Thailand's Firearm laws

[Guest]

Lewis Gun - Do you have a WWI bi-plane to mount it on? Look out WildAlaska!

 

 

 

 

 

[Flashermac]

The problem is that the anti-gun folks would simply make it illegal for law abiding folks to be armed -- for home protection or almost anything. But I do admit that there are weapons out in public that I think have no business there -- at least without folks having a damn good reason for them.

 

e.g. I could not bring home a Kalashnikov war souvenir rifle from Vietnam, even if it had been fixed not to fire fully automatic. But you can buy a semi-auto Kalashnikov in the States now. Huh? Or who needs an AR-15 (semi-auto M16)? I'd love to get a surplus M14, a military rifle but a fine weapon for home defence. (And too damn big to conceal!) But a .225 calibre weapon with steel jacketed bullets that was designed to penetrate walls and kill by impact??? Unfortunately, by lumping all firearms together, they anti-gunners shot themselves in the foot. If they had their way, they'd even ban .22 calibre single shot target rifles.

 

 

[Flashermac]

Oh yeah, where do the illegal guns come from? Smuggled in, stolen ... otherwise illegally acquired. They also cost a hell of a lot on the blackmarket.

 

p.s. The US Army in its wisdom has trainees doing things like guarding closed shops with empty M16s. There was an incident a few years ago where someone simply drove onto Fort Leonard Wood (an open post at the time), stuck a shotgun in a trainee's face and said "Gimme the M16 or your dead". Then the Army tried to court-martial the kid for surrendering his weapon! He got off, since the defence asked what he was supposed to do with an empty rifle. Result: one fully automatic M16 out on the blackmarket.

[iono]

Great reads, I posted them on a website I frequent stirring the pot for a violence in America debate

[Guest]

i don't don't know, i don't have a solution there. it just looks to me that the discussion on gun ownership is all too theoretical - on the one hand you have the gun nutters who pound on the constitution (jeez, that thing is rather old, and a few things can be adapted to modern times) and on the other side which wants to take the guns away, but i don't think that they have to live somewhere in the inner city and have to face all the armed gangster day in day out.

---

 

It is not really inner cities filled with dangerous people that provides the Constitutional justifiction for gun ownership. Legal gun ownership is a means to establishing militias and is also a deterrent against arbitrary governmental authority. These themes are very important in American history -- the Constution itself is fundamentally a contract that limits government power.

 

I do agree that certain elements in the US have hijacked these themes for their own purposes but this kind of discussion is anything but theoretical as the Constitution is still very much at the core of the American system.

[Flashermac]

The anti-gun folks try to twist that around and say that the militia is the National Guard, so it doesn't apply to other folks. Or else they become real buttheads and ask why people can't own a howitzer or a battleship. Quite simply, the militia laws stated (and may still state) that every male citizen between the ages of 16 and 50 is a member of the militia. In the past, militia musters would be held twice a year, and those men not showing up would be fined. When a war came along, the militia would report and those needed would be selected -- the rest sent home. The laws specified that every man had to own either a musket or rifle and keep 40 rounds ready at all times. Of course, nowadays the militia is largely dormant, but the Constitution is quite clear. The Selective Service act states that every male must register at 18, and is in fact a reflection of the militia of old. Not everyone was ever called up -- not even in WWII. But all males had to report and register -- and still do. (The National Guard is a state organisation and technically is an organised militia. It ain't the Army.)

 

 

[Guest]

isn't that a bit antiquated?

 

i mean, all that might have served a purpose in the 19th century, but now, in 21st?

for me as a nonamerican it sometimes looks as if some of those points in the constitution are treated like the holy grail without considering that the times have changed and that what was once modern is now hindering progress within the society. adaptation not possible?

that is somehow what i meant with a theoretical discussion on those gun laws - pro arguments state a constitution which was written 2 centuries ago perfect for the needs of 2 centuries ago, contra arguments fail to see realities of every day life.

 

is there no middle ground to be found?

 

[Guest]

Flashermac,

 

Owning a Howitzer in the US is perfectly legal under federal law but 15 or so states have state laws prohibiting owning things like that. The problem with big guns like Howitzers is the cost. Those thing are very expensive!

[Flashermac]

There is a middle ground. The Constitution says "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be restricted." But in fact, it has been. There are laws on the types of firearms you may own -- length, concealability, no fully automatic weapons etc. There is also the background check prior to purchase, which sure as hell is a restriction. And convicted felons are banned for the remainder of their life.