TargetTalk

Does anyone recall a butt kicking in southeast Asia in the late 60's?

In both places they have/had access to military hardware up to and including anti-tank missiles, anti-aircraft missiles, mortars and artillery, not pocket pistols and semi-auto rifles.

I have come to this thread late (and may have not picked up on all the nuances with my quick scan), but what impresses me in this discussion of the law related to firearms is that a vital point seems to have been missed: in general, those people who kill people with a firearm in a civilian context (not war) are operating outside the law. The actions are illegal and the firearms are illegal, most often, never registered. This fact seems to escape our law makers and therefore we get ever increasingly draconian legislation.

The folly of the lawmaking is demonstrated by the post from Telecomtodd that:

My permit is linked directly to my driver's license. If I was pulled over, the officer could pull up my license with his in-car computer and see I have my permit. When he approaches my car, I am obligated to immediately tell the officer that I have a concealed carry permit, and he (in most cases) will take the gun from you, unload it, and hold it for safekeeping until the road stop is completed.

Only a law abiding citizen would put up with that. A criminal’s response to the officer’s challenge is anyone’s guess.

It is interesting to note that Canada (I believe) is planning to abolish its firearms registry since it appears to achieve nothing and is costing the nation a truckload of cash.

JamesH wrote:In both places they have/had access to military hardware up to and including anti-tank missiles, anti-aircraft missiles, mortars and artillery, not pocket pistols and semi-auto rifles.

From two tours in Afghanistan and many friends coming back from Iraq, I can tell you that the problem isn't anti-tank missiles, anti-aircraft missiles, mortars, nor artillery. It is a largely unhelpful populace combined with small arms fire and improvised explosive devices. (To a certain degree, I understand where the general population is coming from. They may like what we're doing, but they know we're leaving, while the Taliban can wait us out and will be around to punish them and their families as soon as we're gone.)

James, where have you gained your knowledge of guerrilla warfare that leads you to believe that "anti-tank missiles, anti-aircraft missiles, mortars and artillery" guarantee victory?

Many of the RPG's and other heavy weapons were liberated from occupiers by highjacking military convoys with small arms. But most were supplied by nations unfriendly to the dominant force. So if there ever was a guerilla war in the US I can assure you that there would be nations supplying and smuggling heavy arms to the guerillas.

Ive just ordered a Bleiker Challenger from the factory and all I needed to import it into New Zealand was a permit from the police which took five minutes to obtain and was free!As long as the shooter is on the police approved list its no hassle.Not sure how pistol boys fair but I couldnt believe how straight forward it was.Customs were great too.I did have to send a copy of the permit to Switzerland as it was a requirement from the Swiss Government but no hassles really to be had.Its only taking 4 days to get to NZ from Switzerland and probably twice that for the local frieght company to get it to me!

sparky wrote:

JamesH wrote:In both places they have/had access to military hardware up to and including anti-tank missiles, anti-aircraft missiles, mortars and artillery, not pocket pistols and semi-auto rifles.

From two tours in Afghanistan and many friends coming back from Iraq, I can tell you that the problem isn't anti-tank missiles, anti-aircraft missiles, mortars, nor artillery. It is a largely unhelpful populace combined with small arms fire and improvised explosive devices. (To a certain degree, I understand where the general population is coming from. They may like what we're doing, but they know we're leaving, while the Taliban can wait us out and will be around to punish them and their families as soon as we're gone.)

Don't invade a middle eastern country for no good reason or without a plan, duh.
Definitely don't do both.

They aren't going to win though are they? They just don't have the firepower.

James, where have you gained your knowledge of guerrilla warfare that leads you to believe that "anti-tank missiles, anti-aircraft missiles, mortars and artillery" guarantee victory?

I didn't say they guaranteed victory, I have noticed that no country has resisted an invader or toppled a tyrannical govt without them.

We aren't in the 1700s, your right to own an updated musket doesn't guarantee freedom - the world has moved on.

dontshootcritters wrote:Ive just ordered a Bleiker Challenger from the factory and all I needed to import it into New Zealand was a permit from the police which took five minutes to obtain and was free!As long as the shooter is on the police approved list its no hassle.Not sure how pistol boys fair but I couldnt believe how straight forward it was.Customs were great too.I did have to send a copy of the permit to Switzerland as it was a requirement from the Swiss Government but no hassles really to be had.Its only taking 4 days to get to NZ from Switzerland and probably twice that for the local frieght company to get it to me!

Who are you getting to ship it to NZ? Since Swiss Post stopped handling firearms a few years ago, I've found Switzerland the most expensive European country to get a pistol out of.

It is truly refreshing to have this directed back on track. Laws and attitudes from the different countries are eye openers to say the least.

dontshootcritters wrote: ...Not sure how pistol boys fair...

Pretty much the same except the import permit has to be approved by Police HQ in Wellington, it usually adds a couple of days to the process.

Leon, you are right, the days of getting a pistol posted out of Switzerland for less than $50 are long gone (unfortunately) and now it's more like $200 with an air freight company.

I don't mean to fan the flames, but I have never understood why anyone who feels that they need to carry a gun for their saftey would rather carry it concealed than carry it overtly. To me, a visible gun would be much more of a deterant. For the record, I'm not a gun control advocate.

Because it is a right guaranteed by the constitution of this country to carry it however we please.

And maybe because if someone intends me harm, it's not in my best interest to let him know exactly how he can go about doing so. I would much rather keep the element of surprise on my side.

Just the other day in Australia a politician suggested that gun owners be limited to only 3 guns each

Politically point scoring obviously, a typical politician who has no idea that a professional hunter may need several rifles of different caliber depending on the game they were hunting or a target shooter requiring several pistols for different matches held.

trevorw wrote:Just the other day in Australia a politician suggested that gun owners be limited to only 3 guns each

My choice: 2 competition pistols. 1 T/C Encore with 50 or 60 barrels, plus various stocks and forends. :)

trevorw wrote:Just the other day in Australia a politician suggested that gun owners be limited to only 3 guns each

Politically point scoring obviously, a typical politician who has no idea that a professional hunter may need several rifles of different caliber depending on the game they were hunting or a target shooter requiring several pistols for different matches held.

Wonder what JamesH thinks about this one...

[/quote]
Wonder what JamesH thinks about this one...[/quote]

I'm sure he will be perfectly happy with it so long as there is an exception for elite competition shooters like himself.