If you want to defend yourself against tyrants, start by not putting them in places of power.

(April 23, 2017 at 10:31 pm)popeyespappy Wrote: Define random inspection.

If you mean having law enforcement set an appointment with a private citizen to meet at a mutually agreed upon time and place so the machine gun can be inspected then maybe.

If you mean allowing the cops to show up unannounced at someone's home and demand entry in order to inspect that person's legally owned property without a warrant then no. That would be a violation of the 4th amendment.

Sorry, if you want to own one I'm OK with that being part of the agreement. Part of the agreement, no violation.

(April 24, 2017 at 1:11 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: I think you meant to quote Brewer. I can agree with your stipulations, though.

Yes I did. Sorry.

---

(April 24, 2017 at 6:37 am)mh.brewer Wrote:

(April 23, 2017 at 10:31 pm)popeyespappy Wrote: Define random inspection.

If you mean having law enforcement set an appointment with a private citizen to meet at a mutually agreed upon time and place so the machine gun can be inspected then maybe.

If you mean allowing the cops to show up unannounced at someone's home and demand entry in order to inspect that person's legally owned property without a warrant then no. That would be a violation of the 4th amendment.

Sorry, if you want to own one I'm OK with that being part of the agreement. Part of the agreement, no violation.

Why do you think we need that when

(April 23, 2017 at 10:31 pm)popeyespappy Wrote: Ownership of machine guns in the US has been heavily restricted for more than 80 years. In that time the only person in the US I know of who has been convicted of murdering someone with a legally owned privately held machine gun was an Ohio police officer. Legally owned machine guns aren't a big problem in the US. Hell, they aren't even a small problem. The regulations currently in place regarding machine guns seem to be sufficient.

?

(April 24, 2017 at 1:39 am)Tiberius Wrote:

(April 23, 2017 at 5:07 pm)Gawdzilla Sama Wrote: They meant "long guns", for protection from English and Indians. This is in the record from the times. The militia was to use those guns back when it took days to get regular troops to a problem area. "Well regulated" meant drilled regularly so they would know which end of the gun to point at the bad guys. This is all in the historical record for those who will look.

Except that for better or worse, the Supreme Court decided that individuals have a right to keep and bear arms. Pretty recently actually:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_o..._v._Heller
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v...of_Chicago

Yep, and what a blessing that's been.

(April 24, 2017 at 6:52 am)popeyespappy Wrote:

(April 24, 2017 at 1:11 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: I think you meant to quote Brewer. I can agree with your stipulations, though.

Yes I did. Sorry.

---

(April 24, 2017 at 6:37 am)mh.brewer Wrote: Sorry, if you want to own one I'm OK with that being part of the agreement. Part of the agreement, no violation.

Why do you think we need that when

(April 23, 2017 at 10:31 pm)popeyespappy Wrote: Ownership of machine guns in the US has been heavily restricted for more than 80 years. In that time the only person in the US I know of who has been convicted of murdering someone with a legally owned privately held machine gun was an Ohio police officer. Legally owned machine guns aren't a big problem in the US. Hell, they aren't even a small problem. The regulations currently in place regarding machine guns seem to be sufficient.

?

Placation.

(April 24, 2017 at 1:44 am)Isis Wrote: You yanks should consider yourselves lucky.  

Why? I much prefer my current situation whereby my "right" to bear arms is much restricted, and as a result, I am a lot less likely to ever be shot.

(April 24, 2017 at 7:23 am)Tazzycorn Wrote:

(April 24, 2017 at 1:44 am)Isis Wrote: You yanks should consider yourselves lucky.  

Why? I much prefer my current situation whereby my "right" to bear arms is much restricted, and as a result, I am a lot less likely to ever be shot.

What examples of the restrictions can you give?

(April 24, 2017 at 7:43 am)KUSA Wrote:

(April 24, 2017 at 7:23 am)Tazzycorn Wrote: Why? I much prefer my current situation whereby my "right" to bear arms is much restricted, and as a result, I am a lot less likely to ever be shot.

What examples of the restrictions can you give?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk...eople-die/

---

(April 24, 2017 at 7:43 am)KUSA Wrote:

(April 24, 2017 at 7:23 am)Tazzycorn Wrote: Why? I much prefer my current situation whereby my "right" to bear arms is much restricted, and as a result, I am a lot less likely to ever be shot.

What examples of the restrictions can you give?

Licensing, no carry zones, age restrictions for purchases.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk...eople-die/

(April 24, 2017 at 7:21 am)mh.brewer Wrote: Placation.

As a gun owner I realize there are a lot of improvements that could be made to our gun laws. Improvements that could help keep guns out of the hands of people that shouldn't have them. Things like adding people with mental disorders to a this guy needs a closer look before he can have a gun list. But as I have already said the existing regulations regarding private ownership of machine guns in the US seem to be sufficient. Evidence for this is the fact that private citizens in the US that legally own machine guns almost never use them to commit crimes. I'm not however supporting regulations that exempt people from the 4th amendment just to give Brian37 a warm and fuzzy. If you want my support to change the laws then let's come up with some changes that might be effective at reducing gun crime instead of simple appeasement.

(April 24, 2017 at 7:23 am)Tazzycorn Wrote:

(April 24, 2017 at 1:44 am)Isis Wrote: You yanks should consider yourselves lucky.  

Why? I much prefer my current situation whereby my "right" to bear arms is much restricted, and as a result, I am a lot less likely to ever be shot.

Because I'm pro-gun.

I hope to move to the US, or maybe Canada in the future. Of course, Canada has stricter gun laws than the US, but either way I do not intend to stay in the UK all my life.

If you don't like guns, and support very strict gun control, that's fine. You do you.