I think you are judging the world though a bit of rose colored glasses. I’m not an expert on Finland but I take your word that it has been rather pleasant over the last 40 years. However if I’m not mistaken, 70 years or so ago Finland was in such danger of being swallowed up by Russia that it literally had to side with Hitler to prevent it. Is that true?
I don’t know if it is so much fear but rather distrust. Maybe in Finland it is different, but do you really think American’s should make it a general practice to trust whatever the government tells us?
Zoe, where do you get your information? According to wiki, when men leave the military their weapons are converted from being assault rifles into what gun control advocates like to call “assault weapons” very similar in function to the rifle used by Lanza. Semi-automatics are not in fact banned, but are what the select fire weapons are converted into. I’m I wrong?
This article also tends to indicate you are incorrect.
It is very true. In fact fear for Russia was very big decades after the war, it’s still not totally over and probably never will. Also, right after the armistice there were a group that hid guns all around the country in case of Russian occupation. Those guns were never needed and some stashes have been found even quite recently. Would those guns been any good if needed? Absolutely not. Without Germany Finland would’ve collapsed in weeks.
Certainly not, We don’t trust everything Our government says. But We haven’t involved guns in it since 1930’s and even then the President stopped the right-wing uprising with just one radio speech. But I guess that works that easily only in a small country.
I don’t see that Finnish government is ever going to use guns against its own citizens, so the citizens don’t see a need for guns. If somebody acts crazy, he get overruled by others and We just vote next time somebody else. It helps that We have about ten political parties that are noteworthy, none of them is going to get too much power.
That is not saying that nothing could ever happen, but We know that guerrilla war isn’t working, especially in this climate.
Yeah, I read the whole wiki of Finlands involvement in WW2 and it seems you were really caught between a rock and hard place. Then when I read about the Swiss involvement in the world wars Switzerland during the world wars - Wikipedia and I think there is some merit to having a large portion of your entire populace armed and trained, and I think they prove that large numbers of “assault weapons” in society does not have to equate with violent crime. Finland makes fine weapons too, my Sako TRG 42 has become one of my favorite rifles.
I think that’s all good, but I think one should be prepared for times when things aren’t as good. In a smaller country like Finland I would be more worried about outside invaders than internal threats but I think history proves the unexpected is often what you get. And it’s not like owning and shooting guns is an unpleasant endeavor. It really makes for a satisfying, challenging, and fun past time that you can continue to be competitive throughout your life, rather than one in which you are washed up with injuries in your 20s.
Switzerland is a very different case when invasion is concerned. It’s all mountains, narrow passages and bridges that are very easy to defend. Finland is about just as flat as Netherlands, We don’t have a single mountain here. All We have is shallow lakes.
Your’re going to love this. SAKO factories were founded by The White Guard, Finnish Militia that won the leftist Red Guard in the Finnish civil war.
Well, there have been a lot of talking about joining NATO, and I wouldn’t mind if We would.
Indeed, when I the first time got some serious money as a kid, the first thing I bought was an air-rifle. Those were the best summers ever! However I have never felt any desire or need for bigger guns.
And then there was this idiot who shot Me in the back with another air-rifle. He was totally mental and OD’d himself few years later. Now these are the guys that make Me cautious about bigger guns.
Just to clarify this: he didn’t mean to hit Me. He thought it was funny joke to shoot near Me, so he would’ve done it even with a bigger gun. And if he would’ve have one, I’d probably be dead now.
So you all would probably you all need more guns still.
FWIW, I started out with airguns too when I was a kid. I still shoot them today as cheap and fun practice I can do at home. I shoot guns of all different types at matches around the country and it’s as fun now as it was when I was a kid. The competitions really do stress safety. In my primary sport USPSA/IPSC shooting, the slightest safety infraction, even if accidental results in immediate disqualification.
My anecdote was a bipolar guy off his meds that had a crush on my girlfriend, broke into my house at 2 AM, and tried to murder me in my bed with a 2x4. After three strikes, I shot him in the arm with my Glock and held him at bay until the police came. So if not for guns I’d probably be dead now.
Prior to that I had given some thought to the idea that guns were more dangerous to the owners than to them, and had largely dropped out of the “gun culture” but that incident changed my mind. The cops were cool, but held my gun as evidence for almost 2 years. I bought a new one and was practicing the next day. My attempted murderer did 2 of 7 years in a mental hospital before he was deemed safe to put back on the street.
Sorry for keeping this slight hijack going on, but…
So We both have valid reasons for Our opinions. And I’m not against people having pistols at their home. You obviously needed one and luckily had one too. ( I guess that SAKO would’ve been too big and clumsy to be helpful, though. ) But I get cautious when people say that they need rifles to self defense ( and one for hunting deer and a shotgun for birds, and one against tyranny and whatever… too much is just too much ). Anyways, I’m not going to burglarize anyone, so I don’t mind about the guns that never leave the house, I don’t even know about them. The problem is that one can never tell if they actually will leave the house and who handles them then and in what mental state.
So you’re going to report me because of your inability to write clearly or to read with comprehension? Go ahead.
I wasn’t admitting that I knew you were kidding. There are enough people who are serious about noone owning any guns that I thought you were one of them. Or haven’t you been following the debate?
Are you concerned that yopu can’t prevent people from taking their AR-15s out of the house (in which case, how do you keep someone from taking their handguns out of the house?) or that you can’t tell when someone is carrying one?
And why do YOU get to say how much of a constitutional right is too much?
Also in the end the constitution has nothing to do with this. Let’s assume that someone shows 100% certain evidence that the 2nd amendment means exactly what the worst gun-grabbers say. Would You give even a penknife away? I don’t think so. Your side would start arguing that 2nd amendment is bad and rubbish and it should be repealed. A tradition of more than two centuries overrules easily an ancient law that no-one have ever followed. And it’s just an amendment, it wasn’t there in the first place, so it wasn’t considered that important anyway.
This statement betrays a simple ignorance of history. The first amendment is also “just an amendment,” but do you think the founders didn’t consider it important? What do you think they might have said about the third amendment? “Amendment” is not a synonym for “afterthought.”
Are you aware of the great controversy that existed at the time of the framing of the Constitution as to whether to include a Bill of Rights at all? Alexander Hamilton is probably the most famous individual arguing against a Bill of Rights. He believed it would be dangerous, writing that “[a Bill of Rights] would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted.”
In other words: the Constitution does not have to include a right in order for you to have it. Anything the government was not granted the power to do by the Constitution, it has no power to do. Hamilton feared that writing down certain rights explicitly would eventually lead to the belief that the Bill of Rights was a list of exceptions to assumed federal power. Perhaps he was right.
You’re proposing to limit the second amendment. I’m not proposing to limit debate on that.
You mean like your side is doing right now?
Lets wait until they actually do that to see whether or not we are as bad as you are. We have a history to look back on. We had an assault weapons ban before and it stuck, I don’t even know that there was a legal challenge to it.
You guys on the other hand seem ready to throw the constitution under the bus whenever it doesn’t comport with your preferences.
I think Freak was mock channeling “gun nuts” who would suddenly find the constitution is less important after it doesn’t protect their second amendment rights. Of course he has nothing to back that up other than his own prejudices.
It must be admitted that there is a fringe of anti-statists who actually disparage the Constitution because they feel it was a surrender to establish a government at all; the kind of people who wish that L. Neil Smith’s “Gallatin” alternate-universe was real.
People get used to whatever is now allowed and consider it nearly a God-given right.
Suppose someone was to invent something that would greatly enhance freedom to travel and individual autonomy, but the estimated death toll from the invention was one million people a year, worldwide. Anyone agreeing to such a tradeoff would be considered to an unfeeling nutcase. But now that we do have a million people a year dying in motor vehicle accidents, people would consider restrictions on freedom to drive fascistic extremism.
America was a free country during the first GW Bush term, when we had that assault weapons ban, and would be just as free if it were brought back. But it doesn’t feel that way to people who have gotten used to having these weapons.
In the 1700’s, enlistment in the militia was mandatory in times of crisis, by all able bodied men. There were no standing armies. All the hell the Constitution was saying was that, even though you may be called upon to server in the militia, the state was not going to buy you a gun. The NRA and gun enthusiasts have twisted this so it is nowhere near what was meant.
In my circumstance it was a pistol that saved me. The Sako, like you say, would have have been too long and clumsy, but in your situation if the Russians were attacking the TRG would be ideal. Interestingly in the US more and more states have allowed concealed carry outside the home and I don’t think that has resulted in any increase in crime, but rather the crime rates continued to fall.
Since my home invasion I’ve become concerned that it might happen again, so now I keep a shotgun by my bed. As for multiple rifles to, the different types really do work better in different situations. If you hunt birds you need a shotgun for that. A deer rifle won’t work. If you shoot clays you will shoot more often and carry your guns less so a heavier shotgun words better, than for hunting. Hunting deer in the brush it is better to have a shorter gun than for long distance hunting. Elk or bear might require a larger caliber than for deer, etc., so there are legit reasons why people end up with a number of different guns. Plus people that like guns, like guns, and much like tattoos, it’s human nature not to be satisfied with what you have already.
