Gun collecting

[P1X4R]

cool knives! i don't want to get into them. i know i'll go crazy buying them. trying to keep focus.

ok, now where are the flashlights?

 

[SnakeDoctor]

It cost me around $555 shipped from BladHQ.com I went with the cheapest shipping possible--flat rate $5.99 for all orders over $250.

Holy moly. That's a good chunk of change. I'm pretty hard on knives, so I'm not sure a high-end brand is practical for me. My knives tend to double as Navy Seal letter openers, or package unwrappers (they over-package kids toys these days). I'd hate to use a $500 knife for such menial tasks. Plus ... I'm not a ninja, so it won't really help me with self-defense.

Still ... it is a REALLY cool knife.

I have some final tests tomorow, "examen psicofísico" and basic shooting. Im really nervous...

If everything is ok i`ll buy a Glock next month Still dont know if i`ll get a 17 or a 19.

You have to go through a "psychophysical examination" to buy a Glock? Wow. The South would secede if they ever tried that here.

What is involved in the examination?

SnakeDoc

 

[slipknotpredator]

yeah...you need to go through some kind of shooting training, a psychophysical examination and some other paperwork to buy any gun...and i have no idea whats involved in this examination thats what makes me nervous.

 

[hairlesswookiee]

Holy moly. That's a good chunk of change. I'm pretty hard on knives, so I'm not sure a high-end brand is practical for me. My knives tend to double as Navy Seal letter openers, or package unwrappers (they over-package kids toys these days). I'd hate to use a $500 knife for such menial tasks. Plus ... I'm not a ninja, so it won't really help me with self-defense.

Thanks. Yeah its an expensive knife for sure, but I want to keep it in my car for defensive measures since I can't carry the gun until I renew the license. I have a cheap (ish) Spyderco folder that I use for all the daily chores around the house.

The only other knife I possess is the custom K-Bar type of knife that my uncle made for me before he passed away. I'll post some pics of it later because it is something awesome.

 

[jonny88]

yeah...you need to go through some kind of shooting training, a psychophysical examination and some other paperwork to buy any gun...and i have no idea whats involved in this examination thats what makes me nervous.

well here in canada you cant buy a gun till you take a gun safety course,wich l will go for in a few weeks,you need to take the non-restricted course for rifles and restricted course for hand guns.in a few weeks ill go for the non-restricted,l want to buy a ruger 10/22 rifle and at the end of the year take the restricted and buy a baretta 92fs and then mabey a glock.but here in canada gun laws are very strict with handguns.and the courses are $100 each wich sucks but theres no other way.thats what l love about america just walk into a gun store buy the gun wait 3 days and go shooting,here its a pain in the asss process.

 

[hairlesswookiee]

^^^I wish it was like that here. I'd prefer the law require people to take a safety instruction class.

 

[slipknotpredator]

Has anybody ever tryed or owns a Glock19?

 

[jonny88]

^^^I wish it was like that here. I'd prefer the law require people to take a safety instruction class.

well its a pain but america should have it also,once you think of it,it is crazy that anyone can walk into a gun store and buy a gun right there and it doesnt matter if you even know how it works.this way it just prevents a million times less accidents.and in canada you cant carry guns,it goes to the extreme with hand guns here you cant even transport your hand gun without getting a transportation ticket wich is free but in case the cops find it in your car it shows were your taking the gun.also if you get caught with it in your car with out the ticket and no trigger lock and if its loaded you can go to jail mandatory a year and up to ten for extreme cases,you cant even use any gun for self defense.if someone breaks into your home and you shoot them dead you still might go on trial for murder.canada is a complete 180 from the states.

 

[jonny88]

Has anybody ever tryed or owns a Glock19?

yes l shot a flock 16 a 19 and a 26 l think it was at wild wild west shootung range,the 26 was to small for my liking no place for your pinky finger,the 19 is a great gun, just the right size and weight not as heavy as the baretta l want.

 

[Darth Cruel]

I don't have any problems with The States requiring training and security checks, just as long as they don't outright ban like they are trying to do.

 

[SnakeDoctor]

^^^I wish it was like that here. I'd prefer the law require people to take a safety instruction class.

The idea of the government screening law-abiding citizens before granting them the privilege of buying a gun rubs me the wrong way.

They're not called "rights" for nothing, and the potential for abuse is significant. Take, for instance, Chicago. They instituted a screening process that was so grueling that it was virtually impossible for even the most qualified individuals to privately own a handgun -- the case that hit the Supreme Court was about an ex-cop that couldn't get a license to OWN a gun despite a 2-year ordeal of paperwork.

Licensing gun ownership is a slippery slope. People have their own agendas. Some people don't like guns, and they don't like the idea of law-abiding people owning them under any circumstances. They have the right to their opinion, and I have the right to mine ... but I shouldn't have to ask permission.

I don't have any problems with The States requiring training and security checks, just as long as they don't outright ban like they are trying to do.

I think security checks are fine. We do need to make sure the purchaser is actually a law-abiding citizen. "Training" is a different story. A specific training requirement allows the government to deny licenses, and therefore deny the exercise of a specific right by a law abiding citizen, without due process of law.

SnakeDoc

 

[jonny88]

I don't have any problems with The States requiring training and security checks, just as long as they don't outright ban like they are trying to do.

are they trying to take away your right to arms,l thought l hurd about this not to long ago,dont worry it will never happen or the goverment will have riots on there hands.

 

[hairlesswookiee]

^^^I'm not saying license to own a gun, but I believe someone should be required to take a safety class to demonstrate that they know how to operate them before they can purchase one.

"If they outlaw guns, only outlaws will own guns."

 

[SnakeDoctor]

^^^I'm not saying license to own a gun, but I believe someone should be required to take a safety class to demonstrate that they know how to operate them before they can purchase one.

"If they outlaw guns, only outlaws will own guns."

Demonstrate to whom? An entity that has the authority to require such a demonstration has the authority to deny a purchase ... which is a denial of a Constitutional right to a law-abiding citizen absent due process. The purpose of "rights" is that the government can't simply retract them because they don't think you're qualified to have them.

SnakeDoc

 

[jonny88]

The idea of the government screening law-abiding citizens before granting them the privilege of buying a gun rubs me the wrong way.

They're not called "rights" for nothing, and the potential for abuse is significant. Take, for instance, Chicago. They instituted a screening process that was so grueling that it was virtually impossible for even the most qualified individuals to privately own a handgun -- the case that hit the Supreme Court was about an ex-cop that couldn't get a license to OWN a gun despite a 2-year ordeal of paperwork.

Licensing gun ownership is a slippery slope. People have their own agendas. Some people don't like guns, and they don't like the idea of law-abiding people owning them under any circumstances. They have the right to their opinion, and I have the right to mine ... but I shouldn't have to ask permission.



I think security checks are fine. We do need to make sure the purchaser is actually a law-abiding citizen. "Training" is a different story. A specific training requirement allows the government to deny licenses, and therefore deny the exercise of a specific right by a law abiding citizen, without due process of law.

SnakeDoc

l disagree, they should do like here in canada a safety course for 4-6 hours and if you pass they can not deny licenses, only if you fail the course. they are easy common sense courses,and if you do fail take it again,and if you fail again you dont deserve a gun,the courses just teach you safety and tips and tricks that anyone can use to stay safer.this is off topic but same thing in canada now its mandatory to get a boat license for boating,so l took the course last week and its an easy test but you learn some good tips and tricks to stay safe on the water.

 

[SnakeDoctor]

l disagree, they should do like here in canada a safety course for 4-6 hours and if you pass they can not deny licenses, only if you fail the course. they are easy common sense courses,and if you do fail take it again,and if you fail again you dont deserve a gun,the courses just teach you safety and tips and tricks that anyone can use to stay safer.this is off topic but same thing in canada now its mandatory to get a boat license for boating,so l took the course last week and its an easy test but you learn some good tips and tricks to stay safe on the water.

I don't know much about Canadian law ... but in the U.S., boating or driving are not in the same category as gun ownership. You don't have the right to drive or the right to boat -- so the ability to drive or boat can be denied without overcoming a particularly high hurdle. To deny the ability to own a gun is FAR different from denying the ability drive a car.

To my mind, the right to bear arms is more analogous to free speech, free assembly, free expression of religion, freedom from undue search and seizure, etc. These rights cannot be denied without due process of law (i.e. adjudication by a Court) ... and nor should the right to own a gun. The premise of the rights enumerated in the Constitution is that they are not bestowed by government, and thus cannot be denied to law-abiding citizens by the government.

SnakeDoc

 

[jonny88]

I don't know much about Canadian law ... but in the U.S., boating or driving are not in the same category as gun ownership. You don't have the right to drive or the right to boat -- so the ability to drive or boat can be denied without overcoming a particularly high hurdle. To deny the ability to own a gun is FAR different from denying the ability drive a car.

To my mind, the right to bear arms is more analogous to free speech, free assembly, free expression of religion, freedom from undue search and seizure, etc. These rights cannot be denied without due process of law (i.e. adjudication by a Court) ... and nor should the right to own a gun. The premise of the rights enumerated in the Constitution is that they are not bestowed by government, and thus cannot be denied to law-abiding citizens by the government.

SnakeDoc

okay,im just saying in canada you need to take courses so there less accidents,as with are gun laws you need to take the course so anyone who has a gun then the goverment knows that person knows how to use it.the boat license just started last year, to many people were getting hurt and dying boating,so you now have to take a boating course and get the boating operators card,and have to have it with you when boating,this way again the goverment knows you know what your doing,its overkill l know,its just any form of tax really.l bet they will do the same thing with ATVs soon since so many people die on them every year,but this is off topic,so you saying americans put there guns before there balls,thats okay then.if it is that much of a right then you could be right,l just think theres nothing wrong with making sure people are shown how to use the gun properly buy a professional.maby a course you go to but there no test just go for a few hours and get some tips. mabey there would be less accidents is all im saying.but in a nut shell l wish canada gun laws were like yours.more fin that way.plus we cant buy ak-47s or m4s or anything like that,nothing fully automatic,wich sucks because thats were all the fun is.

 

[P1X4R]

Has anybody ever tryed or owns a Glock19?

on my list. soon. i already have 5 extra magazines for it.

 

[P1X4R]

i wouldn't mind if taking a gun safety course was a prerequisite. i practice at least once a month in order to keep my skills fresh.

 

[Darth Cruel]

are they trying to take away your right to arms,l thought l hurd about this not to long ago,dont worry it will never happen or the goverment will have riots on there hands.

This is a never-ending struggle between our two primary political idealisms...liberalism and conservatism.

The idea of the government screening law-abiding citizens before granting them the privilege of buying a gun rubs me the wrong way.

They're not called "rights" for nothing, and the potential for abuse is significant. Take, for instance, Chicago. They instituted a screening process that was so grueling that it was virtually impossible for even the most qualified individuals to privately own a handgun -- the case that hit the Supreme Court was about an ex-cop that couldn't get a license to OWN a gun despite a 2-year ordeal of paperwork.

Licensing gun ownership is a slippery slope. People have their own agendas. Some people don't like guns, and they don't like the idea of law-abiding people owning them under any circumstances. They have the right to their opinion, and I have the right to mine ... but I shouldn't have to ask permission.



I think security checks are fine. We do need to make sure the purchaser is actually a law-abiding citizen. "Training" is a different story. A specific training requirement allows the government to deny licenses, and therefore deny the exercise of a specific right by a law abiding citizen, without due process of law.

SnakeDoc

I intend no animosity and I do not want to see the gun thread closed because it became political, so I am out of this aspect of the conversation. But I will leave it with this opinion: You have to really be careful making statements like this. Honestly, there is a lot of spin in it and it sends out inaccurate information. This is really conjecture and personal opinion and is not looking at both aspects of the issue with equal scrutiny.