Pro-gun vs. Anti-gun

[Canadian Marksman]

:rofl:

Sorry to burst your bubble, but lookie here:

One soldier uses the rifle, the other uses the scope. Welcome to the 21st century.

Oh so that is your two man evil sniper rifle ...........you see the rifle is operated by one guy but tthey work in teams but even though a spotter is requirement for many tasks and preferred they are not required to operate the rifle. so your still wrong. keep reading you might learn something.

One soldier uses the sniper rifle and looks through the scope on the rifle, while another spots to point out enemies the soldier with the rifle may not have noticed through the scope alone.Many modern day sniper rifles require the guy with the scope because of the ranges they are designed for. Thus it can be said that two people must operate it, because it's impractical without the scope.

your partially right.

the spotter is doing several things observation is part of if but there is also judging range, wind direction wind shifts ,and what DOPE to use "data on previous engagements" basically what adjustments to make and watching for "spurls" (distortions in the air as the bullet travels) as well as mirage(you can catch wind changes and speed as well by watching for "boils and "streams" in it thats just part of spotting

In other "static" situations where concealment is not an as much as an issue and your a static location you can have that figured out all ready

that particualar rifle looks like a USMC m40 a3 which is basically a remington 700 hunting rifle accurized with a mcmillan stock a good gun plumber can make one for you for about 3 or 4 grand depending what glass you put on it ..........all commercially available because they are also used for hunting and target shooting.

you can find out how widely they are used for non-military purposes here.
[url=http://www.remington.com/prod...w.remington.com/product-famili ... l-700.aspx[/url]


and mcmillan stocks here, http://www.mcmfamily.com/mcmillan-stocks-hunting.php

and there you will fine the original m40 stock was designed for a hunter ! go fig.

please read and educate yourself.
ie you don't see a spotter here

or here

they are not needed to operate the rifle spotters enable you to use all the advantages though

BTW the sr 25 looks that that trooper in the last pic is using looks alot like this .......

Autoloading Model R-25

Remington is excited to announce the Model R-25, a modular repeating rifle designed for big game hunters. The Model R-25 is available in 243 Win., 7mm-08 Remington and 308 Win.; three of today’s most popular short action hunting cartridges.

thats from Remingtons website BTW

 

[Cosmic]

Still, my main concern is that people could use a very, very long range sniper rifle to pick people off from such a range that it's difficult to catch them. A shooting form a van in the same parking lot in one thing, but what if you shoot someone from on top of a hill so far away that whomever shot the weapon is too far away for people nearby to spot it.

 

[Canadian Marksman]

Dude

to build something comparable to an M40 costs 3 or 4 grand plus a decent scope about 2 or 3000

an R25 will run about 1500 and once again 2 or 3000 for a scope

but to get good it takes practice and your looking at 4 dollars a round unless reload and if your just doing it to go postal then its about the same cost anyway and all that takes times and patience

with .338 and 50 cals you can multiply your cost 3 ,4 or 5 times

somebody who is that motivated your not going to stop anyway

and there are plenty of people who take others with them by using other means than with a firearm

something else, the shooting community is pretty tight knit at that level and we police our selves ........you don't see tempers at a range not one i been too because everybody is having too good a time.

when i take new people or people who haven't been exposed to firearms to a range for the first time they see what i am talking about


your all ways gonna get crazies, tidal waves and hurricanes

 

[Cosmic]

@Canadian Marksman: Prices decrease with time. Try buying a computer 30 years ago. Anybody can kill anybody, but it's a bit concerning if people can kill others without being caught easily. And I don't see people shooting someone else at a gun range, seeing as you'd probably get shot up by everyone else there.

 

[katy perry is hot]

Oh ok, they cost a lot of money so don't worry about it. That means no one will buy it.

Simple logic duhhhh

 

[Canadian Marksman]

@Canadian Marksman: Prices decrease with time. Try buying a computer 30 years ago. Anybody can kill anybody, but it's a bit concerning if people can kill others without being caught easily. And I don't see people shooting someone else at a gun range, seeing as you'd probably get shot up by everyone else there.

actually they ran about the same price though not nearly as good a commodore pet was 3 grand

i remember the when the "64" was king and the was about 2 to 2500

but people still commit crimes with them.

and what about serial killers ? its not like they are caught easily

I emphasized your last point as its curious people are so against concealed and open carry :rofl:

Oh ok, they cost a lot of money so don't worry about it. That means no one will buy it.

Simple logic duhhhh

simple logic duhh eh ?

make it illegal an nobody will use it ?


remember how "successful " prohibition was ?

and nobody uses drugs. :roll:

its illegal to speed

and its illegal to use guns in crime

ironically the state with concealed carry laws have lower crime and the cities with the strictest gun control are the more crooked and corrupt.

gun owners are the most lawful citizens but there is this need to punish them all for doing nothing!

thats like me taking your computer away because of sick pedofiles

or like me taking your car away because people speed , drink and drive and get into accidents
you don't need a camaro suv or a big truck

hey if you live in a city you don't need a car so you shouldn't have one or you should have to justify why to somebody why you needone ...........thats freedom!

I have been living under these laws of ours in Canada and have seen the people who support them lie cheat manipulate steal, and get taxpayer money to do so

money that could have done more good in other ways, womens shelters mri machines, hospitals etc

and i have seen them used as excuses to go after people with no criminal intent

If i forget to lock a gun case on the way back from the range my property can seized and be thrown in jail

for what!

yeesh !

 

[Nexus]

Bono - thank you, your popcorn has been brought to your seat.

-Rich

 

[Canadian Marksman]

This is something that just got released from one of our shooting orgs up here and yes it has me scared silly

I used to think like many of you then people started going to jail for unlocked cases to and from ranges peoples property got taken away by arbitrary rulings now this

my comments are in red

Canada’s National Firearms Association
Box 52183, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada T6G 2T5 Telephone: 780-439-1394
Toll Free: 1-877-818-0393 http://www.nfa.ca

For Immediate Release 25 Aug 2010

OPERATION ZERO TOLERANCE

Zero Tolerance on Gun Control Abuses

Canada’s National Firearms Association they are appointed not elected and the association receives large donations from the company that writes software for the gun registry announces Operation Zero Tolerance to expose planned gun control abuses. It has come to the attention of Canada's National Firearms Association that the political police chief heads of law enforcement associations are planning a nation wide blitz against licensed firearms owners, as retribution for the political action of the Canadian firearms community that has resulted in the final vote in parliament of Manitoba MP Candice Hoeppner's Bill C-391.so you can support what you want anymore for fear of police retribution? free country?

The Canadian Association of Police Chiefs (CAPC) has formed a "National Firearms Policy" in order to coordinate enforcement initiatives against licensed firearms owners with registered firearms. Canada's National Firearms Association has information that CACP will be directing their members to clamp down on licensed firearms owners with registered firearms as punishment for their political action to reform bad firearms control laws.

* All paperwork offenses will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, despite the current limited federal government amnesty which ends in May 2011.
that means siezures fines and jail time for not having your papers in order

* Home inspections will be performed on an ever increasing basis on firearms owners with more than ten registered firearms, and all restricted and prohibited firearms owners.
can you say fishing expedition?

* Registered firearms will be seized despite their legal use or status, with the onus put on their owners to navigate the firearms bureaucracy and legal system in order to retrieve them. Furthermore, CACP will lobby for a national handgun ban, the confiscation of all registered handguns in Canada, and the reclassification of all semi automatic firearms as "Restricted" or "Prohibited" firearms.

CACP lobbyist Bill Blair's record as Chief of the Toronto Police Service is an indication of the treatment by law enforcement he wishes to impose on all Canadians. As Chief of Police, Bill Blair ordered Toronto Police Service to target senior citizens and confiscate their firearms for paperwork offenses, and conduct a campaign of harassment against anyone with a firearms license and a registered firearm.

Canada's National Firearms Association advises all firearms owners:

*Check the expiration date on your firearms license, and make sure it is valid. Allowing a firearms license to expire is a criminal offense subject to criminal code punishment, especially if you own restricted or grandfathered prohibited firearms. Allowing a firearms license to expire may result in the loss of your grandfathering privileges.

*Check your current firearms storage system. Read the Firearms Act and ensure that your firearms storage system complies or exceeds safe storage regulations.

*Review your current firearms transportation methods and check the expiration date on your authorizations to transport firearms in the case of restricted firearms and prohibited handguns. Make sure you are in full compliance or better with firearms transportation regulations.

*Contact the Canada Firearms Centre and ensure that your firearms registration records are complete and accurate. Make sure all of your transfers and acquisitions have been recorded correctly. If they are not, you will be held accountable, not the Canada Firearms Centre.


IF YOU HAVE BEEN TARGETED AND CHARGED UNDER THE POLITICAL POLICE CHIEF'S GUN BLITZ, CONTACT CANADA'S NATIONAL FIREARMS ASSOCIATION AT (877) 818 - 0393. or visit us on the web at: http://www.nfa.ca. Each incident will be catalogued and brought to the attention of the Minister of Public Safety of Canada, to demonstrate the gun control agenda of the political police.


For more information contact:
Blair Hagen, Executive VP Communications, 604-753-8682, [email protected]
Sheldon Clare, President, 250-981-1841, [email protected]
http://www.nfa.ca
Canada’s NFA toll-free number - 1-877-818-0393

now I am not anti police most of them think this is crap as well I might end up moving to nevada as a refugee<br /><br />-- 27 Aug 2010, 16:32 --<br /><br />another point of view

Spring 2004
Canadian Conservative Review, p. 10
by Claire Joly

When it comes to the gun registry the province of Quebec is a paradox.

On the one hand polls indicate support for the registry is higher in Quebec than anywhere else in Canada; but it is also estimated that Quebec has the highest rate of non-compliance with the Firearms Act in the country.

That may surprise some people, but it’s true.

According to an unnoticed story in Le Devoir nearly a third of Quebec’s 700,000 gun owners are believed not to have applied for a firearms license. By comparison it’s estimated that barely 7 per cent of gun owners in Alberta didn’t comply.

Meanwhile of those Quebec gun owners who did register it’s not clear how many of them actually registered all their guns. We do know from Canadian Firearms Centre reports that at least 400,000 firearms are still unaccounted for.

And here is something else we know: the Quebec government is coming down hard on anyone who flouts the gun law. Very hard.

While most provinces declared they would not be prosecuting gun registry offences on behalf of the federal government, Quebec authorise are enthusiastically dragging people before the courts.

Indeed what’s happening in Quebec is proving exactly what opponents of the Firearms Act and its gun registry had long argued: it is turning otherwise law-abiding gun owners into criminals.

Consider the case of Jean-François Laflamme, a quiet 24 year old hunter from rural Quebec who recently got charged for violating the gun law. The firearms license needs to be renewed every five years, but he failed to realize that his was expired before going moose hunting. (At the time government had no renewal notification system in place.)

Nonetheless, Laflamme got charged for “illegal possession of a firearm” and goes to trial in November. If found guilty, this young man risks a criminal record, up to $2000 dollars in fines and 6 months in jail.

An even more outrageous case concerns Paul Grussinger, a 65 year old man with Parkinson’s disease who was charged with violating the gun registry law simply because he had three dismantled firearms in his home.

His troubles with the law began when his wife unexpectedly died last year. Grussinger went into a deep depression and family members rounded up his firearms as well as all some gun pieces they found in the house. They turned everything over to the police.

Big mistake.

Since three functional firearms could be built out of the pieces, the ailing man got charged because they were not registered. He says he believed the pieces had been stolen years ago from his summer home. He goes to trial this summer.

How is dragging this man to court is going to improve public safety? That, after all, is the Liberals’ twisted rationale behind this shameful gun law.

As for the young hunter, well, he’s a hard working machinist but now has to pay some lawyer fees he can’t afford. Both had no criminal intent. Still, the government has needlessly disrupted their lives and it could get worse if they end up with a criminal record for a firearms offence.

Regardless of what people consider as appropriate gun control measures, implementing them by the way of the Criminal Code was a wrong way to go. The law was inevitably going to cause collateral damage because the onus is on the gun owners to prove they are legitimate, in contradiction with the basic principle of our legal system.

Furthermore, regulation of property and thus of guns was clearly a provincial jurisdiction. In a June 2000 ruling, however, the Supreme Court allowed Ottawa to legislate on gun ownership on the grounds that the “intention” of the government was to promote public safety and not regulate private property.

With that ruling the Supreme Court opened the door to any future federal encroachment of provincial jurisdictions by the way of the Criminal Code, as long as it is with the “intention” of acting in the name of public safety.

The hundreds of thousand Canadians who didn’t register any or some of their guns are no more a threat to public safety than those two unlucky souls I now know personally. Unfortunately, gun owners will keep getting caught in the Firearms Act web until a sensible government stops this madness. Let’s hope it’s very soon.

http://www.clairejoly.org/laf/arthumancost.html


I have about 4 or 5 more stories like that ..........i used to support our gunlaws in Canada they sounded reasonable until I found out about this sort of thing happening to people i know

 

[50calray]

Still, my main concern is that people could use a very, very long range sniper rifle to pick people off from such a range that it's difficult to catch them. A shooting form a van in the same parking lot in one thing, but what if you shoot someone from on top of a hill so far away that whomever shot the weapon is too far away for people nearby to spot it.

It's possible I guess, right now I'm more worried about getting ran over by some idiot in an SUV on the way to drop our son off at school. It's already happened to me once, which is more than say a 50cal has been used in a crime.

 

[ItsZippy]

I don't think it's a coincidence that the USA has such a problem with guns and allows people to legally carry them with them.

I see no reason that citizens should have the 'right to bear arms' - if you're a peaceful citizen, you have no need for a gun. There's the self defence argument; however, if people don't have guns, you don't need one yourself.

 

[Watch Me Sink]

You must not have read any of my posts. I have clearly stated multiple times why there is a need to bear arms even in the event that they are banned. If you wish for me to quote the numerous posts I can.

 

[ItsZippy]

Sorry, I didn't read the whole thread. I'll read what I can now (don't blame me if I dont reply - I've got a lot of stuff to do).

 

[Fiona1964]

For personal use i thing guns should not be aloud as thats were accidents can happen
if some one breaks into my house they will have to get pass my dog first
and i have my phones beside my bed so its easy to call 999 (uk)
i know i would never be able to use a gun on some one i am too soft for that

Guns in the Army ect is ok they need it to defend our country

 

[Watch Me Sink]

There will always be an underground sale of guns.
Said intruder can always shoot the dog.
If it came to your life or somebody else's life (eg if you were in the armed forces, if you were face to face with a murderer trying to kill you), you would die rather than defend yourself?

 

[The Governor]

My take is very undecided. I understand it's not guns that kill people, it's the people using them. I also realize in some of these cases, people owning guns have saved themselves and/or their family from a home invasion.


But, on the other side of things, without guns, I guarantee you we wouldn't have HALF of the shootings we do today. Part of me doesn't think the public needs to own a gun. How often does someone use it, anyway? It just sits and collects dust 99% of the time. Most people, specifically Americans, cry and whine whenever there's a chance they may lose a right they have, a right they hardly use. The majority of people who say positive things about owning guns don't even own one themselves, they just give their input because they don't like the idea of their right being taken away.

Here is a perfect example of why people shouldn't own guns: Trayvon Martin incident. I'm not going to turn this into a huge debate regarding it, but if Zimmerman didn't have that gun, a kid would still be alive today. You cannot honestly tell me a grown man like Zimmerman didn't have the common sense that "Hey! This kid is smaller than I am, I can easily fight him off me!" Instead, he reached for a gun.

This is where we are heading. Forget physical altercations, or defending yourself physically, just carry around a Glock and instantly kill anyone who even throws a punch.

 

[Bluezone777]

It looks like your problem has more to do with the nature of people then the guns they carry. Taking away guns does not change their nature as it only changes the method of which they defend themselves with. It will only lead to a rise in death by knives to make up for the lowering of gun related crime.

Furthermore, the reason why we have the right to bear arms is to keep our own government from enslaving us much like how the British government enslaved the British colonies with excessive taxation along with personal defense and of course hunting for food which some still do.

Police are not here to protect you from crime but to deal with the aftermath of it. The only one here to defend you from criminals is yourself. Relying on anyone else will not end well for you. There is a reason why we have guns in this country and a right to own them.

 

[The Governor]

Police are not here to protect you from crime but to deal with the aftermath of it. The only one here to defend you from criminals is yourself. Relying on anyone else will not end well for you. There is a reason why we have guns in this country and a right to own them.

You are wrong in every single aspect. Police are here to protect and serve. PROTECT! Why do you think police come to hostage situations? Why do you think there are hostage negotiators? To try and protect and free the hostage.

The main job of law enforcement is to protect others. Why do you think we call them if someone is coming after us? Why do you think people call them if their life is in danger? If you truly believe the police are not here to protect us, then you need to seriously brush up on law enforcement and what the police actually do.

 

[Atrox]

I believe that what happens with British Gun Possession is correct. Only members of the Military and SERVING should only possess a firearm, and also the Police Special Armed Forces should only have possession of a firearm, when SERVING.

 

[Gamer Outpost]

My take is very undecided. I understand it's not guns that kill people, it's the people using them. I also realize in some of these cases, people owning guns have saved themselves and/or their family from a home invasion.


But, on the other side of things, without guns, I guarantee you we wouldn't have HALF of the shootings we do today. Part of me doesn't think the public needs to own a gun. How often does someone use it, anyway? It just sits and collects dust 99% of the time. Most people, specifically Americans, cry and whine whenever there's a chance they may lose a right they have, a right they hardly use. The majority of people who say positive things about owning guns don't even own one themselves, they just give their input because they don't like the idea of their right being taken away.

Here is a perfect example of why people shouldn't own guns: Trayvon Martin incident. I'm not going to turn this into a huge debate regarding it, but if Zimmerman didn't have that gun, a kid would still be alive today. You cannot honestly tell me a grown man like Zimmerman didn't have the common sense that "Hey! This kid is smaller than I am, I can easily fight him off me!" Instead, he reached for a gun.

This is where we are heading. Forget physical altercations, or defending yourself physically, just carry around a Glock and instantly kill anyone who even throws a punch.

Ummm, no. Mr. Martin was bigger (taller) than Mr. Zimmerman and a lot more physically fit. Without the gun, who knows if Zimmerman would be alive and well? I mean he was getting his head bashed into the freaking concrete sidewalk.

 

[Cat]

As a British citizen, I am anti-guns. I honestly can't even fathom how some people are pro-guns when the scenarios they provide usually require them to be breaking the law to begin with. i.e you're meant to keep a gun unloaded, and locked in a safe. So you can easily retrieve that when staring down an intruder in your home? No, you cannot. So in the scenarios, they take their handgun from their nightstand, which apparently is breaking the law to begin with. So based on that, would it even matter if the gun laws changed? You'd be breaking them anyway.

But overall, I'm anti-people. I think if the US adopted tighter gun laws (note that I'm not saying ban guns) there wouldn't be as many problems. Look at the kid who went on a rampage in California a few days ago. An Asbergers syndrome sufferer with clinical depression, and somebody thought "yeah he can have guns"

THAT is why gun laws are a laughing stock, and that is why the constitution is worthless.

Also, I have a question. Are things such as swords or axes allowed to be carried by the general populace in America? Because they too fall under the umbrella of being "arms" which you apparently have the right to bear (carry).