Firearms Convention

[GEEZER]

Obama backs international gun control treaty

The OAS Firearms Convention Is Incompatible with American Liberties

by Theodore Bromund, Ray Walser, Ph.D. and David Kopel

President Barack Obama has called on the Senate to ratify the Inter-American Convention Against the Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, Ammunition, Explosives, and Other Related Materials. President Bill Clinton signed the convention in 1997, but neither he nor President George W. Bush sent it to the Senate for advice and consent for ratification. The convention, commonly known by its Spanish acronym CIFTA, was negotiated under the auspices of the Organization of American States (OAS).

The convention poses serious prudential risks to liberties associated with the First and Second Amendments. Specifically, it seeks to criminalize a wide range of gun-related activities that are now legal in all states, and it would clash with the First Amendment's protection of free speech. It would also entitle foreign governments to legal assistance from U.S. authorities when pursuing extradition requests, including requests to arrest individuals exercising their First Amendment rights. These are serious prudential risks. Finally, it would create a chilling climate for the freedom of speech of foreign nationals both in the United States and in the Western Hemisphere as a whole.

More broadly, the convention poses risks to American sovereignty. Because the convention has no enforcement mechanism, by ratifying it, the U.S. would impose one-sided obligations upon itself, thereby illegitimately constraining American governing institutions. In some cases, these obligations would be constitutionally unacceptable and could not be enforced. This would place the U.S. in the position of ratifying a treaty that it cannot entirely fulfill, creating an opening for critics to condemn the U.S. for failing to live up to its international obligations.

The conflict between the U.S.'s treaty obligations and the Constitution would also be useful to domestic advocates who argue that the Constitution is a barrier to U.S. compliance with "international norms." Thus, the convention fits neatly into a broader transnationalist strategy to reduce the ability of the U.S. to govern itself through laws and institutions of its own making. By backing the convention, its advocates also advance the idea that the U.S. should act at the suggestion and under the guidance of other states and ultimately of the "international community."

The defects in the convention are serious and pose prudential risks that cannot be remedied without a substantial number of U.S. reservations to the convention. It is particularly troubling that Harold Koh, a key Administration appointee, offered an unqualified endorsement of the convention before taking office and expressed doubt about the legal validity of reservations. While his criticism of the legality of reservations is baseless, the number and extent of the necessary reservations would be substantial and incompatible with the core of the convention. The U.S. can therefore neither properly ratify the convention with reservations nor safely ratify it without reservations.

Furthermore, the convention is fundamentally an arms control treaty but is not being treated with the seriousness that should attend arms control agreements. This is dangerous, and the Senate should be wary of these problems if it considers the convention.

[DazedandConfused]

obama is a very dangerous enemy.

On a side note-how many people have concealed carry and what do you think about the Glock 26 for this purpose?

[ucanit]

I’m licensed to carry…and I do!

I personally don’t like the Glock 26. It’s expensive ($500-$620). It’s double action only, which for me makes it less accurate. Its relative shape is terrible. The slide is too long for its overall height. Its grip is too short for its overall length. And, the recessed grip can get you a good case of “slide-bite” (where the slide actually traps the webbing between your thumb and index finger). Unless you’ve got big hands, it is also too thick. I’m not sure why, but the recoil of the Glock 26 is excessive, making rapid fire extremely inaccurate.

Check out my favorite, the Taurus PT 24/7 Pro. I believe it’s a much better handgun and that you’ll like it much more. I personally carry the PT 24/7 C DS which cost me $379.

[DazedandConfused]

UCanIt, thanks for the review. Everybody around me has been pushing the Glock, but they all complained about the grip. I will take a look at the Taurus.

[ucanit]

Dazed, if you ever pick up, hold and fire a Taurus PT 24/7...the only reason you'll ever pick up another Glock is to remember how bad a handgun can feel in your hand. The old U.S. Army M1911 .45 caliber pistol was more comfortable and dependable than a Glock (and more accurate too)!

[WindowMan]

Who cares about accuracy when you have a .45 anyways. My Springfield 45XD will do the job when needed.. As far as Obama taking your guns away.. I think more rumors and here say.. It would never happen here in my opinion.

[GEEZER]

"I'm just saaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyiiiiiiiiinnnnnnnnnngggggggggggg!"
You eat an elephant one bite at a time...

[ucanit]

Watch the firing of this Springfield 45XD. The fifth shell casing actual strikes the shooter in the face.

[WindowMan]

So if one cannot handle the gun they should use something else.. The Springfield 45 XD when I bought it was the winner of both the 2006 Golden Bullseye Award and Handgun of the Year Award. It is super durable and has a great grip in my opinion and I never had a discharged shell hit me in the face yet. It holds 14 rounds and for a 45 that is pretty damn good. 45 is the best type of handgun one can own for self defense, it will stop just about anything out there with one shot. I have no issues at all with it and I rate it very good to use.

[ucanit]

Springfield 45 XD Review

[WindowMan]

Well hot damn this pea-brain bought a damn good gun! I guess I can read real good to make a smart purchase.. Thanks for the links ahole, I mean ucanit!..

[ucanit]

Dazed, I can't let this go without giving you some real advice about your selection of a sidearm. Here are some simple guidelines to follow...

1. The grip should fit comfortably and totally inside your hand.
2. The tip of your thumb should fit comfortably over your middle finger to approximately half-way between your finger nail and the first knuckle.
3. The bottom of the grip (and the bottom of the magazine) should be as near flush with the lower edge of your hand as possible.
4. The barrel should not extend further than 1/2 to 3/4 of an inch past your extended index finger as you hold the weapon in the firing position.
5. You should be able to hold and fire the pistol sideways (90 degrees) with your finger on the trigger and your thumb around the rear of the grip.
6. Single-action weapons are much more accurate, but having auto-switchback between single and double action makes misfires less hazardous. (Avoid all double-action-only pistols because the added pressure required to activate the firing mechanism drastically reduces accuracy!)

1, 2 and 3 above are to ensure the weapon is as close to a mere extension of your hand as possible. As such, your accuracy will be as much as 75% better than an over or under-sized weapon.

Number 4 above ensures that pointing the barrel is as much like pointing your finger as possible (determining over 90% of your overall accuracy). Try this sometime: Draw a circle on a wall or mirror and stand where you can place your finger in the middle of the circle. Put your hand to your side, then quickly reach out and touch the center of the circle. No problem...right? Well, almost no problem. NOW, hold a pencil in your hand so the tip is extended between 1.5 to 2 inches past the tip of your finger. Put your hand to your side and then quickly reach out and touch the center of the circle with the pencil tip. Not nearly as easy, huh? That's why most people who THINK they are good on the range can't hit shit under pressure in a real-life situation. Add a little fun to your challenge and do these same tests with your eyes closed...and you'll find your accuracy is impaired even worse.

The "limp-wrist test," number 5 above, helps determine whether you will be able to control your aim under rapid fire situations.

Trust me...if you ever really need to use your pistol, you will not fire single rounds. Chances are, you'll empty the magazine before you stop pulling the trigger and if your weapon won't pass these simple tests; if your first shot isn't perfect (and it probably won't be in a stressful situation) you have less than a 1% chance for any subsequent shot hitting the target.

Most people choose a pistol that is too large for their hand. Most people choose more caliber than they can shoot accurately. Most people think a bigger bang means a better kill. Most people choose a weapon that makes them feel macho, not one that is effective and efficient.

I just love it when I hear somebody say, "I've got this big ol' bad-assed gun and it'll stop a damned bear with one shot." Yeah, well maybe...IF you can hit the damned thing. Most times big ol' bad-assed gun toters hear a big ol' bad-assed bang when they hit something (or somebody) they weren't aiming at.

Choose wisely and select the pistol that fills your personal needs. If you want to look bad, brag in bars (and postal forums), get yourself a big ol’ bad-assed gun.

[WindowMan]

So here is the kicker..What if someone has a big bad gun and can be accurate with it? I never bought it just to brag about it on postal or a gun forums as it was you guys who brought the topic up but we all brag about something in here like big bad bikes. Is that why you don't ride a small bike? I actually bought it to have something recommended by a relative who owns a gun shop and my neighbor who is a Sheriff and from reviews that I read that it would be a great weapon to have to defend yourself or family against anything busting down your door at your home. Rapid fire, why? If one goes to a range and practices and knows about recoil and how to hold a gun through training from a gun saftey course, one might know how to use it when needed.. If ever.. That is the other story, most of time you will never use a weapon to defend yourself so that is a big investment to sit somewhere in the house, so buy something that you would enjoy using at a range. If one wants to buy a weapon to defend the home and not carry it then a larger caliber weapon might be better, but if one wants to carry it conceled with a permit then a smaller one would be a better choice as it is hard to hide a larger one. One should buy ammunition that cannot easily go through walls if you use it for home defense and they make it, so that a miss that can happen does not hit innocent people.

I agree one should know what they are buying and try to hold it at a gun store before they buy. One should get advice from a good dealer because they would want you to keep going back to them for your ammunition, supplies and just maybe another gun if one is happy with their purchase. Usually a good dealer will provide the gun saftey course and demostrate how to operate and fire the gun in a safe, correct way. Pray that you never have to use it but be confident when you do that you know how to.

Yes you wrote those specs like something out of a book, very detailed and good but so much for assumptions .. If one likes a certain handgun and can fire it correctly and would like to use it at a range to get better with it then all details aside that might be the handgun of choice.

Here is a sight that has some good points and some of which why I bought the the handgun that I did..http://www.wikihow.com/Choose-the-Right ... Handgun%29

[ucanit]

Hmmmm, I never thought about writing a book about something I learned through my experience with the U.S. Army 7th Special Forces Group (Airborne) Pistol Competition Team way back in 1966.

There's just so much difference between firing at stationary range targets at our own individual leisured pace and...well, let's say other targets (like when you're under assault from real live aggressive, threatening people) and our ability to hit those targets is generally diminished considerably.

Want to find out how good you really are? Try going squirrel or rabbit hunting with your "piece." It's a real eye opener. An interesting fact is that very little of what you learn from books, classes and range fire will transfer to "live fire situations," but almost everything you learn from hunting will transfer to your range performance.

By the way, I ride a big bike because a little one probably won't carry my fat ass!!!

[DazedandConfused]

WindowMan, thanks for the link. Right now I am looking for a concealed carry gun so that little Taurus 9mm is looking good.

UCanIt, somebody said you had a fully chopped Honda 50