdered in the US, and by a gun, at that. So all the guns in the US may contribute to lowering the rate of robberies, but they also seem to contribute to a higher homicide rate.