I'm a member of a target rifle club and each year we entertain The Deer Hunters for their annual 'fun' shoot, a highly regulated shoot but it is fun for them as they shoot up to thirty rounds in one day before a BBQ lunch. The shooting is fun because they only do ten round rapid in 50 sec whilst standing, or five groups of two snap, or ten rounds application from 300 yards when they come to us and for some it is a 'first'.

In the nine years that I have been involved I have never seen one automatic or semi automatic rifle brought to the range.

No intention of getting any further involved in the USA gun culture debate, if I lived there I would certainly own weapons for family, self and home defence as well as sport, just don't think they would be automatic. (I would also be a Republican).

parabellum

In the nine years that I have been involved I have never seen one automatic or semi automatic rifle brought to the range."

That's not surprising, we aren't allowed to own them for over 9 years
so of course you wouldn't have seen them.

FYI, I have, F88 Steyr and a few others, some dealers,
some private.

I also know of others that have been taken down incl
an old German Spandau.

Then adjust the frigin constitution. I guess its for the people, not against them.

The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, should be infringed ASAP. Get moving!

http://www.csmonitor.com/var/ezflow_...ll_900x600.jpg

If you were to learn how to shoot properly and hit the first time you wouldn't need a semi-automatic ;)

Oh, is that it ? Thanks :O

I'll do a few more trips to the range ;)

keesje

I notice you totally ignore my post directed at you.

Then again, I suppose being from the Netherlands you
EXPECT to get walked all over everytime one of your
neighbours decides to be a bully.

Just remember what the Nazi's did before they walked
all over everyone.

How you can call it sport to shoot with a semi auto. Wild boar culling out of a helicopter is the only type of sport where I have seen any necessity for semi auto.

Th constitution could be upheld, only allowing the weapons available at the time the constitution was written.

500N

Given your choice of words old chap, it's unsurprising

One asks the obvious questions: Whose nation is it and whose Constitution upholds a right not to be infringed upon by any government?

By what measure does any non-U.S. citizen presume to instruct the U.S. on what it should or should not do regarding an internal matter?

One wonders how 'suggestions' on how to improve various countries' societies would be received yet those of America seem to be fair game?

Vin Rouge

Wild Boar, Buffalo, camels, horses, donkeys, deer of all sorts,
and that's off the top of my head and relates to Australia only.
I am sure other countries could add a few species.

And why can't someone who wants to shoot / hunt vermin
- as in Coyotes, Rock chucks et al do so with a semi auto ?


brick history
Exactly, but I think those who live in the EU are used
to being told what to do and just accept the restrictions.


cuefaye
Maybe I should start asking all your local and National Gov'ts to start restricting your sports or family activities and see how much of a stink
you put up. And re Keesje, he ignores all posts he doesn't want to answer.

You're, uncharacteristically, losing it!

@ Brickhistory
There's a difference between "presume to instruct" and "care to debate". Ultimately the decision is that of the US, of course, but a decision should be informed. Personally all I want to know is how you justify such a decision. "Bcause the constitution says so" really isn't an answer in my opinion, because basing your opinion solely on your interpretation of something someone wrote several hundred years ago is putting the cart before the horse: just as government should serve the people, so should the constitution.

brick

Here and elsewhere, there's a plethora of opinions over the behaviour of various nations, covering many topics. The US, and the UK, are among them; and rightly so. It's called free speech and robust debate - part of your own Constitution?

cuefaye

No I'm not.

Obama will not bring in any meaningful restrictions and
those that he does are and will to an extent be circumvented
by the states passing laws to restrict the restrictions.

Apart from the fact he has to win the pollies and senators over
because they know what happens if they vote for the restrictions,
many will be out of a job at the next election.

The states in the US are already doing it (passing laws) to
make sure that the Fed Gov't doesn't steam role them.
It's just the people discussing it on here either don't know
or aren't posting what states are doing what.

And the illegals will just totally ignore them anyway !

That's better!

Why on earth do so many Europeans and Brits get so upset over the right of Americans to have guns. I admire this right and freedom greatly and wish we had the same here, but we do not. There seems to be such total rage amongst the anti gun people.

Also the idea that an armed population are no threat to a government with a large military backing it up seems wrong, one only has to look at the middle east and see how various groups have removed governments/regimes, also in many situations like Afghanistan and Vietnam armed civilians or whatever you wish to call them have been very hard to beat. IF such a situation ever took place in the USA some of the civilians will be ex military, also the fact that many serving military probably would not be willing to fight there own people.

In most countries unarmed populations are a threat to the government. We just send them home.

No, we don't and have gun related killings of fraction of the USA, however you count it. That's why.

A little naive if I may say so. Sometimes the government decides it doesn't want to go home. :hmm:

I guess we get a little upset over the thought of innocent children getting gunned down in somewhere that shoud be safe... and the only reason that this is not prevented is you all think as supposedly the leader of the free world that you need to have a small personal arsenal to protect your "freedoms".

Nutters.

Its not guns we have an issue with btw. Its the posession of weapons that quire rightly only belong in the hands of professionals, not a hick with a driving licence and a clean criminal record (although a criminal record wont stop most of them anyway as 60% of US gun sales take place without a background check anyway).

Debate? Certainly.

Discuss? Absolutely.

Direct? Not so much.

I take sentences such as "Then change the frigin [sic] Constitution" as directive.

Hence, to be ignored.