March
S M T W T F S
1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31
Who's Online Now
5 members (Roundsworth, gasgunner, R. Glenz, Lloyd3, Wild Skies), 837 guests, and 6 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Forum Statistics
Forums10
Topics38,374
Posts544,017
Members14,391
Most Online1,258
Mar 29th, 2024
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 24 of 30 1 2 22 23 24 25 26 29 30
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 12,743
Sidelock
***
Offline
Sidelock
***

Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 12,743
While we are on this comparsion with automobiles I will attempt to make a few points. I have not been looking at this subject in regards to Registration nor, I believe, has Larry. Automobile registration was never intended, nor any attempt made, to "Deprive" the citizenry of the right to own & operate any number of vehicles they could afford. The same Cannot be said of those desiring Gun Registration. That being said I do not perceive Registration as Larry's intent in favor of this nor is my objection to it based on this aspect.

While I understand the point of those in favor of this, my objection lies on grounds other than registration.
My concern is "IF" it is not made retro-active to include all guns sold, nothing will be accomplished. To go back to the odometer comparsion I can sell any vechicle I might own made prior to the law irregardless of what may or may not have beeen done to its odometer or if it even still works or not, this law made no attempt to "GrandFather" in Older & Antique automobiles.
To make an attempt to GrandFather all the older guns in existence in the US, most with unmarked bore dias & chamber lengths is simply something I don't think we want.
As I recall "ALL" guns proofed in England were marked with the gauge of their bores. Thus a 12ga overbored for brass shells would not be marked 12, more apt to be 11 or 11/1 after 1887. One of the "Chamberless" guns would probably be marked 10. Early guns were not marked for chamber length but after 1904 at least one can determine with reasonable certainity the original chamber by the load it was proofed for. Between 1887 & 1904 it wil have either a C or LC mark, & while this does not denote an absolute chamber length it does offer some limits.
This situation simply does "NOT Exist" on guns built in the US. I have already mentioned that many Lefevers, as well as other early American makes, were bored for brass shells, I have Lefevers with oversize bores which I "Suspect" left the factory that way. I also have several 12ga Lefevers with 2 3/4" chambers & the one 16ga I mentioned with 3" chambers.
I have no intention of using these guns with current SAAMI spec shells nor do I have a desire to have them proofed for such use. I know the proposed law would only apply if I wanted to sell them, but If I did decide to sell them I really don't want to go through the hassel of trying to prove they are original nor the expense of having them proofed. I would much rather sell them to someone who understands them for what they are & with plans to use them accordingly.


Miller/TN
I Didn't Say Everything I Said, Yogi Berra
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,445
Likes: 204
Sidelock
**
Offline
Sidelock
**

Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,445
Likes: 204
Originally Posted By: 2-piper


....I do not perceive Registration as Larry's intent in favor of this nor is my objection to it based on this aspect....


Snip or no snip, I do not believe that was Larry's intent either. It does seem like you got my point though. Larry uses examples that have nothing to do with nor do they support the case for a mandatory proof house in America.

I see Larry's justifications as changing and evolving, the ends justify the means. Way back around the biggest of mulberry bushes, he was sure mandating British style proof marks on some guns was going to protect uninformed consumers. Now, there is a consumer education component to contend with. I see another huge problem here, as the the reason for a proof house was because the consumer could not be trusted to acquire the proper education on their own.

Buzz noted he would be the most disappointed of all if the imposition of a proof house was used for anything other than lofty ideals. Trouble is to me, I haven't noticed any possible safe guards against using a proof house to pursuit opposing agendas. The vehicle analogy may not fit completely, but I've noticed how it is much more expensive to drive something that isn't on some pc correct list.

Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 13,879
Likes: 15
Sidelock
***
Offline
Sidelock
***

Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 13,879
Likes: 15
I think it's pretty clear the majority of Americans on this site don't want a mandatory proof law in the US.

On the other hand if others believe it is such a large void in services available in the US, they might want to look into investing in such a business with their savings.

Me? I think there's a dozen or two old double guys a year that want the service in the US.

I think we're pretty much floggin the pony here.

Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,978
Likes: 105
Buzz Offline OP
Sidelock
**
OP Offline
Sidelock
**

Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,978
Likes: 105
Thanks Chuck, Especially for your revealing and enlightening comments as to how you really feel on the subject. It was helpful. I agree, most Americans on this board are against a Proof house in America. But, what you fail to mention, however, is this is a wholly skewed population and in NO way reflects the general gun owning public. Many, if not most of the people on this board are into archaic/ancient guns.....not what the average American is interested in. And if you review much of what is talked about here, or have reviewed many threads, much of what is of interest is that of very, very old guns. Well. it's not 1812 now, nor even 1912 now......it's the year 2012 and it is time for a better system of dealing with guns, both old and new, in America. Will this happen tomorrow??...I seriously doubt it. But, it will happen, and the sooner the better for consumer safety, and the general good.


Socialism is almost the worst.
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 13,127
Likes: 1129
Sidelock
**
Offline
Sidelock
**

Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 13,127
Likes: 1129
It is 2012 alright, buzz. And the buzzword is "you don't have to take responsibility for your actions, you can blame someone else (and probably sue them, too). What happened to investing the time necessary to learn all you can about how to identify potential problems with something before you buy it? No, today it is popular to blame someone else when something goes wrong that you should have had the foresight to see yourself.

As in, learning for yourself what could be wrong with a gun that would make it potentially unsafe. Much easier to transfer the personal responsibility to an agency, and let them make the decisions for you isn't it? Except that the personal pride that comes from having the power of knowledge is not there.

Pay somebody else to do it. Today's byline.

SRH


May God bless America and those who defend her.
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 13,879
Likes: 15
Sidelock
***
Offline
Sidelock
***

Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 13,879
Likes: 15
Buzz,
Another law to regulate an extremely small segment to protect an even smaller segment, resulting in limiting or mandating actions of a huge segment seems to be the trend. But it's all for our own good, right?

Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 121
Sidelock
Offline
Sidelock

Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 121
Originally Posted By: Chuck H
Buzz,
Another law to regulate an extremely small segment to protect an even smaller segment, resulting in limiting or mandating actions of a huge segment seems to be the trend. But it's all for our own good, right?



Bingo!

Joined: May 2010
Posts: 1,520
Likes: 71
Sidelock
**
Offline
Sidelock
**

Joined: May 2010
Posts: 1,520
Likes: 71
Speaking as an outsider it seems odd that in a County so enamoured with compensation and litigation I am amazed that any one actualy goes out to shoot with out a lawyer present .When shooting[thats hunting to you] you all wear high visability clothing ,yet it seems some of you have no or little concern over the saftey of the guns you buy or use, reading some of the posts on this and other sites .I would have thought that as a group shooters would have wanted some kind of standards across the board.
Is it some kind a National fingers up to the government or just that you feel its an infringement on you personaly?
I would imagine that there are standards of safty on all elctrical equipment you buy , as there are on pharacuticals, food and cars in the US . So why not guns and ammunition .

Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 7,065
Sidelock
***
Offline
Sidelock
***

Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 7,065
Yes. Our gun rights have been under attack by the lefties for forty years (that I know of) and any law that taxes, legislates, regulates, licenses, certifies, registers, or tracks guns is generally seen by me as an avenue to attack personal gun ownership.

A home with a swimming pool is more likely to have an accidental death in it than a home with a gun. I am both a shooter and a hunter and I spend a lot of time around shooters and hunters and I know only one that has had a barrel blow up on him. It injured his arm. My older sister and many of my friends died in automobile accidents over the years. I have had friends die in motorcycle accidents. In the overall scheme of things the likelihood of being killed or injured by a bad doublegun barrel is pretty low. Espcially when you look at Sherman Bell's tests.

I do have a wall thicknes guage and measure the wall thicknesses before I buy the gun, much less shoot it.

I don't wear hunter orange unless I am hunting with strangers.

Best,

Mike



I am glad to be here.
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 13,879
Likes: 15
Sidelock
***
Offline
Sidelock
***

Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 13,879
Likes: 15
Originally Posted By: gunman
... Is it some kind a National fingers up to the government or just that you feel its an infringement on you personaly?
I would imagine that there are standards of safty on all elctrical equipment you buy , as there are on pharacuticals, food and cars in the US . So why not guns and ammunition .



Gunman,
Yes, it's a figurative flip to the gov't and we feel an infringement. Everytime a new law is made, it takes some freedom away.

There are currently no laws preventing people in the U.S. from doing many many things that could conceiveably have dangerous consequences. Should we have laws for all of that? How about people that want to do their own work on cars? Just think, if someone did the brakes incorrectly on their car and they failed. They could kill a number of people. How about the unsuspecting buyer of a used car worked on by an owner? A law in the U.S. preventing unlicensed owners from working on their own car could completely destroy a huge aftermarket "hotrod" industry that employs numbers likely in the tens of thousands or possibly more. The 'law of unintended consequences' is repeated over and over as new laws are legislated.

Our municipal, county, state, and federal governments are all in financial trouble. Yet people want more laws. Each law costs money to create, maintain and enforce. We have full-time legislators that have a work product that costs something to us. Our human resources manager told us in our firsts manager meeting of the year that there were 760 new laws from federal, state, and local gov't. Then, when our federal legislators get bored, they create criminals by having "investigative hearings" and when someone like a baseball player doesn't tell the truth about taking steroids years ago, he is pursued by our federal gov't at the cost of millions to the public. All for what?

So, yes! It's a finger to the gov't. Why do you ask? grin

Page 24 of 30 1 2 22 23 24 25 26 29 30

Link Copied to Clipboard

doublegunshop.com home | Welcome | Sponsors & Advertisers | DoubleGun Rack | Doublegun Book Rack

Order or request info | Other Useful Information

Updated every minute of everyday!


Copyright (c) 1993 - 2024 doublegunshop.com. All rights reserved. doublegunshop.com - Bloomfield, NY 14469. USA These materials are provided by doublegunshop.com as a service to its customers and may be used for informational purposes only. doublegunshop.com assumes no responsibility for errors or omissions in these materials. THESE MATERIALS ARE PROVIDED "AS IS" WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANT-ABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, OR NON-INFRINGEMENT. doublegunshop.com further does not warrant the accuracy or completeness of the information, text, graphics, links or other items contained within these materials. doublegunshop.com shall not be liable for any special, indirect, incidental, or consequential damages, including without limitation, lost revenues or lost profits, which may result from the use of these materials. doublegunshop.com may make changes to these materials, or to the products described therein, at any time without notice. doublegunshop.com makes no commitment to update the information contained herein. This is a public un-moderated forum participate at your own risk.

Note: The posting of Copyrighted material on this forum is prohibited without prior written consent of the Copyright holder. For specifics on Copyright Law and restrictions refer to: http://www.copyright.gov/laws/ - doublegunshop.com will not monitor nor will they be held liable for copyright violations presented on the BBS which is an open and un-moderated public forum.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5
(Release build 20201027)
Responsive Width:

PHP: 7.0.33-0+deb9u11+hw1 Page Time: 0.080s Queries: 36 (0.057s) Memory: 0.8755 MB (Peak: 1.8988 MB) Data Comp: Off Server Time: 2024-03-29 12:00:21 UTC
Valid HTML 5 and Valid CSS