FSM should remove restrictions on non .22 rifles.

I have taken a look at the weapons law here in the FSM and, generally speaking, agree with the criterion required to obtain a license. Considering the most recent reports on the most frequently used weapons for violent crime, I also have no issue with the ban on pistols. I do however am curious as to the ban on all but the .22 caliber rifle. In the west they are lovingly referred to as "pea shooters" and accepted to have very little use beyond self-defense and shooting very small rodentia. Given the licensing requirement is properly enforced by requiring licenses be obtained prior to issuance of a weapon by a dealer (ie. make the purchase, await license issuance, then pick up weapon) I think serious consideration should be given to broadening the types of weapons allowed. The idea of using a .22 to clear out pigs froms land just seems so inconvenient when you think, because of how small a .22 round is, that you might have to track the poor animal for miles before being able clearing it out.

I think the types of calibers allowed should be broadened. Any opinions?


  • If we want to be like the U.S. and have more firearm deaths, then loosening the restrictions is a good idea.
  • I'm all for it. We are a small population with few citizens that have the means to afford firearms. Why not let the ones capable of paying have the luxury to utilize them as they see fit?

    It would be easier to track licensed firearms instead of having them shipped in on the blackmarket, wouldn't you agree FactsMatter? We cannot deny there are high power assault rifles in country however they are not licensed therefore we do not know who has ownership of these weapons.

  • edited March 2018

    Please do your research. The most highly used weapon for crimes are pistols. The OP agrees that those should remain banned. Also, we already have .22 rifles, both legal and illegal, floating all over the place. If they are already here, why haven't we seen a spike in murders? Is there something about other calibers that magically invoke our murderous nature? I don't think so. Seriously though, if weapons were to cause a spike in crime, it would have already. After all, we already allow one one of the favorite calibers for crime.
  • edited March 2018
    I think it should be clarified, I'm not proposing legalizing full-blown assault rifles. I think those of us who see the need for a good rifle for the jungle would be just as happy with a bolt-action rifle. Does it need to be a high capacity mag? Not at all- 5 round mags are fine. The point I'm trying to make is there is no need for assault rifles, I agree, but the utility of a higher caliber can be very useful especially if pigs are tearing through your yam, sakau, or other high dollar value patch. A single .30-06 or .300 Blk would put down a wild pig with a near guarantee it will fall where it was shot. No pesky tracking through thick, insect ridden jungle.
  • You want to legalized gay marriage in FSM but Don't want to legalized the right to bear and own arms in FSM.

    Yo @xectms, you a former Army, so tell us the Army's definition of a Assault weapon/rifle please.
  • @PawnStar

    I don't remember ever posting an opinion on gay marriage. My point is exactly that- legal or illegal, I don't care. I'm not gay so it doesn't affect me. It also should'nt affect my children because I have taken the time to do my due diligence and teach them to live properly. "Shouldn't" because they are, once adults, entitled to their own opinions.

    Assault Rifle: The general public considers auto and semi-auto as an assault rifle. For the Army, placing a combatant behind ANY weapon with the intent to engage makes the weapon, whether pump-action shotgun, piston, or auto/semi-auto rifle an assault weapon. That's not doctrine, mind you, but what I understood to be true from my time in service.

    Do you disagree with adding more convenient rounds for killing pesky pigs? I thought, of all people, you would agree with me on this- weapons don't kill people, PEOPLE kill people. Having said that, I think a .22 can do just as much damage as any other round if it were in the right hands. If that assertion is true, why force us to track a pesky pig for miles (I realize that's an admission that I might not be the greatest shot) when they can be put down in-place.
  • @xectms,

    That for gay marriage comment was not aimed at you it was at Mr.Factsmatter. He want us to follow the US and allow gay marriage but does not support the right of the citizens in FSM to bear arms. He only wants to allow Liberal rights and that's it.

  • Xectems,

    An Assault riffle/weapon is a weapon that select fire platform can switch from semi-auto to full automatic. According to my Army, an Assault weapon must be capable of selective fire. That'st what he Army taught us at infantry OSUT at Ft.Benning.

    The general public don't know what a Assault weapon is. They think that a modified .22 Remington with scope is also a Assault rifle.

    And I do agree that guns don't kill people, people kill people.
  • @PawnStar

    I guess it DOES match the civilian definition. As for learning the correct definition, I was in the Signal Corps. I don't mind combat arms folks calling us fobbits, pogues, and what not. I figure facing down the barrel of the enemy has earned them [you] that right. More power to ya.

    All of that aside, holding a .22 round in your hand and thinking you have a 3 inch square target to hit to avoid a long trek through the jungle just doesn't inspire one to go out there and kill vermin.

    Gay Marriage comment directed at someone else. Got it.
  • That's wrong because I own 2 AR-15 and and a a FN SCAR along with a mini Draco and all have one fire selection and that's semi Auto besides safe. They are all rifles but Assault weapon or rifle they are not. That's what civilians Don't get. They think if they have a modification then they are Assault weapons.
  • @PawnStar

    Ok. I stand corrected. We're getting away from the topic here though.
  • @PawnStar

    What you wrote actually IS the civilian definition of an assault rifle. I was the one who posted in here incorrectly.
  • Wow. We're addressing two major issues back to back. Gay marriage versus Gun laws.

    I say allow more guns to improve our daily needs with exception to assault type weapons. You know, fully automatic types. I guess thats how us Army folk define it.
  • In my view, owning any items for self preservation, self defense, may it be knife or a sword or a gun is innate. A person's right to own property is also innate. That's been self evidence since the dawn of time. Innate rights come before legal rights.
  • This may sound primitive but setting traps for those pigs may prove to be safer and more economical. We can learn to part with things we do not need.
  • I am against guns.... image
  • @TruthisThat

    That actually sounds like it would be pretty gratifying too, at least if it's a trap one builds DIY.


    I agree with your last post regarding self-preservation, safety, and security. I'm just not willing to do time to make a point to the government about rights that we are born with.
  • Does anyone think I would be able to bring a high caliber into country if I said it wasn't my weapon, but, instead it was my pet?
  • Shit a women married a tree coupled of days ago in Florida....no joke. She is now legally married to a tree. If she can marry a tree hell you can claim that gun as a pet. That's liberalism right there.
  • @PawnStar

    Marrying a tree isn't so crazy if the tree is good looking and wealthy. I also doubt the woman was a liberal. I think the best word to describe what she did is confused not liberalism, conservatism, or any of the normal political "isms".
  • She is a tree hugger and a card carrying member of the sierra club. She is a liberal. The left in general has lost its mind. Non binary, gender fluidity, Transgenderism, Transracial, that thing where a 43 year old man identify has a 3 year old. Safe space, gun free zones. Thinking that adolescents and teenagers get to decide what's good for the constitution and what's not. It's all coming from the left side.
  • @PawnStar

    Lighten up, dude. Not everything we write, see, or hear is intended to be used as fuel for the "right vs left" war you're waging. It's pretty disappointing to post something as a joke and see it weaponized.
  • There you go. Even words can be lethal.

    Legalize it.
  • @eneas956

    why not, why not, and WHY NOT?
  • I jus cant be a passerby on this one. First off, lets take it back,way back! Because for some reason ppl are quick to forget history and how it repeats itself,CONTINUALLY.. In some what of a CYCLE... A REVOLUTION, if u will. Anyways, last I checked, our islands have been infiltrated, oppressed, abused, exploited, ancestors enslaved, etc.. Starting w the Germans, then the Japs, and now the bitch ass Americans. If we had the type of weapons and understanding in using those weapons,history might have played out differently for our ppl. One good example would be during the German occupation,if my history is correct, when they tried to get the men to build the road around the island, problem was,they werent having that bullshit, plus most the men had rifles at the time. But due to a struck of luck on the German side, there was a typhoon that ruined almost all the crops and land. With quick wits, the Germans recognized and seized the moment. They offered food and supplies from their ships to the people in exchange for their rifles. Sneaky bastards! But wen u hungry n u gotta feed the fam, trading that rifle, doesnt seem so bad. What followed was the forceable build of the road,now they had nothing to back em up.. With only a hand full of Malaysian troops armed w rifles, the Germans got the people to adhere.. Now imagine if that typhoon didnt strike, and the Sokehs Rebellion took place(With those rifles) hhmmmm. Only reason they got to them, is because the people were scared and were giving up their brothers in the rebellion in fear of death.When ur facing an enemy who uses these powerful weapons, u dont fully understand, and a GIANT ASS "CANOE" WITH A GIANT ASS GUN, blasting away at that ridge,only thing in ur mind is "survive". Back to the present, and we can take a look at switzerland,and why it has the lowest crime rate in the world. Yes u read correct. LOWEST CRIME RATE in THE WORLD. Maybe due to the fact that there are more than 50,000 guns in swiss homes and that the government makes sure the population is well trained. That being of the main reasons why even Hitler decided not to take on Switzerland completely, n why its remained a neutral state. Why is this relevant to us islanders? Well no matter how much u all wanna believe that the US is benevolent towards us cus their just some kind of world savior, wake tf up! The US Rules because it understands the most efficient way to oppress, and thats when the oppressed have no idea they are being oppressed and to a certain point even "want the oppression" because of the lack of knowledge of history. We are only enjoying what seems to be freedom,because the US NEEDS OUR LAND AND SEAS. POINT BLANK PERIOD. WE ARE A "STRATEGIC" TRUST TERRITORY. FUNNY HOW THEY SEEM TO LEAVE OUT "STRATEGIC" NOW A DAYS. Force only leads to conflict. Make em believe they've been liberated and they'll accept anything. To think that the US couldnt turn on us or neglect us like they do their OWN CITIZENS, is preposterous and extremely naive and ignorant. For all you who think ur defending our country,DEFENDING IT FROM WHAT? OURSELVES?! WTF HAVE MF'S IN THE MIDDLE EAST EVER DONE TO US? YOU GO BECAUSE UR ENTICED BY THE "BENEFITS" OF MONEY, AND A PAYED EDUCATION. You fight other people on their soil,their land by command of some CEO's and corporate interest, WAR IS MONEY,ANY ONE WITH HALF A FUNCTIONING BRAIN CAN SEE THAT.
  • @Lemurian369

    I respect your passion, I really do. However, this thread is about hunting weapons and your post has left me scratching my head. I see the assertion that Pohnpei was pacified because of a lack of weapons, but, aside from that, with all due respect, do you think your post might be a touch misplaced?
  • The U.S. has 101 guns per 100 residents and a rate of 10 firearm deaths per year for every 100K residents.

    Switzerland has 24 guns per 100 residents and a rate of 3 firearm deaths per year for every 100K residents.

    Australia has 13 guns per 100 residents and one firearm death per year for every 100K residents.

    Japan has less than one gun per 100 residents and less than one firearm death per year for every 100K residents.

    The pattern is clear: The more firearms in civilian hands, the more people die from firearm violence.

  • edited April 2018

    The vast majority of firearms deaths in the US are attributed to pistols (84% as of 2016). So if that is applied here, we are looking at around 16 per 100k residents. Why is this relevant? No on is asking for a lift on the pistol ban so the deaths attributed to pistols are, although unfortunate, to this thread, irrelevant.
  • @xecms lol true, I guess I got carried away. Im jus a passionate individual like that.
Sign In or Register to comment.