our own version of the 2nd amendment [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : our own version of the 2nd amendment


Kiddo
12-24-2005, 23:30
Hey BOGs, since we are looking at changing our constitution, are there any pro gun groups lobbying to put a right to own and bear arms in our bill of rights?

mikey177
12-25-2005, 04:40
Maybe someone could inquire with PROGUN or PPSA about this matter, but I doubt if enough legislators would support such a move. The legislature knows that an armed citizenry is an empowered citizenry, so I don't believe they would willingly share such power with us commoners when they as VIPs can have it all for themselves.

TED
12-25-2005, 05:35
If the Phillipines actually had something like a 2nd Amendment I would give serious consideration to moving there or at least certainly retiring there.

TED

horge
12-25-2005, 06:39
PROGUN? **hawkkkk** **spittttt**
They can't even provide an 'approved' candidate list when asked
for one during elections. A waste of oxygen.

PPSA? Dunno... they're not really a political-activist org.
Maybe one of sport-shooters on this board can enlighten us on
what the PPSA has done politically to protect/promote widespread
(not just for their own rich-boy gamers, mind you) KBA.

This Constitutional rewrite is bad juju anyway:
It smacks of extremely poor form to bundle it with
substantial term extensions for the breadth and width of government officialdom, from village councilmen all the way to the President.
Talk about self-serving...



Personally, I'd demand two things:

1. If a multiparty system is retained, then a mandated runoff election
to ensure the President-elect wins a clear majority of the vote.

2. A specified right to keep and bear arms, voided only by conviction of committing a serious crime.

Kiddo
12-25-2005, 07:03
I hope PPSA is doing something about this, although I think most of the politicians are busy on the NOEL, among other things. :(

Mang Danny
12-25-2005, 14:32
PPSA? Dunno... they're not really a political-activist org. Maybe one of sport-shooters on this board can enlighten us on
what the PPSA has done politically to protect/promote widespread
(not just for their own rich-boy gamers, mind you) KBA.

Nadale mo sir Horge!;)

horge
12-25-2005, 23:05
Just so we're clear, I don't have a beef with the PPSA.
The PPSA exists to promote so-called 'practical shooting', and apparently
does its job well --witness the preponderance of its adherents on this subforum.
;)

My impression is that the PPSA looks after its paying members.
Period. Nothing wrong with that at all.

Just pointing out that there's quite a gulf between the raisons d'etre
of PROGUN and the PPSA.

toxic
12-26-2005, 02:58
Originally posted by horge
Just so we're clear, I don't have a beef with the PPSA.
The PPSA exists to promote so-called 'practical shooting', and apparently
does its job well --witness the preponderance of its adherents on this subforum.
;)

My impression is that the PPSA looks after its paying members.
Period. Nothing wrong with that at all.



Once again you hit the right spot Sir Horge.

Giving it to PPSA and other org " Any org cannot function without proper funding/s"
Why would i spend these funds to others who are not members of my org.
As i heared within PPSA ,there are some money matter problems already, descrepancies , conflicts and other hoplas .
Entering into politics i think would only make the org worst.
This 2nd amendment thing has been a topic before , i believe a BOG member had asked for a petition or a signature campaign already. I wander what happen to it.

PROGUN..nah...i dont need another car sticker.

I think this sort of question needs to be directed to politicians who share the same passion of bearing arms. Then again these politicians need to weigh things out: on how many voters he/she can get by supporting the issue at hand.
Politicians will be facing these groups: Human Rights group,The Church,Women rights activist and some othe HOPLOphobe groups out there.They would even spend more time on entertaining the gay rights Pc of s..t why? These ...ters campaign for them and gets hundreds of ignoramus to vote for them.

For me its a dead end not unless AFAD (the group that sells gun/ammos)steps in. AFAD will benifit from lobbying for the RBA/KBA.

On the citizenry side; our culture is not that openminded yet not seeing the full picture picture of bearing arms for PROTECTION lots of guys out there just buy sidearms just for "show" .

Quoting mikey177
"The legislature knows that an armed citizenry is an empowered citizenry, so I don't believe they would willingly share such power with us commoners when they as VIPs can have it all for themselves".

For the final comment do you guys VOTE?

isuzu
12-26-2005, 09:17
I think the difference between the PPSA and PROGUN (or PROGONE) as others have said is this: PPSA is an IPSC regulating body and our country's representative to IPSC in the Philippines. PROGUN is supposed to be the NRA of the Philippines, but where is it now? It occasionally pops out of the radar screen, but not much. The NRA in the US is supported by big businesses related to firearms, and boy, it's a big political lobby group. PROGUN needs one thing: MONEY for ammo. Without it, the organization can't move much.

asintaderoche
12-26-2005, 10:41
"PROGUN" (People Responsible Owners of Guns) the name says it all. WAla bang like Philippine Sporting Guns Association, National Guns Association, Samahang Manunudla ng Pilipinas or Kapatiran ng Armadong Mamamayan. Or sali na lang sa No Permanent Address ( di na kailangan ang PTT, PTC )

horge
12-26-2005, 17:07
(warning: /long-rant mode on)

We cannot rely on an industry association like AFAD.
Its primary purpose is to protect the industry and to
settle internal conflicts. They are already making money
under the present laws and will IMO be ill-inclined to
put money and effort into promoting a Philippine 2A.

The first premise in this thread is that a Constitutional
rewrite is in the offing. Fine, we can assume that.
The second premise is that a Philippine constitutional
"right to keep and bear" is supportable, necessary or even useful.

This is where we have problems.
If we cannot defend the second premise via argument,
then even if a Philippine 2A is somehow 'bought', we will be
unable to defend it once the pseudo-liberals come
to have it neutered.

Have a brief taste:

Is a Philippine RKBA supportable?
The United States freed itself from colonial subjugation,
on the strength of an armed citizenry. All its sovereign
economic dominance can, with little effort, be traced to
this bedrock ability of every American to fight for freedom.

Filipinos have NEVER freed themselves from colonial subjugation,
and have won no armed conflicts without the direct aid of a
colonial power.*

We have been trained to let a father-figure do the heavy lifting.
That is why we have no defense budget to speak of, and all our
defense materiel is US EDA. That is why even the most
ridiculously-minor police problem has to be referred to the
Office of the President. This is why constucting a community
basketball court has to be referred to a bloody Congressman...
and these power brokers, from the President down to security guards,
love it.

The population are sheep, having handed over their fate and
safekeeping to the wolves. With this widespread attitude of
infantile dependency, there is no bedrock for a constitutional RKBA.

And for those wo are not sheep?
In no way does present law forbid us from keeping and bearing, anyway.
That's what FA licenses and PTCFOR's exist to serve.
We are allowed to arm ourselves against crime, and from 1917 onwards,
our ability to arm ourselves as private citizens has broadened by
leaps and bounds, even beyond the possibilities that Americans can avail of.



Is a Philippine RKBA necessary?
Necessary for what?
For personal self-protection vs. crime?
Who here has been a victim of crime wherein possession of a firearm
would have made a realistic, positive difference? Privately-owned firearms
seem either useless (against heavily-armed and trained carjackers, etc.)
or else overkill (against trespassers, B&E thieves, etc.) --our laws
recognize the latter, and so the legal use of firearms in self-defense is
VERY narrow in scope.

There is widespread lack of necessary skill in firearm-use for self-defense.
Bad enough that not everyone is honing motor-skills via one of those
'practical shooting' games, but there are no real venues for learning
the other 90% of surviving/winning a gunfight (using cover, legal knowhow, etc.)

Until a system is set up to properly and efficiently teach safe gun handling
and effective, legal and moral use of firearms for self defense,
it is a good bet that a new RKBA will only accelerate the spread of
'Ryan Jaworski syndrome'. There are not a few here who are long
on motor-skills and machismo, but betray a lack of tactical
common sense when they make claims of how they'd shoot their way
out of trouble.

What are the Police meant for?
If the police are incompetent, argue for their better training.
If they are too few, argue for more trainees.

Again:
In no way does present law forbid us from keeping and bearing, anyway.
That's what FA licenses and PTCFOR's exist to serve.
We are allowed to arm ourselves against crime, and from 1917 onwards,
our ability to arm ourselves as private citizens has broadened by
leaps and bounds, even beyond the possibilities that Americans can avail of.



Another motive for a citizenry arming itself is readiness to defend the State,
and to defend against the State.
So, who here has actually taken up arms to effectively defend freedom
against enemies from without the State? From within?

1986 was the diametric opposite of 1776.
Our unarmed People Power; and the armed American Revolution.
Our one and only successful revolution against State tyranny did
not involve the participation of an armed citizenry, so there is scant
historical basis to draw on, for arguing RKBA as a hedge against
State abuse.

The Constitution and the law are easily reduced to mere ink and paper:
but whether or not the Constitution and the law are here honored
more in their breach than in their observance, I do note AGAIN that:

In no way does present law forbid us from keeping and bearing, anyway.
That's what FA licenses and PTCFOR's exist to serve.
We are allowed to arm ourselves against crime, and from 1917 onwards,
our ability to arm ourselves as private citizens has broadened by
leaps and bounds, even beyond the possibilities that Americans can avail of.

Has the US Second Amendment actually prevented 'infringement' on their RKBA?
Has it resulted in a broadening, 'by leaps and bounds', of Americans' ability
to KBA over the past 100 years?

Then why do we need a 'Second Amendment'?



There.
That's just a handful of the stuff that anti-RKBA'ers will sling at you.
(Aside from the incoherent knee-jerk drivel that is IMPOSSIBLE to counter-argue).
If enough of you can counter all that and more, from the heart, then a
Constitutional RKBA in the Philippines is possible.
If you can counter all that and more, then KBA is to you not just a matter
of personal rights (insert puke icon here), but likely,
one of patriotic, moral, and familial duty.

Note that the US Second Amendment is NOT in their 'Bill of Rights'.
It thus strikes me not so much as a 'right', but a necessary article for preserving freedom.
As the Second Amendment's designated agents, American citizens have a duty to keep and bear.
Too many of them seem to have lost track of that, IMPO.


Too many of us are sure only that we WANT a constitutional RKBA.
Very few can and will coherently argue why our country NEEDS it.
When it comes to guns, we are often enthusiasts first.
Too often we are enthusiasts only.

What is needed;
what has always been needed, are patriots.


(rant mode off)

-horge


*LapuLapu was arguably not a native ~ he was an outsider
who camped on Mactan island against the sovereign rights of local
chieftains (that is why those chieftains maneuvered Magellan into
getting rid of LapuLapu. Magellan failed.)

riddler
12-26-2005, 18:04
Originally posted by toxic
{snip}....lots of guys out there just buy sidearms just for "show" . {snip}


...either that dahil mayabang o para panggulat sa mga walang alam.

I was looking for the right words to post on my reply until I chanced upon this statement. Truly an accurate assessment!

antediluvianist
12-27-2005, 00:24
How many of our Senators and Congressmen are THEMSELVES proficient in the safe and wise use of firearms? (Rather than owning a gun/guns but not really knowing how to use them safely and wisely.)

I suspect most of them have gun permits but are not actually proficient themselves, mainly relying on bodyguards/bodyguard-drivers, miscellaneous policemen/soldiers etc. Of course, there are exceptions. And then there are many mayabang, pa porma types who ideally should be kept away from anything remotely harmful to human beings, including spoons.

My suggestion is : these politicos, and/or whoever will be the delegates to any assembly/conference/convention etc. to draw up changes to the Constitution, will have no personal imperative or interest to add ownership of firearms as a Constitutional right, nor will they see any bonus from any significant number of voters if they espouse that right.

Would the Roman Catholic Church espouse such an Amendment? Has it anywhere in the world? The Church certainly accepts gun control in europe.

Perhaps we just have to live within what horge points out are our present abilities to have gun ownership licenses,
PTTs, and PTCs; and basically HOPE these will not
be taken away in the future by administrative fiat as what happened when Mrtial Law was declared.

cznayr
12-27-2005, 00:43
that was hard to digest.. but horge has a point though...

horge
12-27-2005, 02:03
Originally posted by antediluvianist
Would the Roman Catholic Church espouse such an Amendment?
Has it anywhere in the world?
The Church certainly accepts gun control in europe.
:)

Holy Mother Church supporting such an Amendment?
If it exalts Christ's exemplary life and sacred acts, it should.

A lot is made of Jesus' admonition to Peter at Gethsemane,
("Those who live by the sword ... "),
but what the events of that fateful night show is that
Peter had a weapon to draw.

More importantly, it would follow that all the time prior,
the Lord did not object to Peter's keeping and bearing
(a chereb, or short sword: clearly a weapon
and not some utilitarian 'knife').

Unfortunately, by drawing and wielding in that particular instance,
Peter was choosing to trust his weapon instead of the Lord
physically present before him! Thus was Peter rebuked.

Peter should have known that Jesus didn't need anyone's steel.
However, today as then, many innocents including our loved ones
and those we've never met-- just might. We, our wits and our weapons,
all that we are and have, can and should be intruments of God's will.

For so long as Catholics keep and bear in the context of
Christian faith and humility, they aren't "living by the sword".
They will instead be armed and "living by the Lord"


JMO, YMMV, etc.

antediluvianist
12-27-2005, 02:21
Hallelujiah, brother, and Amen!

Some gun forums quote an Old Testament verse that sounds like "He who hath not a sword, let him sell his cloak and buy a sword".

I think Peter should have had a Glock 17 at Gethsemane. That would have changed the whole history of redemption somewhat. Maybe that's why Jesus came in those days, not now.

cznayr
12-27-2005, 02:53
Blasphemy
;)

horge
12-27-2005, 04:11
Irreverent, perhaps.
One might feel Peter would carry a 1911 instead.
That's a gun designed by John Moses Browning, after all.

In any case, the posters are actually taking from the NEW Testament,
Luke 22:36, and are making the same mistake that the poor Apostles
made:

Luke 22:35 to 22:38
(Jesus) said to them, "When I sent you forth without
a money bag or sack or sandals, were you in need of
anything?" "No, nothing," they replied.

He said to them, "But now one who has a money bag
should take it, and likewise a sack, and one who
does not not have a sword should sell his cloak
and buy one.

For I tell you that this scripture must be fulfilled
in me, namely, 'He was counted among the wicked';
and indeed what is written about me is coming to
fulfillment."

Then they said "Lord, look, there are two swords here."
But he replied, "It is enough!".

This is right after the Last Supper, right after Jesus foretells
of Peter's threefold denial of Christ, and just before they all
go to Gethsemane, before the Agony in the Garden.

It seems to me that our Lord was both warning and rebuking
the Apostles for their fast-approaching, fearful lack of faith,
ESPECIALLY Judas' betrayal of Jesus for a money bag of silver
and Peter's faithless presumption in taking up a sword to
defend Jesus. He also foretells of His crucifixion among the wicked
in fulfillment of scripture.

The Apostles misunderstood Jesus' words about selling
their cloaks for swords as a literal command, and produced
two swords (one of the swords, apparently Peter's).

The Apostles simply didn't get it, and so Jesus cut them off
with a reply that contradicts any supposedly literal 'order'
for each of them to arm himself:

"It is enough!".


horge

darwin25
12-27-2005, 04:29
Originally posted by horge
One might feel Peter would carry a 1911 instead.


Now that's blasphemy my friend. :) Being an Israeli, I think Peter would carry a Jericho 941 ;f Joke

horge
12-27-2005, 04:35
Originally posted by darwin25
Now that's blasphemy my friend. :) Being an Israeli, I think Peter would carry a Jericho 941 ;f Joke

:)
Excellent!

toxic
12-27-2005, 06:24
Originally posted by isuzu
I think the difference between the PPSA and PROGUN (or PROGONE) as others have said is this: PPSA is an IPSC regulating body and our country's representative to IPSC in the Philippines. PROGUN is supposed to be the NRA of the Philippines, but where is it now? It occasionally pops out of the radar screen, but not much. The NRA in the US is supported by big businesses related to firearms, and boy, it's a big political lobby group. PROGUN needs one thing: MONEY for ammo. Without it, the organization can't move much.

This is were AFAD really needs to get in the picture.
If they care.
...................................................................
This is a bit long had to asked the help of Mr. Webster and Ms Colliers;f

Gathering all given facts ,opinions and suggestions would you say its a dead end.If thats the case we are going nowhere.

The present PTT,PTC is pointless,useless and obsolete, wherein few people can aquire such permits.
OK i got a PTT can i pop a perp in time of need during transit certainly ill think twice , ill be busy thinking that ill be crossing the PTT limitation coz ill can get sued.Its a good thing there's competitions and ranges what an excuse.
PTC yes i can carry my sidearm outside my home, can i use it againts a perp...ill might be busy again thinking that ill might get sued Coz some spin doctors or some blood sucking individuals can find ways to burn my a s s and profit from it.Hmm This guy can can afford PTC ..Get him..

PTT and PTC are like cookies in a Jar under lock and key. Rememder our Moms saves the cookies till the holidays or for those visitors we never heared off before , by the time you open the cookie jar, bugs and molds are having a fiesta over our tasty cookies.

Lobbying for our own version of RBA/KBA is a good idea and agood start and we have to start somewhere.
Our version i think has to have a clause requiring individuals to undergo strict psychological evaluation,proper gun safety training and handling ,background checks , complete blood count(if you like)and all the works then strict enforcement of the law that citizen/s is/are complying or abiding with such law.

Yes!it can be done all we need now is FUNDs to get things going.
Now where can we get funds internally, we dont have oil we dont have investors to even survey if we do have oil what we have is Human resources lots of them.
Strong internal security the answer to attract foreign and domestic investors. you might say theres the AFP , our AFP are ill equipt, underpaid but eager to kick some a s s.

Now if we have our own verion of RBA/KBA with the proper mindset of protection and not aggression we can at least help in keeping the peace starting within the fences of our own homes.
Then in turn our AFP can concentrate on the insurgents, Big syndicated organizations ;I(if they are not a member of yet).
Easier said than done but hey, we've got to start somewhere, we need that spark to start the Fire..
~woohoo~ RBA!! KBA!! RBA!! KBA!! ~woohoo~

If in this thread we think that the idea of lobbying pa lang for RBA/KBA can't be done well we are going down;C Can we call ourselves Patriots? Peace Bros just giving a piece of my formalin saturated brain.^3

mikey177
12-27-2005, 11:22
Easier said than done but hey, we've got to start somewhere, we need that spark to start the Fire.

Well said.

Undoubtedly, one of the biggest obstacles to promoting a culture of responsible and safe gun ownership in the Philippines is the widespread corruption in the licensing process. Honestly, how many gun owners here have availed of the "non-appearance" offer that some gun stores make to their clients when processing their FA licenses? Gun safety seminar? Weapons handling proficiency test? Written exam? Drug tests? At present, all of these can be "negotiated" if the price is right of through powerful connections. That's why miscreants like Ryan Jaworski can get away with carrying enough weapons for a private army.

If we are serious about pursing this right to bear arms, then we must have enough integrity to cleanse the system and to make sure that it is applied evenly to all persons.

isuzu
12-27-2005, 17:52
Did it ever occur within us that gun licensing in the Philippines is a big income for the PNP? When I was still in the Philippines, one newspaper said that gun licenses and PTCs (new and renewals) account for at least P1 billion yearly. When PTCs were cancelled due to a shooting of a lawyer at Taft Ave., the PNP wasn't that pleased at all.

What we need is an efficient licensing system both for firearms and PTCs. Not a licensing system that changes the requirements to own or carry a firearm once every two years. A lot of people sometimes get turned off with this.

New_comer
12-27-2005, 18:42
Originally posted by darwin25
Now that's blasphemy my friend. :) Being an Israeli, I think Peter would carry a Jericho 941 ;f Joke Not even...

I'd say Peter would have carried the IMI Desert Eagle in 50AE :cool:

On the issue of RKBA as part of our Constitution? I doubt if it would even be considered...

Anyone who'd take it up in ConCom, ConAss or whatever would be politically dead. It's as damaging as endorsing the use of contraceptives or repealing the Lina law.

We might as well get used to what EO94 allows us to have and pray for more responsible enforcement of licensing/renewal processes. :)

Kiddo
12-27-2005, 19:07
If there will be a RKBA, the government should straighten out the licensing process. I think it should be done on regional offices rather than all licenses going to crame. Most of the people that avail of the no-show offers of gun shops are the ones from the provinces, since it is such a hassle doing things themselves. If licensing was more convenient, I think a lot more people would prefer to get their license themselves. Right now, only the PTT goes to regional offices, while FA license and PTC goes to crame.

Froggy_131
12-30-2005, 15:09
Originally posted by Kiddo
If there will be a RKBA, the government should straighten out the licensing process. I think it should be done on regional offices rather than all licenses going to crame. Most of the people that avail of the no-show offers of gun shops are the ones from the provinces, since it is such a hassle doing things themselves. If licensing was more convenient, I think a lot more people would prefer to get their license themselves. Right now, only the PTT goes to regional offices, while FA license and PTC goes to crame. Will this RKBA be for the general "masa" or for the rich and upper class (only)? I know it's a noble idea and looks good on paper, but who is it really for, the people who have the money? Think about it.

horge
12-30-2005, 15:42
Originally posted by Froggy_131
Will this RKBA be for the general "masa" or for the rich and upper class (only)? I know it's a noble idea and looks good on paper, but who is it really for, the people who have the money? Think about it.

:)
Keep in mind that there is a subtle difference between a
"right to keep and bear firearms", and a "right to have a firearm".

The latter comes closer to implying the State has an obligation
to ensure that every citizen who wants it gets a weapon.
The former leaves it up to the citizen to obtain a weapon
on his/her own dime.

With the former, any difficulties for the low-income gun-buyer
are going to be caused chiefly by retailer greed:
a capitalistic choice to stock only high-profit merchandise.

Considering that a decent revolver can be had brand-new for
as little as PhP 4,000, all in (that's a little over US$ 70)
---or even less, I'd say that there's a good chance
sufficient accessibility will be preserved, without violating
capitalistic freedom through a pro-poor stocking requirement
or perhaps pro-poor, low interest firearm credit, and other
socialisms.

If anything, a RKBA would eliminate the present requirement
to provide proof of income/employment for licensing... though
that is an issue more of personal-privacy violations than any
financial discrimination vs. the poor, as the income threshold
is set pretty low --almost subsistence level.

One needs such income just to live, let alone buy/license a gun.
If one is earning income, there ought to be tax documentation.

So in a sense, the legal/regulatory bar is really set against
rich and poor gun-buyers who DON'T pay taxes and have no
documentation of income to present.

The vagaries of supply, demand and pricing are largely separate from any RKBA:
If one can't seem to afford a gun, then shop harder, or earn more money.



:)

Happy New Year's!

Froggy_131
12-30-2005, 16:48
Originally posted by horge
:)
Considering that a decent revolver can be had brand-new for
as little as PhP 4,000, all in (that's a little over US$ 70)
---or even less, I'd say that there's a good chance
sufficient accessibility will be preserved, without violating
capitalistic freedom through a pro-poor stocking requirement
or perhaps pro-poor, low interest firearm credit, and other
socialisms.


What kind of decent revolvers are these? I don't see a lot of talks among BOGs about these revolvers.


The vagaries of supply, demand and pricing are largely separate from any RKBA:
If one can't seem to afford a gun, then shop harder, or earn more money.
:)

Happy New Year's! That's just it, this is not for the general public, it's intended for those who have the money to buy the guns. Seems like you're saying: if one can't seem to afford a gun, then shop harder, or earn more money - or SORRY NA LANG!

horge
12-31-2005, 00:59
Originally posted by Froggy_131
That's just it, this is not for the general public, it's intended for those who have the money to buy the guns. Seems like you're saying: if one can't seem to afford a gun, then shop harder, or earn more money - or SORRY NA LANG!

Hehe...
So, how is it set up differently, where you live?

It is the same anywhere capitalism holds sway:
access to goods and services is obtained by coin,
although government can modify via a socialist stance
access to some critical goods and services, such as
to health care, education, food etc.

(I'd already pointed to the options of subsidies
and low-income firearm stocking.)

The problem with some socialist subsidies is that
they are paid for with taxes taken from the hard-working,
and used up, to no small extent, by welfare bums,
but ultimately, poverty and purchasing power are quite
a bit afield of RKBA.

Again, a right to keep and bear is a freedom.
A right to have (at a reasonable price) is an entitlement.
:)



RKBA is nice, but what I'd really like to have right now
is a proper interpretation/translation of Auld Lang Syne
;f

Froggy_131
12-31-2005, 01:48
Originally posted by horge
Hehe...
RKBA is nice, but what I'd really like to have right now
is a proper interpretation/translation of Auld Lang Syne
;f Happy New Year to you! BTW, You missed my other question:

Considering that a decent revolver can be had brand-new for
as little as PhP 4,000, all in (that's a little over US$ 70)
---or even less, I'd say that there's a good chance
sufficient accessibility will be preserved, without violating
capitalistic freedom through a pro-poor stocking requirement
or perhaps pro-poor, low interest firearm credit, and other
socialisms.


What kind of decent revolvers are these? I don't see a lot of talks among BOGs about these revolvers.

antediluvianist
12-31-2005, 01:50
Quite so.

Having the right to own something doesn't mean that you have the money to actually buy it. We all have the right to own mansions in Forbes Park. Why don't we all own one? There is nothing unfair about this.

Froggy_131
12-31-2005, 01:56
Originally posted by antediluvianist
Quite so.

We all have the right to own mansions in Forbes Park. WOW, really?

antediluvianist
12-31-2005, 02:02
Your earlier posts indicated that you think the state has the obligation to make it possible for the masa to afford guns. WOW that's really stupid.

horge
12-31-2005, 03:40
Frog,
There are first gen SAM and Mandaue .38's
that fit my decription. For more detail,
do your own shopping!
;)

I must say...
Like ante, I'm finding it remarkable, how you
insistently refuse to own the difference
between a freedom and an entitlement.

horge

kristiansen
12-31-2005, 03:46
its almost new year guys!lets just have a drink!;c Peaceful New Year to all of us!:)

horge
12-31-2005, 03:55
**horge drops mag, clears chamber, stores weap and ammo properly**
I can have that drink now :)

Cheers, kristiansen (you and your son)!
Cheers frog!
Cheers ante!

:) ;c :) ;c :)

Kiddo
12-31-2005, 04:21
I never said anything in my post which would imply that the RKBA is only for the rich. If it is a right, then anyone could surely exercise it, unless their rights are revoked. Like what horge said, right to keep and bear arms is different from the right to have a firearm. Its not like all the firearms are up high in price. We have locally made firearms as well.

In my previous post, I mentioned that firearm transactions should be on a regional level so people from the provinces would not be so hassled. This would also mean that firearm licensing, PTC, etc would be cheaper since the FA owner could have the papers processed himself, unlike now, provincial FA owners have to pay a hefty sum to the gunstore so that they could have their contact in metro manila process the papers for him.

A couple of hours nalang, new year na! Happy new year guys! Enjoy the evening! God Bless! :) :)

TED
12-31-2005, 05:12
I realize this is lgihtly off topic but I am watching this thread with great interest. Can you please provide a brief summary of gun laws as they currently exist in the Phillipines. The previous poster mentioned FA, I assume that means Full Auto. I had heard that it was possible to own newly manufactured full autos in the Phillipines. I would also like to know about what the laws for self defens and carrying concealed are.

My best friends fiance is an American born Phillipino and they are considering moving there.

TED

horge
12-31-2005, 06:59
A Happy New Year's to you TED :)

FA here is short for Firearm, generally.
There are quite a number of full-auto / select-fire firearms
in private ownership here. I've seen them in person, and
seen the valid firearm licenses for them as well.
Select fire isn't my cuppa, though maybe I should get one
just for the heck of it.

Laws and regulations?
The blunt skippy is:
-Firearm ownership is a privilege, not a right
-Only Filipino citizens can own firearms here
-Firearm registration/licensing is mandatory
-Firearm Owners' licenses are renewable every two years
-Concealed Carry Licenses are available renewable annually

-There is conflict beween standing law and actual observance:
A Presidential Executive Order (from 2000) repealed older
restrictions, and allows citizens to own any firearm, short
of LMG's, recoilless rifles and CSW's. However, the licensing
body (an arm of the Police) tends to favor the older restrictions
as much as it can.

:)

Kiddo
12-31-2005, 10:06
Happy 2006 Ted! When I said FA, I meant firearm instead of full auto. Sorry for the confusion. :) In my understanding, I think the only time a person can get their full auto/select fire weapons licensed is during amnesty period. Someone needs to confirm this though since I'm not so sure.

mikey177
01-03-2006, 06:13
Found this news item in last week's Inquirer. At least there are some sensible LEOs out there who recognize the value of a responsible, armed citizenry.

*****

This story was taken from www.inq7.net

http://news.inq7.net/nation/index.php?index=1&story_id=61389

PNP to Gunless Society head: We're just a cog in a machine
First posted 03:54am (Mla time) Dec 29, 2005
By Luige A. del Puerto


WHILE THE Philippine National Police may be "open" to a peace advocate's vision of a gunless society, where only law enforcers are allowed to carry guns in public, the PNP is just a cog in a machine whose job is to enforce laws and not to make them, a senior official said yesterday.

In short, Gunless Society president Nandy Pacheco should not complain about the police and instead focus on those who make policy, such as lawmakers.

"He and others who support him can push for the passage of a law; but we in the police merely enforce existing rules," said the PNP spokesperson, Chief Superintendent Leopoldo Bataoil.

Bataoil said he was "open to the idea of a gunless society" but he added that this view "may not be necessarily shared by all my colleagues."

The police, in fact, lean toward allowing "responsible individuals" to carry guns, according to another ranking officer.

The official refused to be quoted because doing so could compromise his position in the Philippine National Police.

"In an ideal world, where there are adequate numbers of policemen, where cops have the equipment they need, and where there is no insurgency, a gunless society is really good," he said.

"Unfortunately, we cannot even perfectly reach a gun ratio of one-to-one for our policemen," he said.

Allowing "responsible" citizens to own guns makes up for what the police, who are "not always there," lack, he said.

"If you impose a gunless system in our society, only the law-abiding citizens will follow that. The criminals will not, and they will strike where they can," he said.

Deterrent

"Gun (ownership) allows responsible owners to defend themselves. They are a form of deterrent," he said.

About 3,000 to 4,000 of the country's 900,000 registered firearm owners had permits to carry (PTC), police records showed.

Only the chief PNP grants the PTC, and the requirement is "actual threat," and given only after a thorough threat assessment.

An Inquirer source said it was easier for media people and members of the House of Representatives to get PTCs over regular citizens because threats to the first group are deemed "inherent in the job."

But while there are pro-gun policemen, there are also others who share Pacheco's dream of a less violent Philippines.

Unlikely ally

Pacheco found an unlikely ally in the police in the middle of this year, when a senior police official called on the TV and movie industry to stop "glorifying violence" -- a change of attitude that Pacheco has been advocating since the mid-1980s.

Retired Deputy Chief for Administration Ricardo de Leon once said that an "alternative to the culture of violence is a culture of peace."

"One way of addressing this culture of violence is to have regulation... I think it's also (the) responsibility of our friends -- in TV stations and in the movies -- not (to) glamorize violence," De Leon said.

A good example of that would be to refrain from turning the lives of criminals into movies that young people could emulate, the former official said.

De Leon, when he was the second highest official in the Philippine National Police, had vigorously fought for stricter control of guns. (The PNP is the agency that regulates the sale and use of firearms. Gun registration is also a source of millions of pesos for the PNP.)

Ban on high-powered firearms

Upon De Leon's prodding, PNP chief Director General Arturo Lomibao had banned the display of high-powered firearms and other military weapons in gun stores and shows nationwide.

In a memorandum, Lomibao said imported, high-powered firearms were intended for "qualified end-users like the military, police and other law enforcement [agents]."

That meant shooting events must exclude high-powered firearms as a category.

The reason was simple, according to De Leon. Civilians "should only have shotguns," he said. ;P

He said the police surely did not want other areas in the country to be like Abra, where private armed groups once roamed and the entire provincial police force was sacked because it failed to go after the armed groups.


2006 www.inq7.net all rights reserved

PMMA97
01-03-2006, 07:06
The reason was simple, according to De Leon. Civilians "should only have shotguns," he said.

Ay wow! ;g Peaceful nga ;f

mikey177
01-03-2006, 21:33
Originally posted by PMMA97
The reason was simple, according to De Leon. Civilians "should only have shotguns," he said.

Ay wow! ;g Peaceful nga ;f

Just as long as they issue me a PTC for a short-barreled shotgun, I wouldn't mind :)

toxic
01-08-2006, 05:12
When's he next election? maybe De Leon is runing for office.

isuzu
01-08-2006, 08:45
Originally posted by toxic
When's he next election? maybe De Leon is runing for office.

My guess, yes.

darwin25
01-08-2006, 18:17
Originally posted by mikey177
Just as long as they issue me a PTC for a short-barreled shotgun, I wouldn't mind :)

how about this
http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a18/darwin25/so3.jpg

or this

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a18/darwin25/Lupara2.jpg

or this

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a18/darwin25/dblshtgn.jpg

Because this is what I would bring in my car if ever I have one. My idea of the ultimate manstopper in a small package. Maybe shoot the perp with both barrels at once.;z

cznayr
01-08-2006, 18:49
Darwin, in-love ka na talaga sa Lupara... found one yet? we can do a massive gunhunt ;f

darwin25
01-08-2006, 19:15
Originally posted by cznayr
Darwin, in-love ka na talaga sa Lupara... found one yet? we can do a massive gunhunt ;f

deenoh will help me get my hands on one of them. I have my eye on the Norinco Side-by-side. Later baka dalawa kunin ko. One for a chop job like the one above. Another for home defense, I'll keep as it is.:)

Pwede din over/under shotgun for a chop-job din. Single trigger nga lang unlike the side-by-side.
http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a18/darwin25/Sawedoffovun.jpg

I think deenoh already has a gun for this chop job project.

kamelot
01-09-2006, 02:41
Darwin,

Please be careful with cut SG barrels. I know of a fellow shooter who cut the palm of his hand open when he shot with his sawed off SG. I don't know how he held the SG but that's the end result. I think it's the buttstock hitting his palm resulting to injury (not the business end of the SG).

darwin25
01-09-2006, 03:03
Originally posted by kamelot
Darwin,

Please be careful with cut SG barrels. I know of a fellow shooter who cut the palm of his hand open when he shot with his sawed off SG. I don't know how he held the SG but that's the end result. I think it's the buttstock hitting his palm resulting to injury (not the business end of the SG).

Thanks sir kamelot. I will take that into good consideration.:)

Kiddo
01-12-2006, 02:48
Anyone think that the passing of RKBA in our country is hopeless?

batangueno
01-12-2006, 02:55
#wav

Kiddo
01-12-2006, 03:41
To those who want to see the proposed changes by the consultative commission to our constitution, they have a website here (http://www.concom.ph/index.php) where you can download the revised constitution.

I have only read bits and pieces about it and I have already found some disturbing things in the revised preamble. The revised preamble text is as follows:

We, the sovereign Filipino people, imploring the aid of Almighty God, in order to establish a Government that shall embody our ideals, promote the general welfare, conserve and develop the patrimony of our nation, and secure to ourselves and our posterity the blessings of democracy under a regime of justice, peace, liberty, and equality, do ordain and promulgate this Constitution.

The original 1987 constitution preamble:

We, the sovereign Filipino people, imploring the aid of Almighty God, in order to build a just and humane society, and establish a Government that shall embody our ideals and aspirations, promote the common good, conserve and develop our patrimony, and secure to ourselves and our posterity, the blessings of independence and democracy under the rule of law and a regime of truth, justice, freedom, love, equality, and peace, do ordain and promulgate this Constitution.

The text in bold in the old preamble are the things omitted in the revised preamble. Some of the most striking words that they removed are independence, truth, freedom, and love. Why in the world would they remove those words from our preamble? Do we not want independence, truth, freedom, and love? I have yet to read the entire revised constitution but I am beginning to perceive that the constitution is being less pro-Filipino and more pro-trapo, just by the preamble itself. ;Q

mikey177
01-12-2006, 04:18
Thanks for the link to the ConComm web site, Kiddo.

If ever an RKBA clause is inserted into our Constitution in the future, I hope it is clearly worded, with no room for dissenting interpretation.

Looking at the Second Amendment of the US Constitution, "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," it appears very well written, yet in many states in America the right of civilians to keep and bear arms is still being curtailed.

Kiddo
01-13-2006, 03:01
No problem mikey. ;)

zorkd
01-19-2006, 23:24
i think we can rally enough people to support it to at least put somebody in the legislature that will help our cause.

what do you think?

who will we place there though, sir pio', ikaw na lang! :-)

Django
01-20-2006, 06:14
Originally posted by Kiddo
Anyone think that the passing of RKBA in our country is hopeless?

Me and Reality have been friends for long. The inclusion RKBA provision in our Constitution will never happen. Not in our lifetime anyway. Never happened in 1935 when our first Constitution was drafted, never happened in any of the succeeding constitutions drafted, never will happen. Here, let me introduce you to my friend Reality . . . :)

darwin25
01-31-2006, 22:38
Lets invade pinoy forums like this http://www.pinoyexchange.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=15 and maybe we can find more enthusiastic gun owners. BOGs is the right forum to organize people who are passionate about RKBA. There are more out there. Lets reach out to them.

charlie-xray
09-18-2006, 04:41
Any news on this? Sana merong Tongressman ah este Congressman na mag take up nito for lobbying.

royal glockster
09-18-2006, 08:15
IMHO, 2nd amendment like in the U.S. is no longer necessary in the Philippines. Though our constitution does not explicitly provides the citizenry the right to keep and bear arms, our existing laws i suppose are sufficient enough for us to own and possess guns. In fact, at present one can own as many firearms as long he his a gun club member. In my case, i own 5 legally possessed firearms including a hi-power assault rifle. Could i do that in the Republik of Kalifornia?? hell nah!! There you could only own pistol semi-auto with a maximum ammo of 10 rounds at most.

I would say that by and large we're better off when it comes to gun ownership as compared to other countries...:hugs:

charlie-xray
09-18-2006, 08:38
I could not agree more, pero tanong lang kahit sa PM mo na ako sagutin, papaano mo napa-license yung hi-power assault rifle mo, at magkano bili mo?

Thanks

like you signature, your guns are your jewelries, pareho tyo actually kaso sa akin wala talaga akong jewelry relo lang saka balil.:banana: :banana:

Originally posted by royal glockster
IMHO, 2nd amendment like in the U.S. is no longer necessary in the Philippines. Though our constitution does not explicitly provides the citizenry the right to keep and bear arms, our existing laws i suppose are sufficient enough for us to own and possess guns. In fact, at present one can own as many firearms as long he his a gun club member. In my case, i own 5 legally possessed firearms including a hi-power assault rifle. Could i do that in the Republik of Kalifornia?? hell nah!! There you could only own pistol semi-auto with a maximum ammo of 10 rounds at most.

I would say that by and large we're better off when it comes to gun ownership as compared to other countries...:hugs:

toxic
09-18-2006, 09:05
[QUOTE]Originally posted by charlie-xray
[B]I could not agree more, pero tanong lang kahit sa PM mo na ako sagutin, papaano mo napa-license yung hi-power assault rifle mo, at magkano bili mo?

Thanks

Wait for PNP Amnesia i mean an Amnesty.

royal glockster
09-19-2006, 06:48
charlie, toxic said it right! amnesia ehem..amnesty my friend..amnesty. That's what PNP-FED makes the world go round..hehe....:thumbsup: