Here in Denmark we got laws that allow us to get hunters weapons. Just take a hunters license and you are allowed to have guns in your home in a government approved gun-container.
The license itself does not cost a lot, if you have pretty much any job and not living over your economic limits, you can afford a hunters license. You can probably afford it on neet-bucks too.
Prove to me why this is not the best way of handling gun laws. Everyone can get a gun (not certain criminals of course) if they want one, just have to put in like 50 hours of practice and reading to pass the license tests. Infact you can say that guns is even legal here, under certain conditions. It just makes sure that all the violent criminals and mentally ill people cant get one, why would anyone want them to have guns anyways?
Here in Denmark we got laws that allow us to get hunters weapons...
Other urls found in this thread:
thefederalistpapers.org
twitter.com
You can also just go and be an active member in a shooting range club for 2 years (for proving that you are not a moron i guess) and then you can own a gun and store it in your home aswell.
that's pretty much the same as us, there are different "levels" of restriction
yanks are just fucked in the head
There are several reasons to own guns:
1. Fun
2. Hunting
3. Sports / Competition
4. Defense from Criminals
5. Defense from Tyrannical Government
Our gun laws were intended to cover all five reasons. Your gun laws were intended for hunting only. That's the main difference in what types of guns are available and how easy they are to get.
But a bullet to the head is a bullet to the head yeah? Doesnt matter if its a bullet from a hunters rifle or a shotgun/pumpgun which is legal here too for hunting or a handgun, it will pierce a skull and neutralize an invader on your property. So if your tyrannical government or criminals try to mug you, you can still defend yourself.
Reason number 5, "Defense from Tyrranical Government," is probably why guns are so easily obtainable in the USA. A rifle in the hands of every citizen is the ultimate form of democracy where threat of violence backs up every single vote. Thus, it should be easy for any citizen to obtain a gun.
What kind of rifle are you talking about? Is those manslaughter machines that can release like 100 bullets in seconds not a bit over the top? What if some mentally ill maniac get his hand on it...
We have fairly liberal gun laws here in Canada too but at the end of the day the Americans have the right idea to enshrine their gun rights as absolute freedoms in their constitution.
You can't mess around with that shit, all it takes is one vote in your legislature and they can take your guns away like they did in Australia.
The US was formed as an alliance of smaller countries (states) that each had their own armies made up of regular citizens, often with little or no public funding. The premise of tge 2nd amendment and tge whole bill of rights was to protect the individual and the states from the newley formed central government, should it become too large and corrupt. It has nothing to do with hunting lol. Hell, its only because of a weird clause that the frderal gov has any jurisdiction over gun laws...that happened much later than the bill of rights.
>that recoil pad
>that scope mount
boy I told you....
>manslaughter machines that can release like 100 bullets in seconds
Automatic weapons have been heavily restricted since the 80s. They are essentially impossible to get unless you are willing to pay +$10,000 and go through with a months long process of registration with the federal government.
Semi-automatic rifles are easily obtainable, even at Walmart I've heard. This is the kind of weapon I am talking about.
I don't know what rifles you are allowed to have, but it sounds like only bolt-action or manual action rifles.
Random picture from google. Not of relevance
I know people who go hunting for big game and they are allowed to own some pretty big guns. The kind of big guns that will put down a buffalo or make a hole through a mans body. All legal.
You mean the kind the tyrannical government will be shooting at us? Yeah we definitely need more of them, especially since our government has gotten much more tyrannical since they started restricting them 90 yrs ago. Funny how that worked.
>The kind of big guns that will put down a buffalo
That sort of gun is probably manual action. It only shoots one bullet, then you need to cycle the action.
The weapons we have available are mainly handguns and rifles that have magazines and can shoot a bullet for each pull of the trigger, as fast as you can pull the trigger.
Whether or not semi-automatic guns should be restricted, I do not know. The 2nd amendment doesn't distinguish between what kinds of guns should be accessible. My thinking is that the citizens should have access to guns that puts them on a competitive level with the government forces if the government becomes tyrannical.
We probably don't need fully automatic weapons on one hand. On the other hand, bolt action hunting rifles might be too weak.
#1 Reason - To prevent jewish takeover of your government.
Oddly enough, at the time the us constitution was written it was legal to own artillery and even warships. Thats how the colonies held off england long enough to build up a regular army. And the standard longarm owned by civilians was capable of firing about 40 bullets per minute (shotgun aka musket loaded with buckshot, fired 3x per minute which was standard military rate of fire). A blunderbus could fire even faster (the trumpet barrel was for faster loading) and hold even more buckshot. A cannon loaded with grapeshot or buckshot could fure hundreds of rounds per shot. And a millionaire could just buy a warship with 40 cannons and fire broadsides at a town.
The people who wrote the 2nd amendment weren't strangers to the concept of putting large amounts of bullets into crowded masses of people in a short period of time. But they nonetheless believed ownership of military grade weapons was important.
The alternative - somebody throws a battle and only one side shows up armed - is much worse.
What's the point unless you're allowed to legally defend yourself. You might as well have a fucking battle axe. Yeah if shit goes down and the cunt implodes or riots breaks out then having guns is cool and useful but you need laws besides guns.
Although simply having them to scare the gouverment is also good
>$300 for class III license (standard citizen rate, not FFL holder rate).
>$200 for full auto tax stamp.
yes, we grow up putting down bulls with a .22LR in one shot.
Even if someone misses your head, you're gonna bleed out from a .22 without medical attention. Good time to start fapping on your trespassers dying body
The tax stamp is cheap. The full auto weapon that goes with it is expensive. Or if youre a drug smuggler you can buy an m16 or ak47 for $20 and bring it in to the country with your drugs, no stamp needed.
>legal here, under certain conditions.
Compare that with "Shall not be infringed".
If you're happy living in cuckold-land, have at it, but keep your hook nose out of our business.
Yes. But theres are many reasons armies stopped issuing hunting rifles to their soldiers in the 30's and 40's, and those reasons are also applicable to a citizen defending himself against a tyrranical government's soldiers.
I think it'd be neat if we treated them a little bit like cars. Have basically whatever you want, but you need a liscence and to get a liscence you need to prove you are sufficiently trained and can safely store the weapon.
Damn it John Howard you cunt I just want my guns back
Like what happened to us when we got our house burned down. Something about a battalion of redcoats trouncing our capital despite 15,000 armed men within a day's marching distance.
Its one thing to say you'll defend, and another to do it.
But I digress. If we have gun laws, we need to go all out. Military service, at least for the purpose of learning to shoot and move as a unit, should be compulsory. Everyone is automatically part of the national guard when they turn 18 anyway, active duty military and some merchant sailors exempted. If anything, people will have a more sensible understanding of what small arms can and cannot do.
To win a battle, you have to take land. Taking land from Americans should be the most difficult thing to do on this planet.
>Here in Denmark we got laws that allow us
ALLOW US
That's everything we need to know as to why NOT to do anything you do
Govenrment says "sufficiently trained" means only wealthy and politicians, and their security guards get guns.
>so freedom
>wow
Doesn't matter, as your hunting rifle will be nothing against a smuggled in AK for example. The only way to counter illegal weapons using "refugees" is to have illegal, automatic weapons stashed away yourself. Anything short of that will just give them more truphy rifles to pick from your dead bodies once they're done.
Yes, let's permit the government to 'allow us' to own guns for a small fee paid to the government. This will have absolutely no rippling effect on the other amendments. Surely, being forced to pay the government or jump through government approved programs will have no effect on our rights.
If someone wants to kill a lot of people, and they are determined and patient, you cannot stop them. Guns are not even the best way to do it
I don't want my guns to be government approved. I want my government to fear my guns.
>Prove to me why this is not the best way of handling gun laws
SHALL
>your hunting rifle will be nothing against a smuggled in AK
Compare the effective accuracy and range of an AK to a decent bolt action 7mm Rem Mag .300 Win Mag. Those are pretty common. Step up to some 375 H&H, or other big or "wildcat" type rifles. Even .308 or 30 06 has far superior range and lethality.
A good hunting rifle is an excellent tool for guerrilla war.
Why do you need experience ? its not like experience would stop you from shooting innocents one day
bit late for that
>government approved gun-container.
lol
It's a numbers thing. That is why we have so many guns. We opened pandoras box long ago and it cannot be put back.
Euros need to understand this. Stop arguing 'WELL IN NORWAY WE-' Stop. Were not even remotely close.
YOU CAN NEVER REMOVE GUNS FROM THE USA
THERE ARE SIMPLY TOO MANY. ITS A NUMBERS AND LOGISTICS ISSUE.
EUROS AND LIBTARDS STOP BEING SO FUCKING RETARDED
Only the average west Eurotrash has never even handled a proper rifle, therefore would be too slow and/or miss too. At that point it would be too late for them already.
What are the self defense laws like in your country?
Civilians should be able to own everything between black powder muskets up to semi-automatic rifles. Automatic weapons are bullshit, expensive, and a waste of ammunition anyways.
I'm glad you like your gun laws. Ours are much less stringent, and should really be even less stringent than they are, according to the Constitution.
There can be no discussion cunt
What is it that you people don't understand?
>It just makes sure that all the violent criminals and mentally ill people cant get one, why would anyone want them to have guns anyways?
America already has a NICS background check to prevent that. Felon? No gun for you. Convicted of domestic violence? No gun for you. Involuntarily committed to mental facility? No gun for you.
What more do you really want? If you want to apply those same laws to private sales, good fucking luck actually enforcing those laws.
Wrong, there is no reason why citizens should not be able to own automatic weapons. Anything which could concievably be used in defense of person or property should be completely unregulated
>there is no problem with cutting of your dick and handing it over to your government and keeping your balls in a cuckcage
Fucking danecuck. Move to Holland.
Correct
Once they ammend the constitution to say "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED UNLESS THE ACTION CYCLES AUTOMATICALLY" I'll agree with you
Guns are also needed as nigger repellent in the US. Your system would cost lives here.
From a legal perspective, you guys are correct. But practically, I don't give a shit if automatic weapons are still restricted.
I realised gun laws just dont work. Why? Because if a "violent criminal" wants a weapon je is gonna get ilegaly and its really not that hard to get one if you really want one. On the other hand normal regular people who just want a weapon have a hard time getting one. The laws in the US work well in that regard. Everywhere in the world "violent criminals) get their guns illegaly but only in the US are the NORMAL people allowed to arm and defend themselves.
Anyway, its their country their laws. It works for them fine and its none of our (european's business)
Personally I would probably not own one, as they are extremely expensive to feed and maintain, but that does not mean that we should accept the government telling us we cannot buy them
>government approved gun-container
They do this so noone can afford guns anymore when they tighten rules every few years and you have to buy more "safe" gun-containers.
Germcucks will have to buy 4.000 €+ gun-safes soon which are so heavy that no normal floor can support it.
You should kill yourself
No government has a right to disarm its citizens. That's the only sensible gun policy.
Should I use an automatic weapon to kill myself?
yeah see how many rounds you can pass through yourself before you go limp
Look, Fag.
The 2nd Amendment is not about Hunting. It is about defending oneself from aggressors, most importantly, your government.
Fuck. Off.
thefederalistpapers.org
What are your self-defense laws like? Can you carry a sidearm around in case you're attacked by feral shitskins your women imported to cuck you with?
I'm going to guess and say maybe 10-15 rounds.