Austrians and libertarians in Europe seldom own guns because we have much stricter gun control laws, but what about the american Austrians and libertarians?
I'm asking out of pure curiousity! Do you or your family own a gun?
Magnus: Austrians and libertarians in Europe seldom own guns because we have much stricter gun control laws, but what about the american Austrians and libertarians? I'm asking out of pure curiousity! Do you or your family own a gun?
Yeah, but I only have two. I plan on buying more. Currently, I have a 20 gauge Mossberg shotgun with three barrels (a 26" fully-rifled barrel for shooting slugs, a 24" field barrel with interchangeable chokes, and an 18.5" security barrel) and a Taurus PT111 Millennium Pro 9mm.
I plan to buy a Kel-tec P-3AT pocket pistol sometime soon (for deep concealment) and eventually trade my Taurus in (probably) for an HK P2000SK in .40 S&W, which I like because of their quality and because this model comes with truly ambidextrous controls (I'm a lefty).
I also plan on eventually getting a bolt-action hunting rifle (probably a Savage, not sure what caliber yet) and an AR-style rifle (but with the cleaner gas-piston firing mechanism rather than standard direct gas impingement mechanism).
I also have some knives and other assorted weapons.
Yours in liberty,Geoffrey Allan Plauché, Ph.D.Adjunct Instructor, Buena Vista UniversityWebmaster, LibertarianStandard.comFounder / Executive Editor, Prometheusreview.com
I don't have a gun yet because I just moved out of Chicago, but I plan on getting one soon.
I am looking at buying a used Glock 22. It is a .40 Caliber DAO pistol.
Since I'm currently living in MD, which has some anoyying laws & pre-reqs for owning one, I might wait until I move out of state within the next 1 to 3 years (1 1/2 if me & a mate get ourselves sorted & move either to NH or Florida, 3 if it's on my own). I would love to get a colt single action though; then again, I'm a bit mad for anything Metal Gear Solid related. A sniper rifle might be some fun, as well, if I can get my hands on one (maybe a mosin nagat). I probably sound foolish D:
"Look at me, I'm quoting another user to show how wrong I think they are, out of arrogance of my own position. Wait, this is my own quote, oh shi-" ~ Nitroadict
Glock 30, AR-15, several hunting rifles and a couple of shotguns.
3 NEF 12 gauge shotguns (full choke; pump)
2 semi-automatic Marlin .22's
1 Remmington .410 bolt action shotgun
1 Remmington bolt action .22
1 Mauser 30.06 with a crappy barrel
1 savage 30.06
And when I get my "economic stimulus" crap I'm getting a handgun for carrying.
Pro Christo et Libertate integre!
MacFall: 3 NEF 12 gauge shotguns (full choke; pump) 2 semi-automatic Marlin .22's 1 Remmington .410 bolt action shotgun 1 Remmington bolt action .22 1 Mauser 30.06 with a crappy barrel 1 savage 30.06 And when I get my "economic stimulus" crap I'm getting a handgun for carrying.
Don't allow leftists to play games with definitions! Some of the libertarian-leaning leftists at this forum will try to redefine "left-wing" back to its original defition (Third Estate, limited government, free-markets, laissez-faire reforms, etc.). Fine! We non-leftists can't stop them from using their own personal definitions; they can use whatever labels they want to describe any concept they want.However, they have the audacity to then use their personal definition of "left-wing" (remember, the original definition, which is no longer valid) to prove that modern leftists are more libertarian than modern rightists! They will say that libertarianism is "inherently leftist" (again, using the original, no longer valid definition), and use that to insist that we should prefer and side with modern leftists over modern rightists.
Question their motives.
I myself only own one gun, a 22 rifle but as a family we have another dozen or so between shotguns, rifles, and a couple of pistols. Thats pretty much the norm here in the midwest.
CopperHead: I myself only own one gun, a 22 rifle but as a family we have another dozen or so between shotguns, rifles, and a couple of pistols. Thats pretty much the norm here in the midwest.
Yeah - I was referring to family assets in my post. I PERSONALLY own one of the NEF shotguns, the .410, the Savage and one of the Marlins.
I own a Remmington 700 7mm hunting rifle, a Ruger 10/22 target rifle, a Glock .40 caliber pistol, a Kimber .45 ACP, and an Ruger .38 revolver. I do not carry a pistol though and do not plan on getting a CC permit.
Yes, I own a .22 rifle.But I can't say it makes me feel much safer. If an attacker also has a gun, then he has the advantage of surprise.Also, the notion that guns will protect us from a despotic government or invading power seems to me misguided. The kinds of firepower that governments have in their hands today make my rifle seem like a firecracker.Rifles used by the Iraqi insurgency are effective because the US tries to minimize collateral damage. We can expect no such qualms from the kinds of states that might try to attack the US.
On my 18th birthday i signed up with the selective service and registered to vote. On my 21st birthday i applied for my concealed weapons permit. I've carried a gun everyday of the 13 years since then.
"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."-Thomas Jefferson
Unfortunately anyone who believes that or owns a gun is considered a crackpot by the public at large.
I often wonder if more progressives actually owned guns if their perceptions of them would change at all. I mean the American "left" seems genuinely fearful of guns as if they were living breathing creatures. As I said in my previous post my family has about a dozen guns and their all just sitting in our unlocked gun cabinets every bit as harmless as our kitchen table. We've never had, nor do I know anyone who has had some kind of gun related accident. But I suppose progressives simply do not want to hold people accountable for their own actions, its much easier to blame an inanimate object for societies woes than human behavior.
LanceH: Yes, I own a .22 rifle.But I can't say it makes me feel much safer.
Yes, I own a .22 rifle.But I can't say it makes me feel much safer.
Then you aren't well-trained in its use.
If an attacker also has a gun, then he has the advantage of surprise.
Then you need to be more alert.
Also, the notion that guns will protect us from a despotic government or invading power seems to me misguided. The kinds of firepower that governments have in their hands today make my rifle seem like a firecracker.
You can disable a tank with household chemicals and a slingshot, and a .22 caliber hole in a man's head will kill him quite dead. And by the way there are 60-80 MILLION ARMED AMERICANS.
If you're scared of the government, you need to stop listening to the government. If there were a popular revolt the government wouldn't stand a chance in hell.
Rifles used by the Iraqi insurgency are effective because the US tries to minimize collateral damage. We can expect no such qualms from the kinds of states that might try to attack the US.
The only state that is likely to attack the American people is the U.S. government, and the average U.S. soldier won't be all that quick to shoot his countrymen if it comes down to the government vs. the people. I'd expect mass defection.
Not yet, but I plan too.
...And nobody has ever taught you how to live out on the street, But now you're gonna have to get used to it...
MacFall:...and the average U.S. soldier won't be all that quick to shoot his countrymen if it comes down to the government vs. the people. I'd expect mass defection.
I don't think I'd count on that. The government has proven itself to be very good at spinning up hysteria against its enemies. Look at the litany of lies that have been exposed already about the raid on the YFZ ranch. Yet everyone still supports the government.
DBratton: MacFall:...and the average U.S. soldier won't be all that quick to shoot his countrymen if it comes down to the government vs. the people. I'd expect mass defection. I don't think I'd count on that. The government has proven itself to be very good at spinning up hysteria against its enemies. Look at the litany of lies that have been exposed already about the raid on the YFZ ranch. Yet everyone still supports the government.
I can't imagine any commanding officer walking away from giving an order to kill US citizens without a bullet in the back.
Going to take a wild guess here, you've never served in the military?
Anonymous Coward: DBratton: MacFall:...and the average U.S. soldier won't be all that quick to shoot his countrymen if it comes down to the government vs. the people. I'd expect mass defection. I don't think I'd count on that. The government has proven itself to be very good at spinning up hysteria against its enemies. Look at the litany of lies that have been exposed already about the raid on the YFZ ranch. Yet everyone still supports the government. I can't imagine any commanding officer walking away from giving an order to kill US citizens without a bullet in the back. Going to take a wild guess here, you've never served in the military?
Even in Russia, during the fall of the Soviet Union, Yeltsin was able to get enough soldiers to defect, through a show of non-violent resistance, to thwart an attempted military coup (iirc).
Anonymous Coward:Going to take a wild guess here, you've never served in the military?
No I haven't.
But there was this thing called the War Between the States...
And there have been other more recent uses of military force against civilians - the bonus march, Kent State. And who was driving the tank at Waco?
Just to pick nits...
The War of Northern Aggression was started by the southern states attacking Ft. Sumter and the Confederates technically weren't US citizens. Previous to that they were still seeking a diplomatic solution to the secession.
The tank at Waco was driven by an FBI agent.
As for the other two, I seriously doubt that some army officer gave an order to shoot unarmed civilians. Things most likely just got out of hand -- if it were a massacre I would concede your point but they were both lawful acts (not the killing and wounding but their presence was lawful), immoral maybe but they weren't against the laws of the United States.
Hell, the last biggest use of federal troops in the US was to protect US citizens in the south during to Civil Rights Era to the best of my knowledge unless you want to count NOLA.
So none of those examples were cases where the government persuaded US troops to go against their oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America.
And yes, I do realize this isn't a libertarian position to hold but you were trying to demonize all troops when at least 99% of them wouldn't follow an illegal order and an even higher percentage of officers wouldn't issue one...on US soil.
Y'know when your an adult, folks don't seem to feel alright if your weilding your Red Rider(B.B.gun). My son and I, enjoy popping off a few rounds while games are loading. Soft air pistols rock that is, you can marksman inside kids. I am fond of games, in reality I am a pacifist that never admits to being one. I follow ones right to defend oneself, I just think that hurting anyone for any reason is a grievous task, that must be done sometimes, but only with responsibility. That is hard, to pull back on aggresion once triggered for me. I've been in fights that folks got to snap me out of my state before I cause fundemental harm. I never want to do that again, but it won't drive me to be a solitudinarian.
The second amendment deserves respect, the real kind, like this right shall be unabridged.
Individualism Rocks
Anonymous Coward:The War of Northern Aggression was started by the southern states attacking Ft. Sumter and the Confederates technically weren't US citizens. Previous to that they were still seeking a diplomatic solution to the secession.
No one was killed in action at Fort Sumpter. First blood in that war was drawn by federal troops firing at unarmed civilians in Baltimore. Maryland was still in the union so it was their own countrymen they were firing at.
And while I agree the Confederates were not US citizens, we would be taking two bites of the apple to allow the federal troops this excuse since Lincoln's whole justification for the war was that the Confederates were still US citizens acting in defiance of their government.
Anonymous Coward:As for the other two, I seriously doubt that some army officer gave an order to shoot unarmed civilians.
Douglas MacArthur ordered the raid on the bonus marchers. He told the troops the bonus army were communists trying to overthrow the government. His subordinate, George S. Patton ordered his troops to fix bayonets before entering the camp.
As for Kent State being a matter of troops getting out of control, I think that still proves my point which was that it is no difficult matter for the government to get troop to fire on civilians.
Anonymous Coward:And yes, I do realize this isn't a libertarian position to hold but you were trying to demonize all troops when...
No I wasn't. An assertion was made that it would be hard to get troops to fire on their own countrymen. History indicates otherwise.
I've got a few. I've got a Rock River AR-15 (M4-type), a Bulgarian made Arsenal AK-47 with a brand new peep sight, an old Mossberg .22LR and I just got my hands on a new Springfield Armory XD .45 ACP with the hi-cap 13 round magazines. Really nice man. One of these days I'm going to get my hands on a good bolt action. I'd like to get a fully kitted out Remington 700 .308 with a good Leupold scope but I'll probably settle on a cheaper Savage .308. They can still hit 1 MOA at 300+ yards if you use the right ammo. If I ever win the lotto I'm going to invest in a Barrett .50BMG for "large game hunting." I'm also going to try to stock up on more ammo, a few Mosin-Nagant rifles (for cacheing) and a good carry pistol for when I get my CCW permit. A shotgun would be nice but we'll see what happens. If I did get one I'd probably cut the barrel down, put on a pistol grip and use it for my home defense weapon. So I wont invest too much money into one of those.
"It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds. " -- Samuel Adams.
gplauche:Even in Russia, during the fall of the Soviet Union, Yeltsin was able to get enough soldiers to defect, through a show of non-violent resistance, to thwart an attempted military coup (iirc).
It was the leadership of the Red Army that failed to organize and carry out any action against Yeltsin. If the troops had been led they would have acted. The Red Army has a long history of action against civilians.
Napolean coined the phrase "a whiff of grapeshot" to describe his method of dealing with the Paris mob. I think it's very foolish to assume troops won't shoot you just because you speak the same language. It's all a matter of what the troops have been led to believe.
Anonymous Coward: Just to pick nits... The War of Northern Aggression was started by the southern states attacking Ft. Sumter and the Confederates technically weren't US citizens. Previous to that they were still seeking a diplomatic solution to the secession.
Technically the North fired the first shot at Sumter. Ft. Sumter was in Confederate territory and the North had already surrender a few other fort before this one. The Confederates ordered the Yankees to leave and gave them ample time to do so. Lincoln, on the advise of his advisers, dispatched reinforcements to the fort which was the main customs house in the South for goods arriving from Europe. Lincolns refusal to surrender the fort and dispatch reinforcements was a blatant act of aggression. So while the North didn't fire the first "literal" shot they did "fire" a shot by refusing to surrender a fort they had no claim to.
Anonymous Coward: The tank at Waco was driven by an FBI agent. As for the other two, I seriously doubt that some army officer gave an order to shoot unarmed civilians. Things most likely just got out of hand -- if it were a massacre I would concede your point but they were both lawful acts (not the killing and wounding but their presence was lawful), immoral maybe but they weren't against the laws of the United States. Hell, the last biggest use of federal troops in the US was to protect US citizens in the south during to Civil Rights Era to the best of my knowledge unless you want to count NOLA. So none of those examples were cases where the government persuaded US troops to go against their oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America. And yes, I do realize this isn't a libertarian position to hold but you were trying to demonize all troops when at least 99% of them wouldn't follow an illegal order and an even higher percentage of officers wouldn't issue one...on US soil.
I can agree with some of this but the military for the last few years has been training to suppress the population in this country. I've known several former soldiers who attended military training where they were taught how to disarm Americans and given the reasons why. None of which were Constitution but which they agree, even to this day, is the right thing to do.
Also, if you remember the Draft Riots in NYC during the War for Southern Independence? The US Navy shelled NYC to quell the riots killing dozens and wounding more.
Governments have for centuries used their militaries to suppress or kill their own people to hold on to power. The sad fact of the matter is that a good soldier will do what a good soldier ought to do -- follow orders. Now, I am in no way disparaging soldiers or the work they do, but history has proven time and time again this to be true. To say that this can't happen in the United States is crazy talk. The US isn't immune to the affects of power and corruption and our leaders aren't some kind of all knowing and caring bunch who are only looking out for our best interest. There will come a time when the US military (and possibly foreign militaries ) will be used to suppress the population of this country when it finally slides into all out despotism.
Used to have a .22 Winchester carbine (for shooting vermin) and a 12 gauge Franchi (inherited by my grandfather) but got rid of both because of much stricter gun control laws and much, much stricter laws on hunting. Plainly put I have had enough of the nanny-state already without all the headaches of gun ownership. Also new gun control laws will require mandatory (and of course, expensive) psychiatric checks. My grandfather was a fully licensed hunter for over fifty years. He was never involved in politics, he never had any troubles with the law etc. Yet the local police station kept a huge dossier on him, just because he had three (licensed) shotguns and as such was considered a "sensible" subject.
Should gun control laws change (and they will, simply because despite all those policemen the State will not be able to guarantee our safety, read Martin van Creveld''s books) I will gladly head straight to a store and buy myself a rifle.
Yes. I don't usually leave home without one, either. I have my old California CCWs framed, and I will never live in Massachusetts or New Jersey again.
Everyone, or at least every household, should have a .22, one good shotgun, one good rifle, and one good handgun. In an emergency, it is possible to adapt to the situation that way. Preferably, if there is more than one competent shooter in the house, they should be able to complement each other which might mean more than one of something.
"Children" need to learn the how and why of guns the same way we teach them to stay away from the lawnmower blades, hot stove and streets with moving cars. Pretending guns are "nasty", while cops carry them, is to create a contradiction.
Guns are tools, no more and no less. Used wrongly, people will get hurt, just like any other tool. I would no more not teach someone how to use a gun than I would not teach someone how to use a car or a checkbook.
To anyone who thinks they might like to get a gun at some point, don't wait. And don't skimp. A good sized handun won't hurt your hand when you really need it, and when the time comes that you need a gun of any kind, it is too late to go and get one.
Just trying to buy a gun is an education in government bureaucracy and stonewalling you will never forget.
Three 9mm pistols and one .22 pistol; an M1, a Lee-Enfield No4MkII, a Savage .30-06 bolt action, a Saiga 7.62x39, a .25 lever-action Marlin, a 12-gauge and some .22 rifles.
The Smitth & Wesson M&P 9mm is on my person at all times.
--Len.
I own a shotgun. Mainly because I live in middle of the woods and am tired of coyotes and racoons. As for anybody trying to come in my house, I have a 130lb Rottweiler
Sometimes "majority" simply means that all the fools are on the same side
I live in New York City. Technically I cannot walk around carrying a sock filled with sand, so no guns for me. If I did get something it would have to be for my apartment and I would also be obliged to have something incapable of accidentally fireing through walls and hurting my neighbors, so I would have to get a shotgun.
But short barreled ones are illegal as well and my apartment is small. A pistol with Glaser slugs would be the best choice but handguns are nearly impossible to legally own even for your dwelling.
The New York City council, which bans everything, often allows themselves to conceal and carry. A few years ago a CC-ing coucilman was murdered by a CC-ing aid.
http://www.comebackalive.com/phpBB2 Travel, Adventure Travel, Arguments, Recipes.
Twirlcan:I live in New York City.
Chief Justice Scalia once gave and interview recalling how he used to ride the New York subway with his .22 when he was a boy.
I didn't know that gun control laws differed so much from state to state. Their is a clear difference between blue and red states, I take it? Or is it usually more of a difference between city folks and country folks?
It's not exactly blue state vs. red state, but the most restrictive states do tend to be blue. The most liberal gun laws in the US are in Vermont though. Here's a link to map that shows the status of each state. I especially like the little note on the map that says "Tax on right to keep arms: 4 states and Cuba."
DBratton: It's not exactly blue state vs. red state, but the most restrictive states do tend to be blue. The most liberal gun laws in the US are in Vermont though. Here's a link to map that shows the status of each state. I especially like the little note on the map that says "Tax on right to keep arms: 4 states and Cuba."
To correct a small oversight on the map: Omaha requires a permit to open carry but the rest of the state of Nebraska does not. Also, while NE is a shall issue state, the ccw law that was passed last year did not include a state pre-emption clause so each local jurisdiction (towns, cities) can still choose to ban ccw even for permit holders.
I have a Huglu over-and-under 12 guage with the South Carolina flag and my signature engraved into the stock. I dig it.
I have no gun because it is almost impossible to purchase one legally in the UK. But, as I am a libertarian and as I believe I am responsible for defending myself and my family, I think I should have a pistol for home defense.
I am considering on going on holiday to the States, buying a pistol, joining a gun club and getting my family trained in its use, and smuggling the pistol and amunition back in parts. That is risky, concerning the draconian laws here, and that the police would rather pick on someone like me than a real criminal (after all, in their statistics that would be another gun crime foiled!). Has anyone smuggled a pistol across borders? Any advise to give? Am I being totally stupid?
(I know relatively little about guns, but like Swiss engineering and potentially would be interested in SiG Sauer or Sphinx. Anyone any comments on those makes?)
No offense, man, but I don't think that a public forum like this is the place to be saying that. Not to sound paranoid, but I wouldn't be surprised to be seeing some Johnnie Law type cruising forums with titles like "do you own guns?" just for such a purpose. If you want to know more about smuggling, I advise opening contacts in the criminal underworld. Just don't speak a peep of it to anyone else, not even your wife and kids. If you're ever in northern Virginia, though, feel free to drop me a message, and I'll send you the locations of all the open shooting ranges in the Commonwealth. Most of them do rentals, although you may wish to call ahead and find out if they rent to foreign nationals. Some may have policies against it, some may not, to be honest I'm not entirely sure. If nothing else, you could probably go to the NRA headquarters in Chantilly, VA and they'd probably be more than happy to teach you to shoot. They've got a pretty good 75-yard range, from what a buddy of mine keeps telling me.
Since you feel responsible to defend your family, keep in mind that you can't do that very well from the can. Learn a number of martial arts, and learn how to use anything from chairs to clothing articles as weapons. Get to the point where they're just teaching you the first "black belt" techniques, then move on to the next school. It sounds crazy like you'd never learn, but it's in those stages that you learn the stuff that you're really going to use effectively. Not to mention, even if UK has BB registration laws - like a lot of US States do - then you get around it, because you never make black belt. This is why even though GMU doesn't feel the need to print its "no-guns" policy in the handbook, I still leave my piece in the car when I go into classes...I'm not going to do any "protecting" of my wife from a jail cell or making zero income because I was expelled from University.
As for me, I'm a proud gun owner. Glock 21 with Trijicon Night Sights and an extended slide release, and Police Model Remington 870 (which needs some work). Looking at picking up an AR-15 (with Aimpoint red-dot or EoTech Holosight) and an M1A or M1 Garaand and slapping an EBR stock and a good scope on it. Considering starting a little stock-pile for that time when the proverbial crap hits the proverbial fan. Also own a number of knives and a couple of swords. Starting to learn to throw knives right and will soon be starting knife-fighting with a few people I work out with. I have every intent of passing all that skill along to my nephew and to my own kids when I finally get around to that step. Sadly enough, my airsoft arsenal still puts my real arsenal to shame.
By the way, your best bet is either a Glock, a Springfield Armory, or a Colt. Colt M1911A1-type handguns are very accurate, very reliable, and fire the notoriously powerful .45 ACP, their downside is that they do require quite a bit of maintainence and if the barrel bushing cracks then you're SOL. Glock and Springfield both make handguns in 9mm, .40 S&W, .45 GAP, and .45 ACP. They're very reliable, require only minimal maintainence to continue functioning (a little more to keep them functioning well), and you can put them through just about anything and have them keep on trucking. I've heard very mixed reviews about Sig Sauer, though. From what I hear, they require a lot of intense maintenence. Sphinx is admittedly a totally new one to me. I've never heard of them before in my life. Some companies to avoid are: Taurus, CZ, and Kimber. I've heard mixed to poor reviews about all of them. They're cheap, and that's about the best anyone can say about them...except the Kimbers. Kimber makes only ultra-high priced custom 1911s. For a while back around 2005-2006 they supposedly had a series of malfunctioning chamber ramps that were causing jams galore. Dunno if they ever fixed it. Supposedly, Browning (i.e. FN) has similar problems with the chamber ramps...they have to be custom modified to be able to load Frangibles or Hollowpoints.
And to the guy who was talking about getting glasers, don't bother with them. There are better and more improved frangible bullet technologies than glaser that are also substantially less expensive.
Whatever you choose to do, Remnant, for God sake don't smuggle the gun through airports!