Machine gun shoot

[fatlazyless]

Anyone make it to the machine gun shoot at the Pemigiwasset Fish & Game Club in Holderness, just a short drive up Route 3 from Meredith, yesterday? Understand it was a fund raiser for the local Republican political party, or something.

I just saw the signs as I was driving, drove up to the entrance, saw all the cars parked, and could hear the ratta-tat-tat from a distance away but decided to save my money for the groceries. Apparently, it appeared to be a whole family, oriented event.

There were signs all over....on Route 93.....on Rt 3....in Holderness and surrounds.

Got to ask.....what did the targets look like? What were they shooting at?

Just noticed in the paper edition of today's Union Leader an article on it at the top of the second section, titled "Machine gun shoot draws a crowd" with a photo of someone from Tilton shooting a belt-fed, 30 caliber, military looking gun mounted on a shorty tripod from a prone position, Don't know if the internet UL has it?

[wifi]

..... What were they shooting at?

Good thing you didn't ask 'Who' :emb:

[VitaBene]

Interesting, I wonder if it is the same group that was running this onehttp://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2008/10/police_identify_6.html- what a tragedy

[Pineedles]

"C.O.P. Firearms & Training, an Amherst company", according to the article. The video gave vey little information about the accident, other than what kind of a boy Christopher was. Very tragic accident. IMHO 10 years old is too young to be operating anything past a 22 caliber, say nothing of a full automatic 9mm or other high caliber weapon. I am an NRA member.

[fatlazyless]

I understand it was run by the Pemigewasset Valley Fish & Game Club in Holderness, at their gun range. It was a fundraiser for the New Hampshire State Republican Party.

Wow, what a party! Wish I was there! Hey, I voted for a Wolfeboro summer White House, last January, honest! I shoulda asked for a receipt when I stepped outta the polling booth cause no one believes me and so's I coulda get into the machine gun shoot.....shazaaaaam!

[jrc]

FLL, the concept of a fundraiser is YOU pay THEM money. They don't care who you voted for last year. Show up with a check and you're in the club.

[Don]

Speaking of machine guns... I picked this up from one of those brochure stands this summer. It seemed a little strange next to the brochures for Polar Caves and Alpine Slides. This thread and the recent tragedy in Mass. made me think of it. It appears that an 8 year old could fire an Uzi there too, as long as an adult was with them.

[GTO]

If they can put Jolly Jays xxx rated video shop right smack dab in the middle of Funspot, why not advertise gun use at other tourist hot spots. I think Jolly Jay should have a brochure he can put in these locations also. We'd definately see a "rise" in tourism.

[SIKSUKR]

Wow.I never knew Woodstock had that kind of firearms available to the public.

[SAMIAM]

Wow,,,,noticed they have a "grease gun" available.Haven't heard that term in many years.It is a .45 cal pistol grip machine gun......could clear a small forrest with one of those.

[Lakesrider]

Yeah, aren't amachine gun shoots just great.....

http://news.aol.com/article/boy-8-killed-in-gun-show-accident/226339?icid=100214839x1211855916x1200774080

[dpg]

Yeah, aren't amachine gun shoots just great.....

http://news.aol.com/article/boy-8-killed-in-gun-show-accident/226339?icid=100214839x1211855916x1200774080


When some common sense is used they are.

[gravy boat]

Yeah, aren't amachine gun shoots just great.....

http://news.aol.com/article/boy-8-killed-in-gun-show-accident/226339?icid=100214839x1211855916x1200774080


So tragic. IMHO, I believe 8 years old is a little young for an Uzi. However, I am a proponent of teaching gun safety to children and the dangers involved. Just like teaching them to drive a car, which can also be considered a weapon if yielded without common sense or intelligent thought.

[Cobalt 25]

dpg,

How do machine guns contribute to the common good?

Peter

[GWC...]

dpg,

How do machine guns contribute to the common good?

Peter
Obviously, you have never experienced an engagement with an enemy force.

When someone makes a statement regarding the price of freedom, do you query its contribution to the common good?

In January, 2009, you will learn how increased taxes contribute to the common good or at least that's what you will be told and expected to believe.

[Pineedles]

dpg,

How do machine guns contribute to the common good?

Peter

Firearms training, and I ask that you look at my original post, is necessary for the common defense of this country. There are too many people who are afraid of firearms just because they never have had any exposure to them. Yes, this is a tragic accident. But let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. If you are afraid of firearms and don't want anything to do with them, that's OK, you don't have to. However, many of us enjoy the sport of target, hunting, plinking, etc. and don't want your ignorance (not a bad word, perhaps I should say unfamiliarty) to restrict our right to continue enjoying our sense of security in our homes, and our sport and most importantly our right.

I would encourge any of you to seek out a firearms owner and ask them to take you to the range to try shooting. You won't be dissapointed, I would guess that 100% of those who are asked would not only take you, but pay for everything. It is a fun sport, and despite this child's death is a safe one.

[ITD]

....... or at least that's what you will be told and expected to believe.

That scares me much more than a machine gun, at least you can hide from a machine gun....

[Winnicandle]

dpg,

How do machine guns contribute to the common good?

Peter

Who are you to judge what is good for me or anyone else?

Thats the beauty of The United States and a Constitution. I like Freedom.

Firearms of all sorts have been protecting YOUR freedom for many years, they have protected families from sick criminals, have secured our borders, and protected our friends and soldiers abroad.

Firearms are also a great hobby, sporting and collectible for many (including me)

We are teachers, we teach youngsters (and adults new to guns!) how to be responsible gun owners. Responsibilty is something many youth are missing today.

Don't be so quick to lump guns together and start throwing away your rights, complete nations and large parts of races have been wiped out by this mindset!

Look up a local NRA instructor and take some lessons, you might find the shooting sports very rewarding, challenging, and downright fun.

[jrc]

dpg,

How do machine guns contribute to the common good?

Peter

How does a Cobalt 25? To each his own.

PS I've owned several boats and never owned or fired a real gun, just BB guns.

[fatlazyless]

Say, haven't machine guns been banned from private ownership since Al Capone and 'machine gun' Kelly were out loose in the 1930's. Penalty for possession of one is like a big fat federal felony, or something.

Even here in the 'live free or die' state, it's not like you ever see an Uzi for sale at someone's garage sale. "Why yes, we are returning to Massachusetts, so we need to unload our cherished Thompson sub-machine gun with the walnut handles......pity.....it will be missed.....oh New Hampshire!" :rolleye1::):rolleye1:

[gtxrider]

Machine Guns-- Private & Corporate Ownership
It is a common misconception that machine guns cannot be owned by law-abiding citizens. This comes from the creation of a variety of confusing laws that have made purchasing a full-auto gun more difficult than purchasing a "normal" gun. But, if you can comply with the law, you may qualify to own a machine gun.

http://www.impactguns.com/store/machineguns_legalities.html

It might be nice to mount a 50 Cal. on the bow of the boat.

[Cobalt 25]

GWC,

"Obviously, you have never experienced an engagement with an enemy force."

Perhaps you and Pineedles shouldn't make assumptions.

I served with the First Infantry Division in Viet Nam in '68 and '69. I was a machine gunner on an armored personel carrier, complete with a C.I.B. and a Purple Heart.

That was then, this is now. Machine guns served the common good in war time, but what good do they serve in the hands of children now? Machine guns are designed to kill people. Do we put them in the hands of children and adults so that someday they, too, can kill people?

Legitimate hunting is one thing, but I don't understand the need for people to own assault rifles, machine guns, etc. To each his or her own, right, but I still say machine guns in the hands of civilians in peace time is unnecessary.

Maybe I've just had enough of all that. War is not the answer. We can do better.

Peter

[Bear Islander]

... Perhaps you and Pineedles shouldn't make assumptions...



None of us should make assumptions, there are often exceptions that most people never think of. My company rented out weapons, including fully automatic weapons to private citizens. We don't do it anymore, it was not a money maker and had to many problems. However their possession and use was legal and necessary.

[Woodsy]

I dont get the hostility when it comes to firearms... I don't own a gun, nor am I a member of the NRA.

I am saddened that a child died... It doesnt matter what gun the child was holding, accident this could have ocurred with a pistol.

This child died due to a SERIOUS lapse in judgement on the part of the childs father... no doubt a horror he will live with for the rest of his life.

I am am a FIRM believer in the Constitution, and the 2nd Amendment is a key provision! The right to bear arms was important enough to our founding fathers as to be listed #2, right behind life, liberty & the pursuit of happiness! The 2nd Amendment prevents an oppressive tyrannical government, allows people to defend thier homes and themselves from criminals. I have no problem with the Brady Bill or backround checks. People who buy guns legally are not the problem...


On a completely different note...

Did you guys check out the current pricing of these automatic weapons? YIKES! $19K for an M-16, MP-5 etc! Its not the poor folk who own these weapons...


Woodsy

[dpg]

Cobalt - Everyone answered for me. :laugh: Yup I'm a gun owner, hunter and sports shooter (well, more for fun.) Won't argue or even discuss the ownership of an auto firearm. I do not own one but if someone wants to I guess that's their business. My two kids have shot mine (older than 8.) Eight is way to young to be showing someone an Uzi.

[Pineedles]

Cobalt 25, my apologies to you for my assumption that you were unfamilar with guns and my gratitude for your service to this Country. I am not advocating machine guns for 8 year olds but neither am I in favor of more regulations limiting their availabilty. This was a case of responsibility, and I believe it rests firmly in the lap of this poor father who has lost his son.

Woodsy can't understand where the hostility comes from, but to his credit he advocates the importance of the 2nd ammendment. I guess folks who truely understand what the anti-gunners are up to, which is complete confiscation of guns from private owners do get a bit upset. It is the nibbling away of our right to possess guns that we fear, and jump in when we see someone who can't see the purpose of private ownership. I was unaware that private ownership of automatic weapons was possible and given the prices of them I probably won't be buying one soon. Also, that right to own one is already compromised in Connecticut. Nibbling away at my rights again.

Bottom line is, when we see a tragic accident, as this one was, I can't see the logic in advocating a "new" law to prevent such tragedies in the future. Once again siting my home State, a father has been charged with a crime because he didn't properly store his gun at home and his son found the pistol and accidently shot himself. The law was already in place and did not prevent the accident. Why can't we just advocate that people take more responsibility with their own lives and those of their family, rather than make this new law or that, or ban that saturated fat, or buckle up or your getting a ticket.

The founding father's (and mother's, as I am sure they had some input to their husband's thinking) intention was very clear. But with the intrusiveness of gov't into our lives growing each day, this right may ultimately protect us from our own gov't, as they intended it should.

Ok, I'm off my soapbox on this one. But one more thought,

LIVE FREE OR DIE!

[Misty Blue]

There is an outfit called Manchester Firing Line that rents machine guns. They have a Sister range in Belmont just past the NH Tech. School. Both are first class indoor ranges that are very professionally operated.

They have many firearms to choose from including pistols, rifles, submachine guns right up to the big boys. If you always wanted to try an M-2 Browning, they have it.

You rent by the hour. The price depends on the weapon. A 45 Thompson is $75 and hour and the ammo is $22 for a box of 50 rounds. A HK MP5 is only about $18 per hour with ammo about $18 for 50 rounds. (That puppy will empty a 30 round magazine in under 5 seconds if you want t so watch your wallet)

We have discussed using a gift certificate from them as a raffle prize.

So if you want to try something new, give them a try.

Manchester (603) 668-9015
Belmont (603) 524-8678

Misty Blue

[Sunrise Point]

My son and a friend (high school students at the time) took me to the Firing Range in Belmont several years ago. It was on a Sunday and Sunday was Ladies Day (ladies shoot free).

It was my first time shooting. I grew up in a household where guns were present (my dad was a policeman). My dad was of the opinion that guns were more harm than good in the general public and never encouraged any of us to shoot or own one.

The owner of the Firing Line (Bob?) was very attentive, extrememly safety conscious and quite passionate about ownership and his own collection. I was given a 38 semi-automatic, hearing protection and a paper target. I was shown how to load and shoot, did pretty well on the target (I still have it) and really had a great time. I never went back simply because it wasn't appealing to me and I had no intention of becoming a gun owner. Would I encourage anyone else to go? Absolutely! Try it.

I think that the majority of people who go to these ranges and events are responsible and exremely safety conscious. The father who let his son fire that machine gun made a terrible error in judgement and he will pay that price for the rest of his life.

[Cobalt 25]

Pineedles,

Apology accepted and appreciated.

Peter

[ILoveWinnipesaukee]

I dont get the hostility when it comes to firearms... I don't own a gun, nor am I a member of the NRA.

I am saddened that a child died... It doesnt matter what gun the child was holding, accident this could have ocurred with a pistol.

This child died due to a SERIOUS lapse in judgement on the part of the childs father... no doubt a horror he will live with for the rest of his life.

I am am a FIRM believer in the Constitution, and the 2nd Amendment is a key provision! The right to bear arms was important enough to our founding fathers as to be listed #2, right behind life, liberty & the pursuit of happiness! The 2nd Amendment prevents an oppressive tyrannical government, allows people to defend thier homes and themselves from criminals. I have no problem with the Brady Bill or backround checks. People who buy guns legally are not the problem...


On a completely different note...

Did you guys check out the current pricing of these automatic weapons? YIKES! $19K for an M-16, MP-5 etc! Its not the poor folk who own these weapons...


Woodsy


I am not against guns for protecting the freedom of the United States, or of the common man. My complaint is with the parent that gives an 8 year old an automatic weapon for shooting pumpkins. There are the rights to bear arms for protection, then there needs to be laws regarding hunting arms.

Would an uzi be used to go hunting? I am not sure it would be, plus an 8 year old cannot get a hunters license can he? An adult should have used better judgement than to allow a small child such a dangerous weapon that kicks back so badly as the news showed.

[hilltopper]

I am not sure it would be, plus an 8 year old cannot get a hunters license can he?

There is no mimimum age for hunting. Hunters under 16 years of age do not need a license but are do need to hunt with a licensed hunter 18 years of age or older.

I'm sure there were a number of hunters under the age of 10 who were successfull during last weekends Youth Deer Hunting Weekend.

[fatlazyless]

You know the large, blue w/ black letters, home made style, 4' x 4' hand painted, roadside signs advertising this event and placed on Route 93, and Route 3/25 all said:

'REPUBLICAN MACHINE GUN SHOOT'


That's what they said. They said what they said. Before I make any comments which will not be appreciated by some, you can draw you own conclusions and comparisions. ....no comment!

[Woodsy]

I am not against guns for protecting the freedom of the United States, or of the common man. My complaint is with the parent that gives an 8 year old an automatic weapon for shooting pumpkins. There are the rights to bear arms for protection, then there needs to be laws regarding hunting arms.

Would an uzi be used to go hunting? I am not sure it would be, plus an 8 year old cannot get a hunters license can he? An adult should have used better judgement than to allow a small child such a dangerous weapon that kicks back so badly as the news showed.

I agree..... what was the father thinking? Apparently he wasnt, and neither was the instructor! As bad as this sounds its amazing only one person died...

A completely preventable tragedy!

The 2nd Amendment gives you the RIGHT to bear arms. Thats a pretty darn powerful word! The government has HUNDREDS if not THOUSANDS of laws pertaining to the regulation of firearms. There is no need for additional laws or regulation. In fact I think the laws should be streamlined somewhat.

IMHO, the government shouldnt be telling you what type of firearm you can own... its your RIGHT to posess one. There is no need for firearms to be limited to protection or hunting. I was against the assault weapon ban when it was first implemented and I was glad it was repealed. If you want to limit the use of firearms tax the ammo...

Woodsy

PS: FLL, this isnt a Democrap vs. Repunklican issue. Slowly but surely everyones constitutional rights are being eroded by the nanny types that somehow think you can legislate common sense. Both political parties are guilty of this!

[LakeSnake]

+1 on what Woodsy said - you can't legislate away stupidity - although it seems a lot of new laws have that intent.

Anyway - does anyone know of a firing range(s) around the lake? I am looking to become a member of one but am not sure what is around. Any help would be apprciated.

[NoRegrets]

My wife and I enjoy a membership at the Belmont Firearms & Range in Belmont (RT. 106 out of Laconia). We go once a week. It is an indoor range professionally run by Bob and Dave. They rent guns or bring your own. Great place to try different calibers before buying.
You get to know the "regulars" and they are all top notch.

You can join as a member or pay a little extra as a non-member. They have a second location in Manchester but it is much busier there so we go to Belmont.

[John A. Birdsall]

yes in the constitution it gives a gaurentee to have a gun. And I leave that to you each to make your own choice. But to put a automatic weapon in the hands of a child whether he be eight or 16 is not the smartest thing to do, irregardless if an adult that knows the weapon is standing right there or not. Accidents happen, but this could have been prevented.

When I was a scout master in the boy scouts, I never gave out an award to a boy (young man) for weapons safety beacuse I would not allow that to happen in the troop I was charged with.

I will not impose on your rights to bear arms, but please, please be responsible when it comes to who, how, and wear you teach the youth to use them.

[Mee-n-Mac]

From what I read the child was supposed to be supervised and at the last moment the father left the firing line and took a few steps rearward to get his camera. The child then pulled the trigger and the gun climbed and twisted so as to shoot the child. Had the father been right there, on hand, as he was supposed to be the accident wouldn't have happened. Now I question whether an 8 yr old should be handling a loaded Uzi but I don't know the backgrounds here. A friend of mine took his child to the range and started him on .22s, rifle and revolver and graduated from there. I don't know this kids prior experience. I do know that leaving him there, gun loaded, not closely attended is stupid. In that respect it's like leaving a small child next to the open swimming pool while you duck back into the house to answer the phone. Probably 99% of the time nothing bad happens but ....

The problem lies not with the pool, or gun, but with the parent. Seems to me that we need more laws on who can be a parent. Would solve a boatload of these types of problems.

[Don]

I heard an interesting interview with a National Guard weapons instructor. He said that when Guardsmen are trained to fire machine guns the gun is always restrained with a device that restricts movement of the gun upwards or sideways. Even 50 year old men are not allowed to freely hold and fire a machine gun until they are trained enough to do so.

He also said that when he trains someone to fire an unrestrained machine gun he first puts just one bullet in the gun and has the trainee fire it. Then he puts 2 bullets in, then 3. This allows the trainee to get used to the recoil effect gradually.

In the case of the 8 year old it appears that none of these techniques were followed. They apparently gave an untrained child a fully loaded, unrestrained Uzi.

After hearing the interview I had to conclude that although the father has ultimate responsibility for putting his son in that situation, the instructor and firing range also have a great deal of the responsibility (and possibly liability) for this tragedy.

[M/V_Bear_II]

Don't be so quick to lump guns together and start throwing away your rights, complete nations and large parts of races have been wiped out by this mindset!

Which ones?

I am am a FIRM believer in the Constitution, and the 2nd Amendment is a key provision! The right to bear arms was important enough to our founding fathers as to be listed #2, right behind life, liberty & the pursuit of happiness! The 2nd Amendment prevents an oppressive tyrannical government, allows people to defend thier homes and themselves from criminals. I have no problem with the Brady Bill or backround checks. People who buy guns legally are not the problem...

It was actually the fourth amendment proposed by Congress and sent to the states for ratification. The first two just didn't pass (the first, dealing with Congressional representation, never passed; the second, dealing with Congressional pay raises, became the 27th).

Nobody disputes that the intent of the 2nd Amendment was "to provide for the common defense" - "a well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State" - both against outside forces (the regular Continental Army was a fraction of the colonists' armed forces during the Revolution) and against internal rebellion (Shays' Rebellion proved that it was difficult to avoid a standing army and still muster a timely, effective federal response to a threat). Through English common law, weapon ownership was both a right and a responsibility (though limited in the Isles to members of the Church of England; i.e., the establishment).

Paradoxically, a widespread militia was also seen as a check on the power of the central government. The Framers, fresh off their use of arms to overthrow a government that they felt did not have their best interests at heart, wanted to protect the power to do so again. The Battles of Lexington and Concord were sparked by a British attempt to infringe on that power - the Regulars were marching on Concord to confiscate the stores of ammunition that they had learned the militia were stockpiling. Such a need had already proven superfluous, as the Framers had peacefully "overthrown" the ineffective Articles of Confederation and drafted & ratified the Constitution.

The grammar in early versions of "bear arms" clauses, in state constitutions and in draft resolutions in Congress, seems to point more clearly to the militia as the only intent of this clause - but somewhere along the way a comma replaced a semicolon, and here we are.

Until D.C. v. Heller, the Court had never ruled on extensions to the 2nd Amendment in favor of individual self-defense, and they were not explicit in that case's applications to the rest of the country. It will make for interesting debate in the coming years.

On the other hand, we should consider ourselves lucky - spelling was so inconsistent at the time that we might today be debating the meaning of a right to "bare arms!" :)

The 2nd Amendment gives you the RIGHT to bear arms. Thats a pretty darn powerful word! The government has HUNDREDS if not THOUSANDS of laws pertaining to the regulation of firearms. There is no need for additional laws or regulation. In fact I think the laws should be streamlined somewhat.

IMHO, the government shouldnt be telling you what type of firearm you can own... its your RIGHT to posess one. There is no need for firearms to be limited to protection or hunting. I was against the assault weapon ban when it was first implemented and I was glad it was repealed. If you want to limit the use of firearms tax the ammo...

First of all, taxing ammunition wouldn't have any effect on the use of guns in violent crimes. (I think we can all agree that the reason that those who oppose gun ownership do so is because of crime. Accidental deaths are just more "ammunition" for them.) Those who commit gun violence are willing to pay 5 times the market value for guns on the black market. They're not going to care about a 10% tax on their ammunition.

Second, nobody complains about the fact that convicted felons are unable to legally own guns - even those convicted of non-violent crimes. So it's obviously not an absolute right. There is an undeniable qualitative difference between a weapon that could be fired 4 times in a minute and accurate at 100 yards and one that can be fired 100 times in a minute and accurate at 500 yards. Of course, whether that should make a difference is where the debate lies.

I know I'm new here, but I feel like context is important. Can you tell I teach history?

[Airwaves]

Ladies and Gentlemen;
It seems odd to me that some of you folks of NH would criticize gun laws of Massachusetts. Massachusetts has arguably the toughest gun laws in the country.

In the tragic case of the Connecticut father and son that went to the Westfield gun show and the son lost control of a weapon, it is something I would not wish upon anyone. However, the incident does not appear to have violated even Massachusetts strict gun laws.

PART I. ADMINISTRATION OF THE GOVERNMENT

TITLE XX. PUBLIC SAFETY AND GOOD ORDER

CHAPTER 140. LICENSES

EMPLOYMENT AGENCIES

SALE OF FIREARMS

Chapter 140: Section 130. Sale or furnishing weapons or ammunition to aliens or minors; penalty; exceptions

“…Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit an instructor from furnishing rifles or shotguns or ammunition therefor to pupils; provided, however, that said instructor has the consent of a parent or guardian of a pupil under the age of eighteen years…”
It is my understanding that in this tragic incident the child’s father not only gave permission, but was holding his son from behind to help cushion the recoil of the weapon.

Even the toughest gun laws in the country can’t prevent accidents.

Do I think it was appropriate for an 8 year old to fire a mini-Uzi? Absolutely not! My father was in the Army Air Corps and in his training with automatic weapons (pilots don't carry them) he was told to put a strap on his belt, put his arm over the barrel and hold onto the strap on his belt before firing because of the upward recoil.

Stupid is as stupid is...if you fine folks of NH want to criticize then adopt your own tough gun laws.

[SAMIAM]

M/V....Which ones?? Since you teach history,you might remember that Hitler confiscated weapons before murdering 7 million Jews.
Are you sure you're not a politician instead of a teacher?I read your post and still don't know what you said.

[M/V_Bear_II]

M/V....Which ones?? Since you teach history,you might remember that Hitler confiscated weapons before murdering 7 million Jews.
Are you sure you're not a politician instead of a teacher?I read your post and still don't know what you said.

Gun control was a part of German politics years before Hitler arrived on the scene. He did extend pre-Reich rules, but not until 1938 - after the introduction of other stringent anti-Jewish laws. Confiscation of weapons was certainly secondary to the confiscation of other rights. I am pretty confident that you would not have seen a mass uprising if there still were still guns - the population was simply too spread out & small, and they were pretty well cowed by the civil restraints in place.

A couple other points: 6 million Jews, of which roughly 250,000 lived in Germany before Hitler. The poster I was responding to implied plural countries or races. Is there another one, other than German Jews, who might have been saved by holding on to their guns more tightly?

Let me know what in my post confused you. I'd be happy to elaborate.

[Winnicandle]

Is there another one, other than German Jews, who might have been saved by holding on to their guns more tightly?



I guess that was not a good enough example?

:(

Its good enough for me.

[Boater]

The 2nd Amendment gives you the RIGHT to bear arms. That's a pretty darn powerful word!I agree with you Woodsy but it is clear that 4 out of 9 of the Supremes don't. The Washington DC gun ban was just narrowly overturned by 5-4. With 6 justices over the age of 70 a few new appointments by a President Obama will assure that the next challenge is rejected, which would essentially overturn the 2nd Amendment and open the door to gun bans across the country.

Another peek into what may be coming is the legislation that Obama sponsored while a state rep. in Illinois. His proposal would have banned all guns including handguns, rifles and shotguns except on English style hunt clubs. The really scary part is that it included giving the police powers to visit and search the homes of every legal gun owner and confiscate their guns. The irony of the law is that search warrants would still be required to search a house of an illegal gun owner but registered (legal) gun owners would lose that protection. Fortunately it didn't pass but it certainly is a window into Obama's thinking.

[VitaBene]

yes in the constitution it gives a gaurentee to have a gun. And I leave that to you each to make your own choice. But to put a automatic weapon in the hands of a child whether he be eight or 16 is not the smartest thing to do, irregardless if an adult that knows the weapon is standing right there or not. Accidents happen, but this could have been prevented.

When I was a scout master in the boy scouts, I never gave out an award to a boy (young man) for weapons safety beacuse I would not allow that to happen in the troop I was charged with.

I will not impose on your rights to bear arms, but please, please be responsible when it comes to who, how, and wear you teach the youth to use them.


John, are you saying that you did not allow your scouts to shoot? There is really no award for weapons safety, there are however merit badges for both rifle and shotgun shooting. Where better to learn weapons safety than at a well supervised BSA range? Sorry that is how you dealt with it, but I could not disagree with you more.

That being said, would they be shooting an Uzi or any other similar weapon at a BSA facility? Absolutely not, it is not allowed, although Venture scouts have began shooting handguns.

[Cobalt 25]

Boater,

Let's set the record straight, O.K.?

According to Snopes: http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/blackwell.asp

Obama in 1996 reported on a questionaire that he was opposed to handgun ownership in Illinois. Eight years later he had changed his mind. (Did you ever do that?) He now says he has no interest in interfering with hunters rights regarding firearms ownership. He NEVER tried to legislate a ban against them.

Can you cite a reference to your accusation that Obama sponsored legislation as a state rep that would have banned all guns?

Go Obama!

Peter

[Mike M.]

Is there another one, other than German Jews, who might have been saved by holding on to their guns more tightly?


Ottoman Empire, Soviet Union, China, Cambodia

[Mike M.]

Can you cite a reference to your accusation that Obama sponsored legislation as a state rep that would have banned all guns?

No one will be able to because Obama was never a State Representative. He ran in 2000 but was not elected.

Here is a link to Obama's position(s) on the issue of gun control:

http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Gun_Control.htm

McCain's:

http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/John_McCain_Gun_Control.htm

[M/V_Bear_II]

I guess that was not a good enough example?

:(

Its good enough for me.
You said there were *plural* examples. I was hoping you had more of them. And I think I showed that there were bigger issues present in Germany long before Hitler addressed gun control.

Or do you think that if the Weimar Republic had not had limited gun control, the Jews would have revolted when the 1935 Nuremberg Laws were announced? If so, then I guess I should drop the argument on that one.

Ottoman Empire, Soviet Union, China, Cambodia

China had a full-on civil war. I don't think they were "giving up their guns".

Cambodia, I don't know enough about to address. But if you can give me any evidence that gun control contributed to the genocide, I'll give it to you.

The Soviet Union's gun control coincided with Stalinist repression. I'm still not convinced that without it, the purges would have been avoided, but I'll give it to you.

And I assume you mean the Armenians in the Ottoman Empire. This is a great example, and I thank you for bringing it up, because I had not considered it. That was gun control legislation aimed at a specific ethnic group, which later led to genocide. This is an excellent piece of evidence, which is all I was looking for.

[Cobalt 25]

Mike M.,

When I mentioned state rep I was referring to the term Boater used when he said Obama proposed banning all guns.

The link you posted contains much of the info I referenced from Snopes, but it was presented by a biased source. ontheissues.org leans way right. I believe most people would recognize, and respect, Snopes for being non-biased.

Peter

[fatlazyless]

For what it's worth, there's a big gun manufactorer not too far from the Lakes Region. Heading over towards Lebanon and Enfield, NH, somewhere, there's a big factory building called 'Pine Tree Castings' on its' little sign, and it is, I believe, the Sturm Ruger company. The state road goes right past the factory entrance. Just next door, another place sells very nice wool blanket, factory seconds.

Could be worth the drive for shopping some factory second, wool blankets and a factory second, machine gun, at a low New Hampshire factory price, of course!.:):D:)

Most likely, there is absolutely no way that Sturm Ruger, a large gun maker, will follow the trails of Annalee Dolls of Meredith, or L C Packard woolen mill of Ashland, and be bought out and get moved to China.

It seems more likely that China could be moving some of its' factories, offshore here to New Hampshire, to utilize our low-pay, New Hampshire work force.

[jrc]

..........

I know I'm new here, but I feel like context is important. Can you tell I teach history?

Welcome M/V,

When you teach history, do you teach that the founders believed that rights are given by their Creator not by the men and documents?

"We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness"

And that the 2nd amendment just instructs the government not to infringe on one of those rights? It does not grant any rights.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

Further, do you teach that removing an unjust government is also a right?

"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new Government,..."

How do unarmed citzens abolish destructive goverments?

I saw a car with two bumper stickers "Bush = Hitler" and "1-20-09". So I asked the driver, if he is Hitler, what makes you think he's leaving?

[Mike M.]

The link you posted contains much of the info I referenced from Snopes, but it was presented by a biased source. ontheissues.org leans way right.

Peter,

I agree, the link I posted did contain a lot of the same information you referenced from 'snopes.' I wasn't challenging the legitimacy of snopes, I was just posting a source that did not have a title "Urban Legends Reference Pages."

I would disagree that ontheissues.org is leaning way right, if you go to the main page you'll see ALL of the candidates listed with links to quotes.

I believe most people would recognize, and respect, Snopes for being non-biased.

That is a very broad generalization.

I picked a site that referenced every position. The majority of the page you linked is about an Obama myth.

If you believe something is bias you can check out youtube. There is a very high probability that you will be able to pull up the clip from the debate that is being referenced.


Can you cite a reference to your accusation that Obama sponsored legislation as a state rep that would have banned all guns?

Modifying the 2nd amendment is a slippery slope.

I had no intentions of debating McCain or Obama's position on guns. I was simply putting up two links that would present some information on the subject.

Here is a link to the debate on April 16th that both of our sources are referencing:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lu_LXb0ZPws

At :30 Obama states:

"As a general principle, I believe that the Constitution confers an individual right to bear arms. But just because you have an individual right does not mean that the state or local government can't constrain the exercise of that right, and, you know, in the same way that we have a right to private property but local governments can establish zoning ordinances that determine how you can use it.

And I think that it is going to be important for us to reconcile what are two realities in this country.

There's the reality of gun ownership and the tradition of gun ownership that's passed on from generation to generation. You know, when you listen to people who have hunted, and they talk about the fact that they went hunting with their fathers or their mothers, then that is something that is deeply important to them and, culturally, they care about deeply.

But you also have the reality of what's happening here in Philadelphia and what's happening in Chicago."

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/DemocraticDebate/Story?id=4670271&page=4

He is comparing gun rights to zoning laws. Zoning laws are in place to protect the property rights of individuals. They protect residential neighborhoods from having a skyscraper built next door. How would the government restricting my neighbor from purchasing a gun protect my rights in the same way zoning laws protect my property?

The 2nd amendment has nothing to do with hunting. At the time the constitution was constructed hunting was a must for most people that wanted to eat. The 2nd amendment is not entirely about protecting your property or your family. At that specific time period it is assumed you would protect both if they were threatened. The issue that almost all presidential candidates do not address is the fact the 2nd amendment is really protection from an oppressive government. The constitution does not grant us rights, it restrains the government from infringing on our inalienable rights as human beings. The 2nd amendment guarantees the people the ability to protect themselves, when you remove that protection all of our other rights are then in jeopardy. It is a check and balance.

The reality is gun laws only disarm law abiding citizens. People who use guns for violent crimes would not be stopped by the toughest gun laws.

At 1:35 Obama states "No, My writing was not on that particular questionnaire." According to the article from snopes you posted, it links to an AP story that Obama did in fact say he supported banning the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns in Illinois:

http://www.columbiatribune.com/2007/Dec/20071223News017.asp

"That 1996 questionnaire asked whether he supported banning the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns in Illinois. The campaign’s answer was straightforward: "Yes." Eight years later, he said on another questionnaire that "a complete ban on handguns is not politically practicable," but reasonable restrictions should be imposed."

The article goes on to say:

“IVI-IPO officials said it’s inconceivable Obama would have let a staffer turn in a questionnaire with incorrect answers. The group interviewed Obama in person about his answers before endorsing him in that 1996 legislative race, and he didn’t suggest then, or anytime since, that the questionnaire needed to be corrected, they said.”

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

I just want to bring up something that transcends party lines. Why did the third party candidates for president come together and agree on 4 critical problems we need to address as Americans?

Foreign Policy, Privacy, The National Debt, The Federal Reserve

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=457

Both McCain and Obama fundamentally agree on all four of these subjects:

Foreign policy - Both support preemptive strikes. Both want to keep our troops stationed all around the world. With either candidate we will have our troops fighting in some foreign country we have not declared war on.
Privacy - Both support the patriot act.
National Debt - Both are going to increase it with their policies (some more than others)
The Federal Reserve - Both support the federal reserve system.

At the most pivotal moment in recent history the candidate for 'change' will not address four issues that four respected politicians have raised. Why?

[M/V_Bear_II]

When you teach history, do you teach that the founders believed that rights are given by their Creator not by the men and documents?

"We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness"

And that the 2nd amendment just instructs the government not to infringe on one of those rights? It does not grant any rights.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

Further, do you teach that removing an unjust government is also a right?

"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new Government,..."

How do unarmed citzens abolish destructive goverments?

Absolutely we study these documents, and in particular the passages you cite. I would point out that the Declaration of Independence is a statement of beliefs, not a legal document. It said, for instance, that all men were created equal - but the Constitution institutionalized slavery. The Constitution, on the other hand, is a legal document, and the Second Amendment is the law of the land.

I would also point out that the foundation of the Framers' philosophy was based on Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau, all of whom stated that men in nature - the individual - were given liberty by the Creator. But they also agreed that men had to sacrifice some of that liberty for the security provided by a society. The 3 disagreed on how much of that liberty had to be sacrificed - in general, the Framers leaned toward Locke and Rousseau, because both reserved the right to replace a government if it no longer served the interests of the governed.

And therein lies the conflict, as you pointed out. There is a point where the liberty to own a gun can intrude on a neighbor's right to life or property. Eliminating all gun ownership certainly inhibits the ability overthrow an unresponsive government. Is there a middle ground?

I teach the debate. I don't teach a viewpoint. Students learn much more when they actually think about what they believe, instead of telling me what they think I want to hear.

[Acres per Second]

"...does anyone know of a firing range(s) around the lake? I am looking to become a member of one but am not sure what is around. Any help would be apprciated..."
I've never been to the ranges on Tuftonboro Neck (there are at least two). However, if you're in the area of Camp Boycroft on Friday, listen for the shots and you may be able to ask to shoot there. They are privately owned.

Winnipesaukee Sportsmen's Club is another range, but I don't know where they're located. You will not be able to shoot full-auto weapons there due to neighborhood complaints. Last I knew Farmington Fish and Game had no restrictions.

There are indoor ranges in Belmont and in Manchester that allow full-auto fire and rent full-auto firearms. There is also a company in Woodstock/Thornton area that has brochures on firing their machine guns. I think it is called Machine Gun Safaris.

"...Heading over towards Lebanon and Enfield, NH, somewhere, there's a big factory building called 'Pine Tree Castings' on its' little sign, and it is, I believe, the Sturm Ruger company..."
Sturm Ruger bought Thompson/Center Arms of Rochester last year.

Pine Tree Castings cast the receivers (frames) for the Thompson/Center Arms line of single-shot pistols and rifles. The name Pine Tree Castings came about not named for the State Tree of Maine, but for the appearance of the casting "tree" before and after molten alloy was poured into it. (Making a much cheaper receiver, nearly as strong as the previously "forged" receivers).

"...Most likely, there is absolutely no way that Sturm Ruger, a large gun maker, will follow the trails of Annalee Dolls of Meredith, or L C Packard woolen mill of Ashland, and be bought out and get moved to China..."
Sturm Ruger & Co. once had a rifle manufacturing plant at Newport, NH adjacent to Bill Ruger's farm. I had the opportunity of meeting (the now-late) Bill Ruger there and test firing several of Ruger's newest rifles at his hillside range.

In a barn sited there, was one sportscar (of two prototypes) designed by him named the Ruger Special. I scooped up a handful of brochures in case the car didn't go into production—and it didn't.

That Newport rifle plant closed several years ago.

"...Do I think it was appropriate for an 8 year old to fire a mini-Uzi...?"
I've had perhaps a dozen opportunities to test fire semi-auto handguns which were illegally modified for full-auto fire: most conversions were the 9mm Browning Hi-Power. Only three rounds were permitted to be loaded.

At an indoor range—and firing at a man-sized paper target—only the first shot would hit the target, and the third shot would reliably lodge in the ceiling! Even with an extended magazine, there was simply not enough "heft" in a pistol to prevent the shots to the ceiling. The Mini-Uzi (a pistol) is heavier than most other pistols; however, it would be criminal, IMHO, to hand it to a child of 8 years to fire.

"...I had no intentions of debating McCain or Obama's position on guns..."
That's one discussion that hasn't made it to a local Lakes Region forum (http://www.wolfeboro.net/forums/off-topic-chat/). With only a few more days to see the debate in action, (or to register to join in), the webmaster has allowed many contentious issues to run its course.

[jrc]

Absolutely we study these documents, and in particular the passages you cite. I would point out that the Declaration of Independence is a statement of beliefs, not a legal document....

And therein lies the conflict, as you pointed out. There is a point where the liberty to own a gun can intrude on a neighbor's right to life or property. Eliminating all gun ownership certainly inhibits the ability overthrow an unresponsive government. Is there a middle ground?
....

Not a legal document? The Continental Congress and King George may have felt differently. But yes it's not the Constitution.

There really is no conflict. Guns operated in a legal manner pose no threat to a neighbor's right to life or property. Guns used in a criminal manner are a threat, but criminality is the threat.

As to a middle ground, there clearly are no absolute rights, so we always live in the middle ground.

To get back on topic. In my opinion, an 8 year old is not physically or mentally able to operate machine gun. He does not have the strengh and coordination to operate it and more importantly he doesn't have the judgement. I think their is criminal negligence here and certainly civil responsibilty, for the father and the gun owner.

You would not let an 8 year old drive a car or use a chain saw, why would you let one operated a machine gun?

[Pine Island Guy]

I teach the debate. I don't teach a viewpoint. Students learn much more when they actually think about what they believe, instead of telling me what they think I want to hear.

WHAT?!?!?! You’re actually asking students to think instead of just regurgitate? And you haven’t been sued by a parent for causing undue stress that interferes with their non-school activities? More power to you and keep up the good work, students are lucky to have you as a teacher!

PIG

p.s. just to add in my 2 cents on the original topic... an 8 year-old with an Uzi? The father, the people that ran the "shoot", and the gun-club should all be put on the stand! In my opinion, the lad should have the opportunity to see it being handled and shot, but not actually handle it himself.

[Winnipesaukee]

No, Massachusetts has some of the worst gun laws in the country. Massachusetts also has some of the worst violent gun crimes in the country, also some of the highest numbers of gun-related accidents.

In new Hampshire it is perfectly legal to own a "machine gun." Take the M16, for example. Due to the 1986 ban of the manufacture of automatic firearms (from the "Firearm Owners 'Protection' Act of '86), prices of grandfathered M16's are around $20-25,000. No typo.

But if you're a little short on cash, you can make a quick trip to your local Boston-area black market and buy the same gun for $200.

I don't understand everyone's fear and idolization of firearms. They're inanimate objects. We must be pretty arrogant, ignorant, and thick, to blame these "objects" for our own mistakes and stupidity. I shot automatic "weapons" when I was 8.

Does alcohol make people drive drunk? Did Ted Kennedy's CAR kill Mary Jo Kopechne?

[M/V_Bear_II]

No, Massachusetts has some of the worst gun laws in the country. Massachusetts also has some of the worst violent gun crimes in the country, also some of the highest numbers of gun-related accidents.

In new Hampshire it is perfectly legal to own a "machine gun." Take the M16, for example. Due to the 1986 ban of the manufacture of automatic firearms (from the "Firearm Owners 'Protection' Act of '86), prices of grandfathered M16's are around $20-25,000. No typo.

But if you're a little short on cash, you can make a quick trip to your local Boston-area black market and buy the same gun for $200.

I don't understand everyone's fear and idolization of firearms. They're inanimate objects. We must be pretty arrogant, ignorant, and thick, to blame these "objects" for our own mistakes and stupidity. I shot automatic "weapons" when I was 8.

Does alcohol make people drive drunk? Did Ted Kennedy's CAR kill Mary Jo Kopechne?
I'm curious what makes you say "worst". I think I can guess based on the rest of the post, but I wonder if you could elaborate so I don't errantly impute motives to you.

Also, I thought I would mention this - Only Hawaii has a lower rate of gun deaths than Massachusetts.

http://www.statemaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir-death-rate-per-100-000

For violent crimes as a whole, MA is pretty close to the median, and below most states with major metropolitan areas.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004912.html

For murder as a whole, MA is 16th, well below other states with large cities.

As for "accidents" - I couldn't find a state-by-state breakdown, but the most recent statistics I found said that there were only 600 accidents resulting in fatalities nationwide (2005, I think). No matter who had the largest share of those, the per-capita rate of accidents isn't likely to be statistically significant. But if you have access to better statistics, I would love to see them.

You are absolutely correct that people, not guns, kill people. But perhaps there is some evidence that limiting access to guns may make it a little harder for people to kill people. Any counterarguments would be welcome.

[Misty Blue]

M/V Welcome. You have opened a debate that gotten the mental wheels turning.

You mentioned that when the second admendment (from the "bill of rights") was written when the common weapons were flintlock round ball rifles and pistols. As you said, 4 rounds per minute and 100 yds. max. I suggest that our founding fathers used the word "ARMS" rather than "GUNS" because they realized that weapons would change.

Had the constitution been written two hundred years ealier, arms to them might have ment swords. Had they written it two hundred years later they would possibly have assumed automatic weapons. I believe that they asumed that the word ARMS would maintain currency within the ammendment.

The Constitution of the United States and it's creators facinate me. Their forethought was outstanding.

When I raised my hand all those many years ago the oath that I took was to defend the Constitution from all enemys, Forign and Domestic.


NEW THOUGHT!

Lake Snake...

The Winnipesaukee Sportsman's Club is a great little Rod and Gun in Moultonborough. It is on Rt.109 right by Suissvalle near the intersection of Rt. 117.

It is a 25' 50' 75 and 100 yard range with a covered shooting building. They have a Trap range and bow stand range as well.

We are currently building a new clubhouse.

The dues are $50 per year (cheap) and the people are friendly.

If you are interested call me 455-7178. Eventhough they are activly looking for new members you must be sponsored. I'd be glad to help.

Misty Blue.

[Bear Islander]

No, Massachusetts has some of the worst gun laws in the country. Massachusetts also has some of the worst violent gun crimes in the country, also some of the highest numbers of gun-related accidents.

In new Hampshire it is perfectly legal to own a "machine gun."...

It is also perfectly legal to own a "machine gun" in Massachusetts, and to rent out their use. I was involved with this for many years.

I do not find the Massachusetts gun laws to be restrictive. However I am fully licensed. I'm sure criminals, and those that can't meet the requirements for licensure, find these laws to be very restrictive.

Since the New Hampshire death rate by gun is more than twice that of Massachusetts, it would seem that these restrictions are appropriate and working.

[Pineedles]

While the Statemaster chart shows gun deaths in Mass is nearly 1/2 of what NH is, these relate to all gun deaths, including suicide, accidents, and law enforcement acts. While the infoplease chart refers to crime statistics and the murder rate in NH is less than a third than that of Mass. Violent crime rate too is very telling, as I would expect that many violent crimes involve guns and Mass' rate is 3 times higher. Most gun laws do not have any effect on the criminals who obtain them from illegal sources. One gun law I would support would be, if someone used a gun in the commission of a crime would be sentenced to a mandatory imprisionment of 25 years. That may not deter all criminals from using a gun but it sure would keep the ones who did locked away for a long time.

I would keep an eye on the crime rate in DC, now that the Supremes have decided to allow reasonable legal posession rights. Although DC politicos are already trying to cast that decision to the wind.

[Bear Islander]

... Most gun laws do not have any effect on the criminals who obtain them from illegal sources...




...If the criminal in question is caught with that gun in Massachusetts the slamming of his prison cell door will effect him greatly. So will the minimum sentence statutes...




One gun law I would support would be, if someone used a gun in the commission of a crime would be sentenced to a mandatory imprisionment of 25 years. That may not deter all criminals from using a gun but it sure would keep the ones who did locked away for a long time.




So a teenager that shoots a hole through a stop sign with his 22 rifle goes to prison for 25 years? That will teach him!

[Pineedles]

BI are you bipolar today?:laugh: You quoted me in your second rebuttal as to the effectiveness of gun laws.
You are taking it to an extreme with your teenager shooting a stop sign. I believe that a violent crime should be the precurser to the law. Like Rape or Robbery. Do you think those types of crimes deserve a mandatory sentence for the use of a gun?

[Misty Blue]

When I lived and worked in Mass (Very Western Mass) I found firearm licensing easy to live with. The license to carry (concealed) had to be approved by the local police. Usually not a problem. Some Chiefs of Police were stricter than others. Some would refuse to give them out.

What seemed dumb to me was that when we moved back to NH ( I still worked and rented there) I had to reapply for an "out of state" license. The process, while not impossible, was time consuming, confusing, cost money and had to be repeated annually.

The NH State Police, the Moultonborough Police and Selectmen did all that they could do to help but it seemed that the State of Massachusetts was putting up roadblocks at every turn.

I was still the same guy. I hadn't broken any laws. But I ended up giving up my membership in the South Deerfield Rod and Gun.

Misty Blue.

[Pineedles]

Too many people have the ability to interpret the law for your rights. The local sheriff knows that he probably won't be called onto the carpet because he "lost" your application. Its unfortunate that some Chief's associations side with the gun control advocates. They are probably just trying to protect their empire by wanting more patrolmen under them. However, on the otherside policemen's unions understand that they can't protect everyone and are typically on the side of responsible gun owners. I'm sorry that you had to give up your membership, but I understand that you are not alone.

[Seeker]

Misty, I agree with you 100%. I belonged, and still do, to the Danvers Fish and Game Club since 1954 (off and on) which I believe is the largest in Mass. Since becoming a full time NH resident I cannot go and shoot at my club anymore unless I go thru all the Mass BS to get a new LTC for $100/yr. When I lived there and was a Middlesex Reserve deputy I always had a Class A and now it seems like I just swam across the Rio Grande and shook off the water.
I will be contacting you about joining your club as the nearest one to me is 3 miles away but in Maine.
Seeker

[Winnipesaukee]

No, Bear, you got it backwards. If you are a criminal, Massachusetts doesn't have restrictive gun laws--you don't follow them anyway! It's the law-abiding citizens who must pay $100, go through 2 background checks, be photographed and fingerprinted (to real criminals this is called BOOKING), and wait at least 6 weeks. Or one can save some time and money by simply visiting a shady part of Dorchester or Roxbury (I'm not kidding.).

It is perfectly legal to own a machine gun in MA--if your police chief likes you and decides to grant you a permit for one.

Misty, I don't think the Founding Fathers would appreciate you pulling words out of their mouths. You have no way of telling what they were meant by their wording.

That particular FBI statistic is not credible. Too many variables, inclusions, and exclusions (vague). Not credible whatsoever.

Now, according to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, in 1976 when the DC handgun ban (which was recently ruled unconstitutional) was put into place, the violent gun-related homicide rate rose TWO HUNDRED percent between then and 2001.

On accidents, read this. And note Gary Kleck is a renowned (very liberal) criminologist. Source of statistics is the National Safety Council.
http://guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvacci.html

[M/V_Bear_II]

You mentioned that when the second admendment (from the "bill of rights") was written when the common weapons were flintlock round ball rifles and pistols. As you said, 4 rounds per minute and 100 yds. max. I suggest that our founding fathers used the word "ARMS" rather than "GUNS" because they realized that weapons would change.

Had the constitution been written two hundred years ealier, arms to them might have ment swords. Had they written it two hundred years later they would possibly have assumed automatic weapons. I believe that they asumed that the word ARMS would maintain currency within the ammendment.

The Constitution of the United States and it's creators facinate me. Their forethought was outstanding.

When I raised my hand all those many years ago the oath that I took was to defend the Constitution from all enemys, Forign and Domestic.

That's certainly a defensible position. Not one that I happen to agree with, but defensible.

And I'm not sure whether that last sentence was aimed at me :D

In any case, thank you for your service.

While the Statemaster chart shows gun deaths in Mass is nearly 1/2 of what NH is, these relate to all gun deaths, including suicide, accidents, and law enforcement acts. While the infoplease chart refers to crime statistics and the murder rate in NH is less than a third than that of Mass. Violent crime rate too is very telling, as I would expect that many violent crimes involve guns and Mass' rate is 3 times higher. Most gun laws do not have any effect on the criminals who obtain them from illegal sources. One gun law I would support would be, if someone used a gun in the commission of a crime would be sentenced to a mandatory imprisionment of 25 years. That may not deter all criminals from using a gun but it sure would keep the ones who did locked away for a long time.

I would keep an eye on the crime rate in DC, now that the Supremes have decided to allow reasonable legal posession rights. Although DC politicos are already trying to cast that decision to the wind.
So you're saying that NH lends itself more to suicide and death-by-cops?

Many violent crimes involve guns, but not all. Just as many murders are committed with guns, but not all. The difference between gun violence in NH and MA is probably not as wide as would be indicated by "gun deaths", but also probably not as significant as the "murder rate" would suggest.
No, Bear, you got it backwards. If you are a criminal, Massachusetts doesn't have restrictive gun laws--you don't follow them anyway! It's the law-abiding citizens who must pay $100, go through 2 background checks, be photographed and fingerprinted (to real criminals this is called BOOKING), and wait at least 6 weeks. Or one can save some time and money by simply visiting a shady part of Dorchester or Roxbury (I'm not kidding.).

It is perfectly legal to own a machine gun in MA--if your police chief likes you and decides to grant you a permit for one.

Misty, I don't think the Founding Fathers would appreciate you pulling words out of their mouths. You have no way of telling what they were meant by their wording.

That particular FBI statistic is not credible. Too many variables, inclusions, and exclusions (vague). Not credible whatsoever.

Now, according to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, in 1976 when the DC handgun ban (which was recently ruled unconstitutional) was put into place, the violent gun-related homicide rate rose TWO HUNDRED percent between then and 2001.

On accidents, read this. And note Gary Kleck is a renowned (very liberal) criminologist. Source of statistics is the National Safety Council.
http://guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvacci.html
Any idea where those guns in Dorchester (or D.C.) originate?

Whether you agree with the exclusions or not doesn't make the table incredible. Whether it applies in this case is the issue. If a burglary is committed in which victims are present and force is used or threatened, it becomes an aggravated assault, and thus a violent crime. The definition seems fine to me. It is not, however, suggestive of the overall crime rate.

As for guncite - yes, I saw that before my earlier post. But I'm not sure how it proves that MA has more accidents than NH.

[Bear Islander]

No, Bear, you got it backwards. If you are a criminal, Massachusetts doesn't have restrictive gun laws--you don't follow them anyway! ...



No, I have it forwards.

To buy a gun illegally you must find a person that will sell to you. That is more "restrictive" than walking into the nearest gun shop.

An illegal gun will cost you a lot more, another "restriction".

If the seller is in fact an undercover police officer you will find the sale to be VERY "restrictive".

An illegal gun in your pocket in Massachusetts is like a ticket to prison, one year minimum. Better not spit on the sidewalk or jaywalk. I once had three of Boston's finest standing around me asking to see may carry permit. If I had not been able to produce it, that would have been "restrictive".

[Winnipesaukee]

Sorry Bear, backwards.

-You can EASILY find someone to sell you an illegal gun. If you go the legal route, you must (in addition to the procedures I mentioned above to get a permit (LTC or FID)), undergo an NCIS check and fill out a 4473 form.

-Illegal guns are almost always cheaper. Much cheaper. Because they tend to be stolen.

-Most sellers of illegal guns are NOT undercover police. There are so many willing sellers that, while undercovers exist, they are far outnumbered by an abundance of "legitimate" illegal sellers.

Is it easier to go through the red tape to get a legal prescription for Oxycontin, or get it through other illicit means?

[Acres per Second]

"...Does alcohol make people drive drunk? Did Ted Kennedy's CAR kill Mary Jo Kopechne...?"
I just stumbled across this helpful quote:

"Gun control is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars."
:rolleye1:

[Seeker]

To buy a gun illegally you must find a person that will sell to you. That is more "restrictive" than walking into the nearest gun shop.



Maybe for us law-abiding forum members that don't hang with the gang-bangers but your average felon (teen or adult) with cash in his pocket won't have any problem picking one up in many areas in Mass from others of his ilk.

[granitebox]

charges have been filed against 3 folks with the gun club

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-12-04-uzi_N.htm

[Lakesrider]

So I am still trying to figure out why the Father was not charged? He was responsible for his kid. He should be going to a different kind of gun show. A firing squad.:rolleye1:

[Pineedles]

No, I don't think the father needs to go to a firing squad, he is heartbroken. What you see with these indictments is the anti-gun organizations of Massachusetts and National organizations like Brady's gearing up for their finest hour. Fueled by the impetus of the Obama administration's anti-gun sentiment, these organizations have their first test case. The prosecution will try to put guns on trial after all is said and done, that's why Dad is not being prosecuted, it would be anti-productive to their case to involve a grieving father. You voted for change people, now watch the amazing changes. Your 2nd amendment rights will change, despite what the courts have said.:(

[wifi]

....You voted for change people, now watch the amazing changes...

Right on, and there is more (change) in store in other areas

[Tired of Waiting]

To preface this reply I must tell you that I am a member of the Westfield Sports Club. I am not trying to defend them or any one else. But to let you read the law being used by the DA as it is written.


PART I. ADMINISTRATION OF THE GOVERNMENT

TITLE XX. PUBLIC SAFETY AND GOOD ORDER

CHAPTER 140. LICENSES

EMPLOYMENT AGENCIES

SALE OF FIREARMS

Chapter 140: Section 130. Sale or furnishing weapons or ammunition to aliens or minors; penalty; exceptions

Section 130. Whoever sells or furnishes a rifle, shotgun or ammunition to any alien eighteen years of age or older who does not hold a permit card issued to him under section one hundred and thirty-one H or, except as provided in this section or section one hundred and thirty-one E, whoever sells or furnishes any alien or any person under eighteen years of age a rifle, shotgun, machine gun or ammunition, or whoever sells or furnishes to any person under 21 years of age a firearm or large capacity rifle or shotgun or ammunition therefor shall have his license to sell firearms, rifles, shotguns, machine guns and or ammunition revoked and shall not be entitled to apply for such license for ten years from the date of such revocation and shall be punished by a fine of not less than $1,000 nor more than $10,000, or by imprisonment in a state prison for not more than ten years or by imprisonment in a house of correction for not more than two and one-half years, or by both such fine and imprisonment. Nothing in this section or section one hundred and thirty-one E shall be construed to prohibit a parent or guardian from allowing his child or ward, who has not attained age fifteen, the supervised use of a rifle or shotgun or ammunition therefor, according to the provisions of section one hundred and twenty-nine C, nor from furnishing such child or ward, who has attained age fifteen, with a rifle or shotgun that is not a large capacity weapon or ammunition; provided, however, that said child or ward, being fifteen years of age or older, has been issued a valid firearm identification card or alien permit to possess a rifle or shotgun which is in his possession. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit an instructor from furnishing rifles or shotguns or ammunition therefor to pupils; provided, however, that said instructor has the consent of a parent or guardian of a pupil under the age of eighteen years.

ToW

[Pineedles]

TOW,

Thank you for your help. I have nothing against you for posting this. I have read and re-read your post of the law. I am not a lawyer nor a politician. Can someone that can read this garbage please interpret it and tell me and all of us in plain old common English what it means?

Folks! This is one of the things wrong with America! We have given our right to exercise control over our government to a small but growing group of people. Can you spell LAWYERS? Remember the former candidate for VP and then President? John Edwards? That is lawyer! Wife has cancer and he's playing around. That's integrity with a capital I! Yeah, I want those kind of people writing laws.:(

[Misty Blue]

A horrible tragedy occurred at that show. There were people there who were responsible for range safety. They failed.

But the discussion here intrestes me.

Had the boy been at the county fair, checking out the new chainsaws with Dad, and had a kickback it would have made the papers for a day or two. People would read the obits. and shake their heads at this terrible .

There would be no, or little, finger pointing, I think.

There would be no national organizations trying to enact new laws mandating minimum age limits for chainsaw usage.

There would be no "chainsaw safety course" license to obtain.

For sure (sorry Skip) the lawyers would show up. But asside of that the same tragedy, other other cercumstances, would fade into obscurity after a short time.

Is the issue a tragic , control, or both?

Misty Blue.

[M/V_Bear_II]

TOW,

Thank you for your help. I have nothing against you for posting this. I have read and re-read your post of the law. I am not a lawyer nor a politician. Can someone that can read this garbage please interpret it and tell me and all of us in plain old common English what it means?

My understanding of the interpretation of the law that the DA is using is that a) the child was under fifteen years of age and did not have a firearms ID card, and b) the event was not "instruction"; therefore it was a violation of the law to "furnish" him a weapon and ammunition. The father, on the other hand, is permitted to furnish his child with a weapon under those those same conditions, provided it is for supervised use.

[jeffk]

Had the boy been at the county fair, checking out the new chainsaws with Dad, and had a kickback it would have made the papers for a day or two. People would read the obits. and shake their heads at this terrible .

There would be no, or little, finger pointing, I think.

There would be no national organizations trying to enact new laws mandating minimum age limits for chainsaw usage.

There would be no "chainsaw safety course" license to obtain.

First I would like to state that I strongly support our right to individually bear arms.

Second, I agree that people who do NOT support that right will use incidents like this to try to restrict or remove that right. We in turn should fight that effort and focus the discussion in directions that make sense.

The intended function of a chainsaw is to cut wood and brush.

The intended function of a gun is to damage or kill people or animals. A policeman, soldier, or citizen that carries a gun with them or keeps one in their home expects the gun to function this way. It is a deadly weapon and a machine gun more so than most.

I believe that, as Don pointed out in a earlier post, if there are precautions taken to limit recoil and loading only one bullet when training people to use these guns, at a minimum these precautions should have been in place for a show where inexperienced people could use these weapons. Further, how could a father be expected to truly understand the risk posed by these type of weapons? Consent is supposed to be informed, i.e. knowledgeable. Was the father a weapons expert?

We require seat belts and safety equipment on amusement park rides which function as entertainment. How much more should we require for a use of a deadly weapon in a public show?

It seems to me that the show operators and the father showed lack of responsibility and callous disregard toward the potential danger of these weapons, especially in a child's weaker and inexperienced hands.

Guns should be respected and feared for the function that they serve. The operators of the show and the father did neither.

And a tragedy resulted.

[Pineedles]

Thank you Jeffk. About 10 years ago I have supported what I thought were responsible gun laws. Since that time I realized that many of these laws were just a slippery slope to confiscation. I just can't fathom though the guilt this father is probably feeling.

[Tired of Waiting]

The intended function of a gun is to damage or kill people or animals. A policeman, soldier, or citizen that carries a gun with them or keeps one in their home expects the gun to function this way. It is a deadly weapon and a machine gun more so than most.



jeffk,

Most of what you wrote I agree with. However the above paragraph gives me a bit of trouble.

A police officer does not carry a gun to "damage or kill" people. They carry for self defense and when employed do not shoot to kill. They shoot to stop the person from doing what they are doing or about to do. The end result may be the death of the perp but that was not the intended result. LEOs are trained that if they have to employ deadly force once the threat is neutralized to render first aid to save the life of the person. The last thing a police officer wants to do is kill someone.

Second, you can not lump the solder into a group with police and citizens. Their job is to project power and yes to kill the enemy combatants.

Lastly, citizens (law abiding) own guns for many reasons. Sporting uses are but some of them. Some have them for self defense. I don't think they own them to "damage or kill" people but to protect themselves and others. Again the last thing any law abiding citizen wants to do is "damage or Kill" another person. If you were to ask anyone who had to use their gun in self defense, I'm sure they would respond that they were trying to protect themselves or another and not trying to " damage or kill."

ToW

[jeffk]

jeffk,

Most of what you wrote I agree with. However the above paragraph gives me a bit of trouble.
ToW

ToW,

I chose my words very carefully. I discussed a gun's function, not the intent of it's owner. When a gun's trigger is pulled an explosive reaction propels a chunk of metal in a specifically targeted direction. If that chunk of metal hits living tissue it will damage it and possibly kill the living organism it hits. This is what guns were designed and created to do and they perform their function well.

If a policeman, soldier, or citizen (carrying or in their home) fire their weapon they are doing it to carry out the gun's function. They may not want to, it may be in self defense but pulling the trigger commits the gun to perform it's function. When a person aims a gun at a person and pulls the trigger they know what will happen, the target will be injured or killed. I doubt very much that anyone who commits to firing their gun would be happy if the gun failed to fire and the person who was assaulting them was able to continue to do so. Further, I believe (although I am happy to be corrected) that most people firing a weapon in self defense are told to target the torso because it is the largest target incidentally increasing the chance a vital organ will be damaged.

The intent of the people using guns, protection of the public, self defense, projection of sovereign power, are all justified in my opinion and in law but they don't change the function of a gun.

I am simply talking common sense here.

The gun should be respected and feared as the deadly weapon that it has been designed to be. How would it restrict my right to own such a weapon as a machine gun if restrictions were created for public shows that physically limited the the gun's recoil and only allowed loading a few rounds at a time? Serious buyers wanting a more complete demonstration could make arrangements for a private trial of the weapon. Do we really want 8 year olds firing a fully loaded unrestricted machine gun at a public show? The child's intention was to simply have some fun but the machine gun's function could have led to much greater tragedy. We are lucky that many others weren't hurt or killed.

[gtxrider]

ToW,

I chose my words very carefully. I discussed a gun's function, not the intent of it's owner. When a gun's trigger is pulled an explosive reaction propels a chunk of metal in a specifically targeted direction. If that chunk of metal hits living tissue it will damage it and possibly kill the living organism it hits. This is what guns were designed and created to do and they perform their function well.

If a policeman, soldier, or citizen (carrying or in their home) fire their weapon they are doing it to carry out the gun's function. They may not want to, it may be in self defense but pulling the trigger commits the gun to perform it's function. When a person aims a gun at a person and pulls the trigger they know what will happen, the target will be injured or killed. I doubt very much that anyone who commits to firing their gun would be happy if the gun failed to fire and the person who was assaulting them was able to continue to do so. Further, I believe (although I am happy to be corrected) that most people firing a weapon in self defense are told to target the torso because it is the largest target incidentally increasing the chance a vital organ will be damaged.

The intent of the people using guns, protection of the public, self defense, projection of sovereign power, are all justified in my opinion and in law but they don't change the function of a gun.

I am simply talking common sense here.

The gun should be respected and feared as the deadly weapon that it has been designed to be. How would it restrict my right to own such a weapon as a machine gun if restrictions were created for public shows that physically limited the the gun's recoil and only allowed loading a few rounds at a time? Serious buyers wanting a more complete demonstration could make arrangements for a private trial of the weapon. Do we really want 8 year olds firing a fully loaded unrestricted machine gun at a public show? The child's intention was to simply have some fun but the machine gun's function could have led to much greater tragedy. We are lucky that many others weren't hurt or killed.

I agree handing a 8 year old is not the smartest move.

Guns are not only made for killing. Guns are also used for target shooting...ever watch the olympic shooting competion? Oh I forgot the networks would never show guns in that light. Guns should and must be respected not feared. Do you fear cars, boats, planes, chain saws....? If you fear a gun DO NOT PICK IT UP.

Rememeber nothing is fool proof, fools can be quite ingenious.