Gonna stir the pot a little here, just keep in mind I'm coming at this from a non-American perspective. I'm 30, I've been in the Canadian army reserve for 10 years (including a tour to Afghanistan), I ran the gun counter at a Cabelas for 5 years, I'm now an investigator for an insurance company (which incidentally involves a lot more contact with organised crime than you'd think). I've been a shooter and gun collector since I was a young teenager and I'd wager that I own more guns than anyone here except the armorers.

I find the older I get, and the more time I spend around "gun people", the more moderate I get. Working 5 years at the gun counter did a lot to open my eyes about how many idiots and yahoos out there own guns, and 9 months in Kandahar showed me what a society that has NO gun control really looks like.

Is there any reason an intelligent, responsible gun owner shouldn't be able to own whatever they want? Not really, no. But the reality is there's no real legal way to distinguish the responsible people for the irresponsible ones - just because you've never been convicted of a criminal offense does not mean you're responsible enough to own a machine gun.

There are plenty of things I don't like about our gun laws, but I'm actually very in favor of licensing firearms owners. Guns aren't the problem, the people who have them can be. I know that it would never fly in the States, but the fact that in Canada you need to have a license to buy or possess a firearm or ammunition is, I think, the main reason we don't have nearly the same problem with mass shootings as you do. If you're unable to pass a 6 hour safety course and unwilling to fill out a background check form, I don't want you to have a gun.

We used to have registration of long guns, which I think was a waste of time and money. It never really bothered me on a personal level, it took 5 minutes on the RCMP website to register a rifle, but I'm glad we got rid of it as a cost-saving measure. We still register handguns, which I'm still pretty indifferent to - it's not that much of a hassle on me personally and the rate of handgun ownership here is low enough that I doubt it costs much.

We don't have handgun carry in Canada, which frankly doesn't bother me. I've carried a gun enough that it doesn't hold much excitement for me anymore. I've spent all of my life living and working downtown in one of our most violent cities and never felt the need for a gun on my person, and sold plenty of guns to people I've very glad AREN'T able to carry one on my bus to work.

I don't like that we can't own .25s, .32s or short barreled handguns, I think that's foolish and arbitrary. I don't like that I can only shoot handguns on a range (or some tactical rifles if I actually owned any), I think it's way safer to be shooting 9mm in the bush than .30-06. Our laws relating to tactical rifles in general are also arbitrary and convoluted to the point of being unenforceable. I'm glad we don't have your destructive devices law - I own a 14.5mm anti-tank rifle that qualifies as such in the States and I think it's the last gun in my collection a criminal would want. We can ship guns across the country without involving a dealer, I never understood the point behind that one.

But mostly I don't like the loud and aggressive gun culture that's becoming more and more prominent here and from what I can see in the States. Guns are my hobby, you might even say my passion, but they're not my identity. I don't like that more and more being a gun owner seems to come packaged with a whole set of unrelated conservative social and political viewpoints. I think the loud "no compromise", "from my cold dead hands" rhetoric is completely unproductive and mostly just scares people who might not care about gun control into thinking we're all a bunch of irrational aggressive rednecks who probably shouldn't have guns.

No offense to Canadian gun owners, but there is a distinction between the "gun culture" of America compared to Canada. I don't believe the mentalities are the same on a fundamental level. With the US, its very founding was partly over the problems of government oversight without representation, and even involving confiscation of arms from the people. A permanent point on the Constitution was made solely for this situation. It's designed to be very clear cut.

To a lot of people, having guns is mostly a hobby, but people tend to forget that your right to own guns is guaranteed by the Constitution and shouldn't be taken for granted. The protection of our rights has to be loud and aggressive because the opposition are just as loud and aggressive in how they want to paint guns being evil things and think that somehow they can just be wished away with fairy dust. The people who seek more strict gun controls don't know guns, don't own guns, nor do they want to understand guns. They just see "Oh that looks scary", let's ban it.


Also to compare western countries like the US and Canada to the Stan and Iraq is like comparing the Ming Dynasty to the Zulu. We're talking about completely different environments, cultures, history and people with almost nothing alike. We're talking about a people that's still heavily influenced by their ass backwards religion that it goes deep into any form of government.

The middle east has mostly been a shit hole for a long time. Sure, spots of civilization and great culture has popped up in the ancient past, but other than the Persian Empire and the following golden age that has brought things like coffee and the number ZERO, the middle east never been a place of evolving moral standards and civilization.

It's not gun control that solves the crime problems of America. If it does work, LA, Chicago and New York City would be some of the safest cities in America, but they are not. Just this passed week, over 50 people were killed as a result of crime in Chicago and that city has some of the strictest gun laws in America.

The problem that I have with the 2nd amendment, is that it is really not very clear cut at all. In fact, to me at least, it is very ambiguous to whom the right is being bestowed. To me the wording "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" would seem that the right to bear arms is only protected if you are part of a regulated Militia. This was also the opinion of the US Supreme Court until 2008 when they ruled that it also applied to individuals (in a split 5-4 decision).

Having said this I am against any additional forms of gun control in the US. This isn't because I think gun control is in and of itself a bad thing, but it just wouldn't work due to the history/culture of the USA and the huge amount of firearms that are already in circulation.

Most of the people of the period went into great details on what the 2A actually meant and all of them say it's the people's rights to protect themselves, be it from anyone who wish you harm or a government that wishes to oppress you.

The 2A is in 2 parts. The first is establishment of a militia which is different from an actual state controlled military and it needs to be regulated to protect a free state. The second part specifically mentions people, their right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

To keep, meaning to have - to own, possess.
To bear, meaning to carry around, open or otherwise.


I think that is the point established that whoever is the people is, they have the right to keep and bear arms.

That seems pretty clear to me.


What I think should be set into law is harsh consequences for being irresponsible.

I just don't think full auto firearms serve any practical purpose to the average civilian. Nothing to do with being "lowly" or not.

Practical or not shouldn't factor into the equation when discussing Constitutional rights.

Is there any room for common sense though? You can make the argument that machine guns cost a lot of money so legal ones are not used for crimes, but this is only because they are in very limited supply due to the NFA. With a universal lack of any gun control, there would be companies making POS machine pistols for $300 which would definitely do more harm than good.

The problem is when you start on that path of so called "common sense", it's a slippery slope that goes deeper.

During the time when the 2A was written, the founding fathers were well aware of advancing tech of the era. Repeating guns were an idea and the concept of a gun that can shoot faster than one shot at a time was the dream of all gun makers and soldiers of the time. Now, could they have actually thought of machine guns and planes? Perhaps not, but I believe they'd understand how it does not effect what the average free American can have. Remember, the British wanted to confiscate all firearms from the colonists and ban use and it didn't matter what type of gun. All guns.


The fact that there's many cases outside the US where heavily restricted gun control have given birth to small illegal shops all over the place making easy to make machine guns. One case was in Australia. Brazil is another and the Philippines.

You need to understand what kind of people live in America. If anything, the more restrictions we kept passing in America, the larger coverage of deaths with guns seemed to take place following.


And about machine guns in civilian hands. You know how many retired military people are in the US? I think most of them are perfectly trained to handle select fire weapons and again, this goes back to the Right to Bear Arms applies to all arms.

What we should focus at with laws is making the penalty for irresponsible actions and crime with firearms harsher.

You cant make the argument though that if one sub-set of the population can be trusted with a type of weapon then it should be available to everybody else. If you make the argument that only those people than the Government deems can be trusted with a weapon can have it, then surely this would go strongly against the universal right to keep and bear arms would it not?

Honestly, I also don't buy the argument that the founding fathers had any idea where firearms technology, society or the world as a whole was going to be 200+ years into the future. A couple of centuries from now we could have practical shoulder fired railguns and plasma rifles that can blast straight through a building, do you think it would be reasonable for anybody to walk into a gun store and buy one of them?

Yes, I believe we should have phasers as well. They still falls under arms. The more we let governments restrict certain things, the more power we give over to them and then what can we have? Or decides it? You? Me? Or people who don't know who don't know us but makes a bunch of assumptions that we can't be trusted with certain things. That's not a good mindset for governing or a free country.

Hell, we have means of destroying buildings and punching holes through walls that ISN'T using a weapon. Enough fertilizer will do that for you.

Hell, the NFA wasn't passed until the 1930s and by that time, we had machine guns, short barrelled weapons, etc for years up to that point on guess what kind of people use them in crime? People who are committing crime.

I already said that the found fathers might not have predicted actual machine gun, but they are aware of the then current advancing tech of their era and constantly promote the idea that citizens should have arms equal to the military in the event of oppression and tyranny because they just fought a war of Independence that proved that very point.

It's not about actual trust because regulations alone means there is no trust to begin with. It's assumption that the people will do wrong and a rule needs to be set down in case. That's not a very honest thing.

These types of laws don't actually work. You like a lot of others don't trust the vast majority of people with their own responsibility and believe ink on paper will prevent them from doing crime.


I might need actual training to use a machine gun, but I sure as hell don't want to pay for a tax stamp and wait a year for additional background checks to get one and then can't take it out of my state without additional paper work and then keep it even more guarded than my other guns. I want a suppressor on my guns to protect my ears, not again, pay 200 dollars for a stupid stamp and wait for someone else to prove I'm a law abiding American citizen.